A Republican VP nominee for Obama?

I'll start with a quote.

"....I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country."

p. 39-40, The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama

Anyone who has read Senator Obama's personal manifesto will be amused at the accusations of flip-flop/ sell-out that have been levelled at him over the last couple of weeks. He protests that if anyone had listened to a word he said then they wouldn't be making these accusations. He's right. He appeared more liberal than Hillary mainly because his foreign policy stances were more progressive. Actually, he is a centrist and always has been.

More critically, he is comfortable with the notion of reaching across the partisan divide. So would he consider appointing a Republican Vice Presidential nominee?

Absolutely he would. And there is one candidate that is getting a considerable amount of attention.

Travelling with Barack Obama to Iraq in the next few days, will be a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. He is a Vietnam war veteran, highly respected on foreign policy, and he has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Famously he said:

"To question your government is not unpatriotic- to not question the government is unpatriotic."

So he has VP credentials coming out of his ears. What does he offer the Obama ticket? Well, it would signify 'change' as it would be a post-partisan manoeuvre, he would bolster the security and foreign policy credentials of the campaign, and he could neutralise some of John McCain's biography positives. The downside? How wouldObama's supporters react? More importantly, while quotes like the above get you in dictionaries of political quotations, they can also make good text to overlay some really threatening music on a campaign ad.Obama is desperately trying to establish his 'lapel pin' patriotism. Could Senator Hagel undermine that?

My guess is that Senator Obama would love to go for such a bold mood as appointing Chuck Hagel his running-mate. The politics may just end up being too risky.

Blogging in the extreme

Blogging is an indulgence of the ideologically pure. That is the message from a recent study on blogging behaviour in the US. People read blogs that echo their own political instincts and it tends to be individuals on the edges of the ideological spectrum (not extremists but those congregated away from the centre) who read blogs. They self-reinforce and get something from blogging that they don't get from the conventional political process. In a sense then, blogging is, in and of itself a rejection of conventional politics seems to be the implication of the study. But does it have to be this way?

If it does, then mainstream politics (and perhaps the mainstream media as a corollary of that) will simply reject blogging as the burblings of a disaffected minority. Coincidentally, I happened to pick up the article I have referenced above on the (generally excellent) blog site, Liberal Conspiracy, while ploughing my way through comments made in response to a post by the Government Minister, David Lammy, who had argued that the Labour party should look at adopting primary votes for selections. I happen to think that this is an idea that should should be taken seriously and argued so a couple of months ago:

What can Labour learn from the Democratic primaries?

David Lammy's article had some interesting points that I had expected to be picked up in the ensuing debate. That was naive. The debate soon descended into a stream of political hobby horses and attacks on mainstream politicians, especially those who dare to stray into the blogosphere. Nothing good can come out of the political process it seems. Only bloggers have the answer. It's a pity because any politician will think twice about engaging in this way again. How dare you look to have an open discussion if you, for example, voted for a 42-day pre-charge, detention limit or you supported the Iraq War, or you favour ID cards, or you want to reduce the term limit for abortions in the UK or any other positions that are not the conventional for the liberal left. Surely there's more to the blogosphere than this?

I regard myself as as being on the centre-left with the emphasis on centre but I don't feel uncatered for in the blogosphere. Blogs are far more spread across the political spectrum than the research suggests. Some are even funny. Or well written. When they are intellectually imaginative or irreverent, they can really contribute something to the political process beyond being laundromats for gossip that the national press won't run with (see http://www.order-order.com for this style of blog.)

I would wholeheartedly recommend Liberal Conspiracy. It has run some really imaginative campaigns, particularly on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. This debate on David Lammy's post was so disappointing though because I really felt that it was exciting that a member of the Government would look to engage in this way.

Three years ago, a young Senator from Illinois, our old friend Barack Obama, posted on the DailyKos on the issue of a judicial appointment and the way that some of his colleagues were being criticised. As you will see, the post attracted 843 comments and it is worth comparing the tone of the majority of those comments with the tone of the comments in reaction to David Lammy's post.

Hopefully, David Lammy will actively engage with the debate but he would be perfectly within his rights to just walk away. I know that he is friends with the Illinois Senator so I hope that he will draw inspiration from him. More broadly, it is critical that the political blogosphere doesn't just become a self-indulgent exercise in screaming from the ideological edges. There has to be meaningful political discussion not just, if you don't agree with x or y then you are: (a) immoral; (b) a careerist; (c) a sell-out; (d) engaged in some mainstream political conspiracy; (e) a brainwasher; (f) all or some of the above and many other terms of abuse.

Without addressing and engaging with the mainstream, blogging will simply be a minority pursuit of ideological purity that will freeze in irrelevance and alienate the majority. It is far more exciting than that now, as sites such as Liberal Conspiracy constantly prove. Let's keep it lively and relevant.

Crying wolf over Obama's 'betrayals'

Another piece, in The Observer this time, draws attention to Obama's apparent political re-positioning. A similar argument is made in the LA Times. The liberal left often seems at its most comfortable when screaming betrayal at one of their own and so it will be with Barack Obama.

As I argued a couple of days ago, these accusations do not have much depth to them. What the argument amounts to is that his language on issues like Iran, Nafta, and Iraq has become 'more moderate' and his attitude towards recent Supreme Court judgements is not conventionally liberal. Michael Crowley's piece in the The Observer makes reference to a recent Rolling Stone interview of the presumed presidential nominee where he reveals his eclectic taste in music. Strange then that in the same interview Barack Obama is asked how to judge him at the end of his first term and he said:

Obama: "If I haven't gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we've missed the boat."

Seems pretty explicit on Iraq. Some will make much of the 'combat' qualifier on troops but this is consistent with where he's been positioned previously.

Michael Crowley sees Obama's alleged political re-positioning (as opposed to a rhetorical re-positioning) as a direct pitch to independent voters amongst whom McCain is in the lead. Firstly, it is worth saying that a lot of these 'independent' are actually Republican. There is currently a shift from Republican identification to independent identification as a result of the disastrous performance of the Bush administration.

More importantly, it would be crazy not to have the construction of a winning coalition in mind in all this but, given 22 debates with Senator Clinton, goodness knows how many hours of speeches, press and TV interviews, any substantive shifting of his positions will be walloped by the McCaincampaign and the media. He's anchored and that's it.

He is doing the right things and he is running a highly professional but principled political campaign. Let's just be careful about throwing around accusations of betrayal that don't have much behind them. If he did fundamentally shift by, for example, capriciously reversing his commitment to engage in dialogue with America's adversaries, then criticism would be justified. In the meantime, let's not cry wolf. All that does is prick up the ears of the Republican wolf in the forest.

Hillary, you MEGAstar

Unity in Unity, New Hampshire.

Political enthusiasm

Democrats always start off well so Barack Obama's early lead could evaporate quickly. But a very interesting stat in the latest LA Times poll:

Are you enthusiastic towards your candidate?

Barack Obama Yes=81%, No=17%
John McCain Yes=45%, No=51%

Here's the analysis:

Obama's 'betrayals'....

Liberals are getting to stuck into Barack Obama for a series of positions that he has adopted that could be interpreted as political manoeuvring. Michael Tomasky takes issue with this, arguing that winning is a principle in itself.

I have already argued that refusing public funding was the right thing for Obama to do: it engages people in his campaign in huge numbers and, more expediently (but this is politics ladies and gentleman) could enable enable him to protect and build a more secure Democratic position in Congress, and lay the foundations for Democratic domination of US politics for some time.

His condemnation of the Supreme Courts decision to oppose the death penalty for child rapists is consistent with previous positions that he has adopted on the issue. Even the support for the 'clarification' provided by the Supreme Court yesterday, which outlawed Washington DC's ban on handguns is consistent with his previous positions. Ultimately, he is a constitutionalist and Amendment 2 of the US constitution is at best ambiguous, a seemingly qualified right to bear arms as it is. It can be read either way, and Obama respects the Supreme Court as a constitutional authority on this.

There is, however, a contradiction between the two positions he has adopted on these two Supreme Court judgements that can't be ignored: going with the Supreme Court on one and against on another. My suspicion is that there is some politics in his condemnation of the Supreme Court on the death penalty for child rapists. He can be forgiven for that- remember the Willie Horton ads which brought Michael Dukakis crashing down in 1988?



I wouldn't go quite as far as Michael Tomasky in arguing that winning is a political 'principle.' However, Obama can be forgiven for the position he has adopted on this. Anything else would not change a single thing, would have no chance of changing a single thing even if he were President (it's a Supreme Court judgement.......!), and could potentially cause major harm to his bid for the Presidency. Do we really want it to be John McCain who replaces the elderly Justices who currently occupy the Supreme Court? Absolutely not.

Obama's all-out attack

There has been much controversy about Barack Obama's refusal of public funds for his campaign. Public funds come with Federal spending limits of $84million and Obama's phenomenal fundraising power dictates that he would be foregoing serious campaign capital if he accepted them. Obama's campaign had raised $265million by the end of April from a mind-blowing 1.4million donors.

Many see Obama's refusal as a betrayal. That is an overly harsh assessment. The point about Obama's fundraising is that it is fuelled by millions of small donations rather than heavy fundraising from a limited number of sources. What this means in practice is that his campaign finance doesn't come with a political price tag unlike a candidate who is heavily financed by lobbyists, corporate interests, wealthy donors, and Political Action Committees. The more than 1million donors to his primary campaign are engaging in an active and constructive way with the democratic process and that is ultimately very different to the corrosive chicken dinner and K Street deal mode of raising campaign finance of the past.

John McCain will accept public finding and the $84million spending limit. He is no angel on this either. He declined Federal matched funds for his primary campaign (which come with a $50million or so spending limit) having said that he would apply for them. Expediency cuts across the political spectrum. Moreover, the $84million spending limit only applies once he is officially the candidate come September. He can raise and spend money with impunity until then and he will.

Now, what is Senator Obama going to use this massive pool of campaign cash for? This is where things get really interesting. An interview with Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, Steve Hildebrand, reported on www.politico.com, reveals that the strategy is to focus resources on fourteen states that George Bush won in 2004. He will defend the previous blue (Democratic) states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Alongside that, he will make a play for fourteen of 2004's red states: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia and Alaska. He will also try to pick up some votes in Nebraska where electoral votes are distributed in accordance with congressional district votes. At the very least, this focus of resources will turn John McCain on his heels- they can't afford to suppose that all this is just an elaborate Obama bluff.

Even more interestingly, Obama is going to target certain congressional districts in the hope of shoring up Democratic dominance in the House of Representatives by winning seats in places such as Wyoming. He will also look to win the Texas state Legislature ahead of congressional re-districting in 2010.

Essentially, the Obama campaign strategy is tremendously ambitious and well-resourced. It is worth contemplating when feeling a bit squeamish about his eschewing of public funds that this is built on the largest pool of donors ever amassed which enable the most ambitious electoral strategy ever. If it works, this strategy will secure the Presidency, Congress, and build the foundations of a Democratic epoch.

Why free trade agreements don't work

A constant refrain of euro-sceptics is that the Europe we signed up for was just basically a glorified free trade area. Well, that is just historically inaccurate but what underlies it, and is also an under-current in Conservative thinking about Europe is that a free trade agreement would be preferable to the EU that we have. Without the encumbrance of political union, free trade would benefit all the nations of Europe without them having to cede any political 'sovereignty.'

Such a Europe could never work and here's why. Senators Joe Biden (for Obama) and Lindsey Graham (for McCain) debated NAFTA in the context of the US Presidential election on Meet the Press yesterday. Biden's point was that NAFTA should be re-negotiated with the threat of a US pull-out if Canada and Mexico refused. The failing of NAFTA for Biden and Obama is that it permits free trade with no requirement for Canada and Mexico to raise their environmental and labour standards to US levels. Not only that but the new standards would require some form of enforcement. The transcript and video are available below.

Transcript.



So its interesting after only a decade or so of NAFTA, US liberals are now calling for a fair market with enforcement. Well, they are behind the times. The founders of the European Economic Community understood the politics of international trade acutely and that is why they built a free trade area with a political and legal dimension.

The experience of the US with NAFTA is exactly why the European Commission and the European Court of Justice exist and have legal authority. If anyone argues that these things are just petty bureaucratic interfering or even worse, a challenge to our national interest and sovereignty then it is worth just pointing them in the direction of NAFTA and they will see their necessity.

Much like the founding fathers of the US republic, the founders of the EEC got it pretty much right. They left the EU with a democratic deficit that it has been struggling with ever since and is still struggling with. On building a Europe that had a chance of effectiveness and political survival, however, they were spot on. Europe goes beyond environmental and labour standards into consumer protection, competition regulation, employment equality, and work-life balance. It is a free and fair trade area.

If it's to have a long term chance of success NAFTA will have to head in the same direction. Instead of NAFTA being held up as an exemplar for Europe. It is the EU that should be held up as an exemplar for NAFTA.

How should Obama play it?

A really interesting poll appeared in the Washington Post yesterday on the Obama-McCain head-to-head. Two features particularly stood out: (i) Independent support for Obama and McCain is split evenly between the two candidates; (ii) Eight out of ten Democrats support Obama but nine out of ten Republicans support McCain. So there seems to be a challenge for Obama: shore up the base, pitch for the centre-ground or can he pull off both?

Actually, from the detailed poll data there is evidence that Senator Obama is very well placed: leads on the economy (the most significant issue by a 14-point margin), gas prices, age is more significant that race according to these poll findings, levels Iraq War policy (though underlying attitudes seem to be more in his favour), ties leadership, crucifies McCain on change in an election where voters want change and a massive number believe the country is headed in the wrong direction (85% or so.) In fact, if one were to induce Obama's poll rating from the these factors, you would expect a much greater lead than the 6% lead that he has.

So there is something holding back Senator Obama. Something which is not revealed in these polls. It could be the overhang of Hillary support from the primary campaign which he hasn't yet been able to dislodge. Maybe voters just like John McCain despite their ratings of him when its broken down into sub-issues. Maybe they just haven't quite taken to Senator Obama yet. The one area where Senator McCain enjoys a significant lead over Senator Obama is on counter-terrorism. Perhaps, despite misgivings about his economic policy, they just feel a bit safer with John McCain.

Looking at these polling data, Obama may be able to pitch both left and centre by driving home his advantage on economic and gas price policy. This feels like an economy election with the normal caveat of 'events, dear boy, events.' He will have to accept a score draw on foreign policy I suspect (which given where John Kerry was is a monumental achievement if he can pull it off.) On the economy, that is where he can build a real coalition of support. Given it is area of self-confessed weakness for John McCain also, the sun could well be shining on such a strategy.

Post script: I have changed the Electoral College counter to Real Clear Politics data. The www.electoral-vote.com data seemed to be too generous to Senator Obama and I'd rather go with the cautious assessment. Nothing scientific, just a hunch.

Vince Cable changes his tune on Obama...

Clearly, Vince Cable's really silly comments about Barack Obama a few weeks ago on The Politics Show and his misguided and ill-informed praise for John McCain has drawn some heavy private criticism- rightly. He now describes Obama as 'brilliant' and a 'statesman' and said he would make a great President.

On Question Time tonight, the silliest comment of all came from Douglas Hurd who came up with the potty suggestion that Obama should be President and McCain Secretary of State. Has he bothered to read their foreign policy stances?

What on earth are John McCain and Barack Obama so happy about?

So asks David Brooks of the New York Times. Obama has yet to define himself in a way that captures the imagination of working-class voters. John McCain has not yet been able to demonstrate that he is a clear break with the past. Tactical differences with George W Bush such as on climate change and immigration are all well and good but on the big issues: the economy and foreign policy, where are the great divides with Bush?

It's interesting because underlying the analysis is the position that John McCain is the personality candidate and Barack Obama is the policy candidate. If you read most of the press, certainly in the UK, you get a very different perspective.

So long, farewell and thanks for all the fun Mrs Clinton

A few weeks ago I argued that Hillary Clinton shouldn't quit the race quite yet and instead continue in the campaign but do so in a more magnanimous fashion. It seems that magnanimity is a bit too much for Ms Clinton just yet. Her surrogate Harold Ickes has been all over the news channels this weekend raging about 4 delegates taken from her tally in Michigan in opposition to the will of 600,000 voters.

Four things: 

(i) Barack Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan as the ruling at the time was that NONE of Michigan's delegates would be seated. The Obama campaign consequently didn't compete the seat following the DNC's ruling. 

(ii) It is clear that turnout was completely suppressed in Michigan so it is not at all clear that it can be counted as a proper primary in any sense. Compare Ohio, which has a similar population to Michigan and had a turnout of 2.2million. 600,000 or so voted in the Michigan primary in a more Democratic state. It is also a state in a geographic region where Obama has done well.

(iii) The decision was made by the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on the basis of a proposal by the Michigan Democratic Party. 

(iv) We are talking about FOUR delegates. Perhaps the Clinton campaign, in a characteristic act of denial, has not noticed that it is in deficit by over 150 delegates! Is it really worth ratcheting up the rhetoric to such a degree when the potential gain is so little?

So this is all a bit silly now. At a time when the rhetoric should be dampened, Clinton surrogates are still trying to stoke up resentment. What can they possibly gain? Nothing. The Democrats could pay a heavy price, however. Even the Clinton loyalist www.mydd.com concludes that her chances are 'near to nothing' as she now has to win 82% of the remaining delegates.

A few weeks ago, 'not yet' was my conclusion about whether Hillary Clinton should quit (with the important 'be nice' caveat which has been broken.) The final primaries take place in Montana and South Dakota tomorrow. The minute those polls close provides a great opportunity for Hillary Clinton to show her political courage and deep commitment to the party. 

Yes, Hillary, the time to quit has come. So long and thanks for all the fun.

Obama now projected majority

I've updated the latest electoral counter (to the left) as I'll do every few days. Obama's projected electoral vote is now over 270. Just a bit of fun but it is a key indicator.

Clinton beats Obama in the electoral college

I've just seen an absolutely fascinating analysis about the US Presidential race. The site www.electoral-vote.com has done an analysis of who is better placed to beat McCain this Autumn based on the available polling evidence. There needs to be an enormous health warning attached to this: polls now do not necessarily indicate how things will go come November. Actually, 'not necessarily' is not strong enough. They do not.

But what it shows, hold your breath Obama supporters, is that Hillary Clinton would win the electoral college by 327 to 194 as polls stand. Obama's lead would be only 266 to 248. That is four short of a majority.

In addition to the health warning, I would also make the comment that Hillary currently secures more of the lower income, white Democratic base than Obama and they are not moving over to him quite yet. I believe they will but he has a hell of a job to do to convince them. He has all but sealed the nomination but he hasn't sealed the deal with the voters. Far from it.

These maps also show that his superior national lead over McCain when compared to Hillary does not translate into a superior performance in the electoral college.

I'll keep an eye on this website as it will graphically demonstrate how the Obama campaign is going state by state. But the campaign has a long way to go. He has time to do it.

I have put a permanent counter on the site (top left) which I will update periodically.

Obama and McCain spat continues

The war of words between Senators Obama and McCain has continued into today. John McCain accused Senator Obama of 'inexperience and reckless' judgement.

I find two elements of the McCain position confusing:

i) President Ahmadinejad is in power and it really is irrelevant whether the US hands him a 'propaganda victory' by meeting up with him if that is indeed all it would be. A meeting doesn't change things with regard to Ahmadinejad's position in Iran in the slightest either way. The bellicose approach has failed so what exactly is there to lose?

ii) What is McCain proposing instead? Do what we say or else? What if Iran doesn't comply? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (as McCain once hilariously sang to the tune of Barbara Anne by the Beach Boys)?

In no way am I suggesting that any recourse should be taken off the table or under-estimating the threat posed by Iran (in the Middle East at least) but I just don't see how the McCain strategy leads to anything other than embarrassment for the US, an uneasy and probably unsustainable deadlock, or a military strike on Iran. If stand-off diplomacy is the way we are going to continue, then the options and outcomes are narrowed drastically.

The only amazing thing about this spat, is that Senator Obama's position is portrayed as so extreme. It has its risks but there really is very little to lose and everything to gain.

Will 80,000 people be watching the Champions League final live?

Maybe, just about. Well 80,000 people spent their Sunday afternoon going to listen to Barack Obama.

I'm not sure at times whether he is still a politician or he has become U2. Well, I guess that Bono has tried to make the opposite journey...

Bush's neo-McCarthyism is now failing

I have a contribution on The Independent's Open House today on Bush's failing neo-McCarthyism that I alluded to in the post below.

The article is here.

The British Obama?

Fraser Nelson is a very talented commentator. I don't think that this line, good though it is as a journalistic construction, will be seen as his finest hour:

"Cameron has plenty heavyweight ideas, he just needs a good slogan. Obama has the reverse problem."

Hmmm. Let's compare. Here is the Conservatives' policy page:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.opportunity.page

Three pages, three basic areas, not many actual policies and certainly very few costed policies.

Now compare Barack Obama's policy-rich agenda:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

There is no comparison. Just take one critical area, both America and Britain are both facing difficult economic times. Barack Obama's economic plan (notice the link), whatever you may think of its merits, is clearly something that is thought through and actionable. The Tories' economic plan (notice the absence of a link)? Do they have one apart from the usual platitudes? It's certainly not any of the 'policies' listed on their website.

It's interesting watching the US elections- the early attacks on Obama for lacking substance have completely disappeared from the terrain. Experience is now the dividing line. Clearly the collective conclusion of media commentators, political opponents and friends alike is that Obama is a candidate of substance.

The off-the-mark attacks on Obama's lack of substance of a few months ago still ricochet around the UK political landscape. It's time that the bullet hit the ground- how on earth could anyone get through the most gruelling political process in the world without having solid and defensible policies? It just doesn't make sense.

The suggestion that David Cameron has the substance where Barack Obama just has rhetoric is just a tad fanciful. OK, it's utterly ridiculous. David Cameron's challenge is to find the slogan AND the heavyweight ideas. We'll wait with bated breath.

What is the point of the BBC's Justin Webb?

John Edwards has been flagging the fact that he was about to endorse Barack Obama for a few days now through his appearances on a variety of political agenda-setting shows. And now he has actually endorsed Obama.

The BBC's Justin Webb says....it helps Obama. Genius. Justin you had to put your reputation on the line there. Some might question what you are doing apart from watching US TV and looking at US political websites. But not me (I'm doing the same.) We know that you're there to be Mr BBC: boring and slightly patronising and very much behind the curve.

If the BBC doesn't raise its game on political reporting, surely there should be a franchise system to enable other broadcasters to provide a genuinely high quality service (and this does not mean audience numbers.....) In fairness, Matt Frei is excellent. The fact that the BBC messes around with Justin Webb shows that the organisation isn't.

Mike Smithson of www.politicalbetting.com is equally perturbed at the BBC's political coverage.

Istanbul

As will be obvious from my half-hearted and rather superficial post about Frank Field on Monday, I am currently enjoying a break. Though I had good intentions to maintain a daily blog and could easily do so given that I have wi-fi access in my hotel, I just haven't been able to motivate myself to do it.

In fact, I'm going to indulge in this mesmerising city, Istanbul instead of writing about how Hillary Clinton's win in West Virginia changes nothing or how it is fascinating that Obama has moved his campaign to general election footing signalled by his decision to speak in the swing state of Missouri rather than West Virginia last night or how the draft Queen's speech contains some really good measures not least a cheeky little proposal on buying up surplus housing for redistribution or the welfare reform measures and a strong idea on the introduction of an NHS constitution.

The reason I'm here is quite simple. Orhan Pamuk. I've been a fan of his writing for some time (I would particularly recommend 'Snow' and 'My Name is Red') and his 'Istanbul: memories and the city' has been on my bookshelf for a while. Cheesy but what better than to read it in Istanbul?

The threads of Turkey's identity crisis, East and West, Kemalist and Ottoman, flow through Pamuk's literature just as the Bosphorus and Sea of Marmara collide and separate in Istanbul. In 'Istanbul', Pamuk becomes curator, poet, archivist, social historian, and autobiographer. Istanbul becomes his history, his canvas, his personality. Like Hugo, Dickens, and Joyce before him he allows himself to be defined by a city and in turn hooks us into accompanying him on an archaeological dig of the soul of place.

Pamuk's personal history and that of his family has an uncanny entanglement with that of his subject. His family's fortunes turn upon the death of his paternal Grandfather, a 'magnificent man', whose fortunes are frittered away by the hopelessness of his father and uncle's business acumen. A decaying family fortune reflects the decaying seat of the Ottoman empire, a city neglected, bellowing up nothing but darkness and painful memories of past greatness.

He never met his Grandfather just as he never saw Sultanate Istanbul, but each is omnipresent in his upbringing. His Grandmother, wise and charismatic, never surfaces until after midday, rarely leaves the family home, waiting for their family greatness to return (she sees omens of this in little Orhan, the 'crow') and Istanbul is gripped by huzun, a kind of collective melancholy induced by dispossessed greatness, power, and wealth.

The embers of this melancholic shabbiness remain in modern Istanbul but this is not the same city that Pamuk grew up in. It had just about reached a population of a million when Pamuk began school, its population now stands at ten million. The old city, Pera, and Bosphorus communities have been swallowed in mass migration and development. Romantic as the crossing from the West to the Asian side sounds, the Asian side is nothing of the sort. Rather it is a sea of modernist medium rise tower blocks. Rather than a bridge from West to East or vice versa, the trip across the Bosphorus is more akin to crossing from 1920 to 1965.

There is much discussion about whether Turkey can ever be part of Europe. Istanbul is not typical, I'm assured, but on the evidence of this city it absolutely can be. It has the feel of a modern, European city with an Islamic hue rather than an Islamic city. Islamic architecture (sometimes subsuming Orthodox Christian architecture as in the spectacular Haghia Sofya) provides the city's best moments. However, much as the Sultans left for the hills and then extinction quite a while ago, Ottoman Istanbul remains as a relic rather than a threat. Even Haghia Sofya is now just a museum (though I can't remember being in a more breathtaking structure.)

So where does Turkey's destiny lie? The Government of Tayyip Erdogan seems to want have its cake and eat it, supporting a fusion of modern economic reform and conservative Islam. It is patently obvious that the only way to combine these two things is hypocrisy- liberalism will leave religious conservatism in its wake. The only question will be if and what kind of backlash this approach will provoke. For now, the EU's most sensible course of action is to continue an engagement with Erdogan. The mono-creed vision of European politicians such as Valery Giscard d'Estaing needs to be challenged just as areas where Turkey falls short, freedom of speech, Cyprus, and the potential entanglement of religious with secular law need to be tested. It should be noted that despite the approach of Erdogan's AKP, Turkey is perhaps more aggressively secularist government than any in Europe with the possible exception of France.

Orhan Pamuk's city of black and white has been replaced by a sparkling city, self-confident in its future, released from its past. It is as Europoean as Napoli, Athens, or Seville. Old Istanbul, the city of Pamuk's youth was given its energy by the Bosphorus. New Istanbul, this city of new train lines, stadiums, affluent housing developments, and high-rise office blocks, has an energy of its own. Ataturk has won- in Istanbul at least. Is the EU to reverse the city back to its history or allow its destiny to be European? On the evidence of Istanbul at least, Turkey is already well on its way to a European destiny.

Postscript: Pamuk collects some newspaper columns that he has read over the years (see what I mean about being a curator?) Two quotes particularly amused me:

From 1946:

"We're tired of seeing every square in the city flooded every time it rains. Whoever is supposed to fix this, should fix it soon."

From 1927:

"Yesterday it snowed and did anyone in the city board a tram from the front or indeed show any respect to their elders? It is with regret that we note how quickly the city forgets the polite rules of society that so few of our inhabitants knew in the first place."

Anyone who has been here will be able to vouch for that!