Why George Galloway deserves little "Respect"
Ok, so this is coming from a paper which is hardly a fan of Gorgeous George. But the Sunday Times reports that "associates" of the self-described "leader [sic] of the British anti-war movement" claim he has "a firm offer of a two-week lecture series in America...that could earn him a six-figure sum."
Now, this is probably about the most scrupulous way British MPs make money, and there are many more scandellous dealings around Westminster. But the reason Galloway irks me so much is that he has hijacked the strongest, most vibrant popular movement Britain has seen in years - the anti-war movement - declared himself the leader, and used it to revive his flagging political career, and his personal profile. The leaders of the Stop the War Coalition (Lindsey German, John Rees et al.) have been complicit in this, inviting Galloway to speak at every event they've held, and to use these engagements to build support for "Respect," (again mysteriously described as a "coalition," although with one man firmly holding the reigns) his political party.
One need not accuse him of inciting racial tensions to describe Galloway as a demagogue - he is a remarkably talented one, and a magnificent public speaker. One can easily understand why his repeated exposition of the simple truths about Iraq struck such a chord with people, while every other politician in the country was attempting to conceal the facts with vague comments and evasive answers. But even if Galloway is mostly correct on Iraq (clearly not when addressing Saddam Hussein directly, and saying "Sir, I salute your courage" [Galloway now claims he was addressing "the people of Iraq" - I'm afraid I have too much faith in his competence in English to accept that he addressed millions of people with the word "Sir"] but most of what he said about sanctions and war was correct) we must be wary of him.
He and "Respect" have made anti-war meetings unpleasant places to be, only aiding the dissipation of the movement. The fact is that he is not committed to the cause, but only to his personal gains. Of course solidarity is preferable to factionalism, but embracing Galloway is a far graver risk than that of splitting the movement, which has already dissolved anyway, partly due to his incessent electioneering. The left (on both sides of the pond) should refuse to give Galloway any support whatsoever. If it does support him, it will find itself used, betrayed, and severely weakened as a result.
Now, this is probably about the most scrupulous way British MPs make money, and there are many more scandellous dealings around Westminster. But the reason Galloway irks me so much is that he has hijacked the strongest, most vibrant popular movement Britain has seen in years - the anti-war movement - declared himself the leader, and used it to revive his flagging political career, and his personal profile. The leaders of the Stop the War Coalition (Lindsey German, John Rees et al.) have been complicit in this, inviting Galloway to speak at every event they've held, and to use these engagements to build support for "Respect," (again mysteriously described as a "coalition," although with one man firmly holding the reigns) his political party.
One need not accuse him of inciting racial tensions to describe Galloway as a demagogue - he is a remarkably talented one, and a magnificent public speaker. One can easily understand why his repeated exposition of the simple truths about Iraq struck such a chord with people, while every other politician in the country was attempting to conceal the facts with vague comments and evasive answers. But even if Galloway is mostly correct on Iraq (clearly not when addressing Saddam Hussein directly, and saying "Sir, I salute your courage" [Galloway now claims he was addressing "the people of Iraq" - I'm afraid I have too much faith in his competence in English to accept that he addressed millions of people with the word "Sir"] but most of what he said about sanctions and war was correct) we must be wary of him.
He and "Respect" have made anti-war meetings unpleasant places to be, only aiding the dissipation of the movement. The fact is that he is not committed to the cause, but only to his personal gains. Of course solidarity is preferable to factionalism, but embracing Galloway is a far graver risk than that of splitting the movement, which has already dissolved anyway, partly due to his incessent electioneering. The left (on both sides of the pond) should refuse to give Galloway any support whatsoever. If it does support him, it will find itself used, betrayed, and severely weakened as a result.
posted by UK plc at 10:11 AM
2 Comments:
I agree that Galloway is a slippery snake but it sure was nice to see someone rip into the current U.S. government for once.
Si, the anti war movement seems to me to have far greater problems than the gorgeous one. Blair saying he had no choice but to release David Kelly's name, having claimed all along that he was not involved in the release is just one example of many lies he has told which amount to an executive usurpation of legal power. David Kelly is dead. Tony Blair is prime minister. To retain any kind of coherence the anti war movement needs to maintain a ferocious, sutained attack on the credibility of Blair. Sadly it may already be too late. The people may have mandated new labour to get away with murder. This is not healthy democracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home