The decision of institutions

The voice of Europe is not heard for good reason, the Union is an agreement between nations, and Britain is a force of nationalism that has its origins in economic boundaries from the nineteenth century. This means its leaders like to hear from those under its influence, which doesn't include Europe. European integration was never likely to work for these reasons, but the alternative may be unlikely to function either. Globalisation has led to a misreading of other nations willingness to entertain our idea of their economic position, and we may be heading for a fall in terms of political success.

The advantages of a Union is it can be agreed with the aim of mutual benefit, and can be adjusted with that in mind. This is still possible because it is an agreement, but leaving is against a belief in Britain having a place at all. I suggest the East and the Third World that are traditional alternatives, entertain different ideas, and the west and the Commonwealth has no reason to accommodate us. This means  a period of isolation, and a time to recover from this and other malaises, I predict a low level of political victory as we try and carve a way forward.

The disadvantages of Union are that our leaders are not in full control, and the public have more authority and influence with their governments. This alienation may be unwise and has on the surface resulted in leaders ganging up in places like Davos. The period since the 1970s have given a slow learning curve to those who now must take decisions by themselves, about former members and former political foes. I predict that mistakes will have to be made public, in a way the Union didn't guarantee, and for the future the Union was an instrument of accountability.

This direction is liable to be against the national interest, because we have had different political and economic origins to those of pre-Union approaches to politics, and the marketplace will be more dangerous and less predictable. Will this matter? If the recessions turn out to be fleeting they will not damage the economy, but we shouldn't look for dividends for our pensions or our youth out of this predicament. Some aspects of this is politics is predictable in a carry on as usual type of approach. Defence, the city, law and order, immigration will benefit, but foreign policy as has been said is not much of a political slogan at the best of times.

Integration has its losers and what might have been is beyond the imagination of the electorate. A safe bet then that we won't miss Europe. Unlike the French we will not leave Nato, but economically we may suffer more, than the prediction of an eclipse would suggest. In European terms we may become useless and this doesn't help our political parties and 'buy British' is no longer a slogan except for a very small minority. I argue if the loss takes place and foreign influence is something we inherited from abroad, we will no longer have European partners. Integration without us is unlikely to be a French success story. A bit like the Cold war, Cameron is dismissing something which has solved many of our problems.

USA democracy

Congress is not ruled by its  President and the Supreme Court is a check against Presidential power. The candidates in this election are becoming overtight about the next four years, and the victory is liable to be that of Congress and the politics a kind of game of darts. The collective psychology relies on past experience, I suggest a new movement is present, that of the political class, a kind of no man's land of black politics.

The nationalists in the 1960s were more aware, Vietnam, racial descrimination and conservative politics made them more aware and today acceptance is a double jeopardy. Do we support our President or our local boss. Pork barrel politics is as ever rife and the President is likely to lose. The candidate is less important than the employer, and elderly America is realising it. Foreign policy matters to the mavericks and recession is a way to split the vote.

The black candidate must use both feet, one is for running, the other hopping and America is still the land of the cowboy. The next President is likely to get out of Afghanistan and many links are already known. I wonder how white america views the choice of black or white President. Does black mean a loss of both rows on the abbacus. I ask why black matters to a voter in America, with war settled and home US in a double bind, should it vote against recession or lose the race to someone who will lose that race.

The Presidency matters more in the next four years for the candidate because electors expect action on previous promises, the winner between the horses is likely to offer least, but the 1960s show black candidates need a strong electoral turnout and a hard black image, does Obama in the next four years offer it? He needs to begin a new chapter, not win old battles and this means a move away from peace talk to war, and love thy neighbour to domestic upheaval against foreign competition.

The economics of the Presidency is also half full. Not more but less, Romney needs to assuage white America that he is a better President, not by imitating Obama, but throwing the gauntlet to his campaign team.  Don't divide the campaign but make it stronger, offer something different and make policies that don't threaten the argument. I suggest Obama will win because of his colour, but that he will be a verbal genius not an historical one. The Presidency tends to go by outside events, and his vision has taken a divison between can do and make believe.

Disney is often the charge in peace time, a sort of Congressional aperplexy or low voter turnout. The politics of the Presidency is not decided by colour and Congessional politics is often an opposing degree, not a political argument. The senate must sound compromising amongst all these visionaries, I suggest it is black and white and the superpower is riven with social turmoil and foreign expeditionary adventures, the Presidency is a personal disappointment, and that matters in black politics for two reasons, firstly the leader must make a programme and he has few allies. Secondly the politician is opposing natural forces like a white Congressional majority and black rivals.

Political events

The Olympic movement did not start in Greece, it was an origin of post-war expansionism that led sport to be placed as a second attempt from the Cold war at European superiority. An approach to the Olympics should include poverty and unemployment, as well as foreign war and institutional growth. But the Olympics are more a solution to national spirit in ways that are less felt than understood. The problem is nationalism creates world states which fight each other and understand the origins of war more than most political actors. Nationalist movements are often believed to be all powerful in academic circles, and spirit is thought to be philosophical in origin. In fact globalisation is a nationalist spirit and academia is a suitable approach to political transformation.

The experiment is worth an extra attempt at international humiliation, and certain states benefit from their wealth and superior diet. The Olympics has had a history of success at times of global growth, and economically the state is an attempt at justifying its political existence. The disastrous Olympics came at times of economic recession and the European record is suitable evidence for this. Of course, recessions come at different times for different nations, and the indications are that this provides evidence for winners and losers. Of course politics is also a justification for Olympian victory. Poverty a reason for poor states to reduce their spending on it and the Olympics are not blind to gender.

The Olympic victories are best known when golds are won by one family or trainer and in the Cold War Russia was a well known example. The problem is facilities benefit some actors more than others and some powerful ethnicities more than the weaker ones. I argue the Olympics are racist and nationalism is a sort of purer form of this spirit. It also cleanses and the development of social inequality is not found because Olympians are not organised around popular principles. They have more wealth, less poverty and increased leisure time. They suffer less from the inequalities found in the general population and therefore are more fit.

The Olympics of 2012 are interesting for their economic success and political makeover, the UK at a time of resistance to depression is well known for its resilience, but the outward signs hide lack of strength in building community involvement or national ambition in winning it. This suggests globalisation and the Olympics are being white washed and political success at selling the games is being hidden by most governments. The Greeks were a starting point for internationalism and the Olympics were probably poorly attended except by international actors. I suggest the Olympics should be for the disadvantaged and poorly educated and that globalisation is a missed opportunity for creating a games worthy of the expectations it tries to raise.