Heroclitus. Well written indeed. My country is a good example from what you have written. Here you can see both the best of British and the worst. We have been on the receiving end of your Imperialism, and of your Justice. We have seen your technology in your weapons, and in your trains. We have experienced your racism, and your concerted fight against it. We have endured Thatchers unwelcome support for an evil regime, and Mayor's and Blair's for a good one. I am half English, and it is the same as for my Afrikaans ancestry - there is a lot I am proud of, a lot I am ashamed of. I am always South African first, but without a doubt English second. AH
Your post moved me. I think there is a special bond between South Africa and England. South Africans know that it was the British Empire and possibly the horrendous treatment of Boers amongst other things that lay the ground for apartheid, alongside such horrific imperialists like cecil Rhodes etc. And yet I think Britain was the centre of the anti-apartheid movement and today a statue of Nelson Mandela stands in Whitehall. And there's always cricket. No-one can take that away from us. Even the most fervent anti-imperialists (like CLR James) have spoken of the virtues of cricket and the spirit of fair play it imbues.
Barbara Tuchman wrote of a chapter on the Anglo-American possibilities in the March of Folly. If prescience had been a gift there would have been no American Revolution and the course of world history would have changed. A missed opportunity. What do you think will happen to the Anglosphere? The UK, Canada, US, Australia and NZ? In one past era there was a common sense of identity. It seems largely gone now.
I think that common sense of identity was around WW2 and the post-war period under liberal American leadership. I don't recognize anglophilia in America historically, quite the opposite actually. This age was the halcyon age for liberals. As you know, the world has a choice between my hope for a liberal democratic capitalist future and your nightmare scenario of a new Dark Ages. I think this can only be led by the "anglosphere" but would be quite happy to be proved wrong by "bipolar world" French or german neo-liberals.
American sympathy/antipathy toward the British has an interesting history. There was the matter of the American Revolution of course, and the unfortunate phase of the Napoleonic Wars called the War of 1812. And the fact that British ambivalence during the American Civil War allowed Confederate commerce raiders to be built in British shipyards didn't improve the British reputation in America. Even into the 1890's there was lingering antipathy. This can be seen in the contemporary comments of retired members of the Admiralty toward Theodore Roosevelt's masterpiece The Naval War of 1812. But America also armed and fed the British during the First World War. There was clear anglophilia in Hollywood starting in the 1930's. That continued for decades. Same thing with music. Churchill was revered in America when I was young. I think the US Navy even named a ship after him. The post-WWII attitude toward Britain was so positive it even quieted the criticism of my Irish grandmother. But something happened on the British left. I don't know what it was for sure. I'm referring to my awareness of British anti-Americanism. It was present in minor form during the Vietnam War, but it really appeared in full unbridled form after the Cold War ended. It was always different than Continental anti-Americanism. In any event the hostility of the British left, the demographic change coming over both Britain and America, and the end of Pax Americana saw the two countries move away from the close relationship they once enjoyed. Everything comes to an end sooner or later. Australia and New Zealand have a separate destiny from the rest of the Anglosphere. They fall into a different sphere of influence. Canadians can't exist without the gravity of America to hold them together as a people. This is the case in both a positive sense and in a negative way as well. For what it's worth, I don't see the Anglosphere continuing to have as big an influence on world history as it did for much of the last one hundred years unless its values somehow continue to live through India.
That's an interesting set of dates, because really what happened to the 'British Left' during that period was that it more or less collapsed completely! Old school 'socialism' died as a mainstream political force through the 1980s and early 1990s (around the same period that communism was collapsing in Eastern Europe), to be gradually replaced by the more 'centralist' 'social democrat' kind of creed of Blairism - there's no doubt that Blair was certainly very, very much Pro-US in his foreign policy approach. There has been a rise in political 'anti-Americansim' among the public in the UK (although we should be very careful to avoid confusing that with xenophobic anti-Americanism - they aren't the same thing at all, although they do get confused by some on both 'sides') in recent years, but that has alot to do with the Bush/Blair era of interventionist foreign policy, and the Iraq War in particular (which was quite possibly the single most unpopular policy ever persued by a UK Prime Minister, and the impression at the time of him being Bush's 'sidekick' really didn't go down well, with Bush being a politician who was not at all highly regarded, either in personal or policy terms). I realise how unpopular Obama is in the US, and I understand why. I'm not making a statement of support for him here or anything! However, it should be recognised that outside the US, Bush in particular was that unpopular, and far more, around much of the world - in foreign policy terms, he really did unmeasurable damage to the USA's image and standing in the world. Much of the ferocity of 'anti-American' feeling that is currently around is in no small part the Bush legacy, but he's not unique in that. Reagan was also pretty unpopular here, and his close relationship with Thatcher (who was, by the end of her time in office, a hugely unpopular Prime Minister) didn't help that in the UK. Bush Snr. wasn't much better in those terms. The UK is, of course, traditionally a little to the left politically of the USA, and has been for a long time. I don't think that is really the main problem, though. What people don't seem to like is an impression that the leadership in the UK is somehow a 'shadow' to the US leadership when it comes to foreign policy issues, particularly when there is a feeling that the US is leading the UK down a road that the people of the UK really don't want to follow (as in Iraq in particular). There are many other smaller individual factors that have led to an increased distrust of the US, of course, such as the globalisation of business and the perception among some that the US is 'taking over the world' through commerce (and through Hollywood, of course), increasing awareness of just how much money the UK had to pay back in debts to the US after WWII, the recent US-led banking collapse, the percieved 'extreme' nature of McCarthyism, the unquestioning support of Israel even when the rest off the UN is condemning them for going too far, and so on - little things individually, but collectively contributers to the impression of the USA as an entity. As is usually the case with such things, many of those get blown out of proportion in the public conciousness, and the total impression becomes more that the real sum of its parts. To return to the OP, though, every nation has had its 'good' and 'bad' moments. I think it's fair to say that most people realise this, but there is a perception (rightly or wrongly) among many that there are alot of people in the US who don't accept that that applies to the USA, and that the USA tends to consider itself as actually being 'culturally superior' (rather than just being generally the way that its people like it to be for them, if you see what I mean). As has already been mentioned, there is 'confidence' and there is 'arrogance', and many people see the US as all too often tending to display what appears from outside to be the latter, and addressing the outside world on that basis. The question of why people have 'anti-American' feelings has to be considered on that basis - there are 'anti-American' feelings, and much of that is, of course, a nonsensical and ridiculous manifestation of ignorance, BUT there are also ways in which the US has actually acted (particularly over recent decades) which have contributed to the development of that situation. The USA is a big, powerful and influential country, but is sometimes percieved to be acting as an 'arrogant bully' in the world. People, quite naturally, don't like or trust bullies. I'm not saying that I subscribe to the opinion that the US is genuinely a bully, of course (I don't), but in its foreign policy it has sometimes seemed to act in a somewhat tactless and insensitive manner, without taking much regard of what the rest of the world (even its closest political friends and allies) is saying, and that is just never going to make someone very popular! It does all go back to the 'good and bad' thing, though. People (both inside and outside the US) need to realise that every nation, including their own (and the US), has a mix of both, and no nation, including their own (and the US), is inherently 'superior' or 'inferior' to any other. People shouldn't be 'anti-American', of course, even if they don't like some of the things that have been done in the name of the USA. Likewise, to improve its percieved standing and popularity in the world, the USA could perhaps do with stopping to try to listen and understand a little more why there is that level of 'anti-American' feeling.
I feel like I've just read War and Peace. Thanks for chronicling the evolution of the phenomenon. It wasn't just Reagan, Bush and Bush that bothered the British Left. It was the very idea of American conservatism that was objectionable to the British Left. At least that's how British antipathy has been interpreted by much of the American Right. I think the inevitable dissolution of the "special relationship" between Britain and America will obviate the need for concern over its dysfunctional aspects. In twenty years time Britons will rarely think about America.
A very good post (as was the one to which you replied) - I agree with much of what you have written here. You put your finger on it when you wrote that American conservatism (I would add - in all things) is what worries British people (not just the left). I come from an essentially conservative family that is a minor part of the establishment (although that does not overwhelmingly inform my views), and I can tell you that many aspects of American sociology - not just politics - are cause for concern, even amongst the most conservative of Britons. Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying one side or the other of the Atlantic is right. But traditional British values are very different from American ones - as one would expect in societies with such different origins. Rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly, IMO) Americans are seen as a crass, unsophisticated, and ill-bred people who exhibit the characteristics of the nouveau riche. Of course this is not so in fact, but the effects of your generously disseminated entertainment industry leaves that distinct impression. Americans are largely portrayed as virtuous, but bluff fellows who disdain the niceties of manners and forms. Essentially the salt of the earth, who are likely to eat baked beans out of a can, with a fork in the right hand (a big no-no in European society). As for the antipathy to which you refer;I have not encountered that, but regrettably, there is a certain level of (unmerited, IMO) disdain. The 'special relationship' was always a fiction in the minds of British politicians. We would be sold down the river without a blink by the New Rulers of the World (and have been, if anyone remembers Suez). And why not? There has been a reflexive anti-Britishness in American society since the little family unpleasantness of the late 18th century. I know it, you know it; but we maintain the facade of 'cousins' across the pond.
There are, as Leo says, larger cultural differences in certain ways than many people sometimes consider. There are many reasons behind that, of course, not least of which is the different experience of the public during WWII - as Churchill reportedly suggested after losing the post-War election to the Labour Party, the people of the UK really did have it very hard (possibly harder than any population ever has had in a country that wasn't actually invaded/occupied). That period or real shortages, constant fear of attacks from the air about which the people could do nothing, and 'all in it together' cohesion of society shouldn't be under-estimated in terms of effect on the mindest of the population at large (and, of course, the mainland European experience of occupation and war is another thing again), and is very, very different to what the USA 'home front' experience was. Inevitably, the UK's 'Left' don't have much sympathy with the ideas of the US 'Right', as the US 'Right' don't have much sympathy with the ideas of the UK 'Left'. I wouldn't expect them to, of course, but the impression of 'arrogance' that I mentioned previously in terms of the USA appearing to want to inflict those ideas on others through its foreign policy is what has sometimes brought them into actual conflict. The added 'we saved you in the war, so you should just be grateful' attitude expressed by some doesn't help reduce that 'arrogance' impression, of course (like most of these things, there is actually some truth to the basic premise of it, but it isn't by any means the entire picture of what happened). That conflict is obviously inevitable to an extent as globalisation develops - we are no longer remote from one another, and what happens in one society has a real, tangible effect on what happens in others. The different groups can no longer just view each other with suspicion from afar, while basically ignoring each other and getting on with their own thing. We can see the same kind of thing manifesting itself in the other direction of course, particularly at the moment with the crisis in the Eurozone - some of the vitriol being directed by the American 'Right' against not just the ideology of the 'Left' but actually against 'Europe' and 'Europeans' as a whole is every bit as unnecessary and unwarranted as the silly 'anti-American' stuff. There are other contributary factors alongside the actual effect on each other, of course - modern communication and media reporting means that we, the general public, are actually far more aware of what is happening, and what people are saying, in other countries than we ever were in the past (and the timescale of that development again runs alongside the end of the Cold War period). That is something to be particularly careful of, though, since what we hear about each other is generally reported from our own cultural context, so will tend (quite naturally - I'm not talking about concious 'bias', although that can exist in some cases too) to enhance the impression of things on the other side being 'not as we think they should be'. Whether we like it or not, we do live in a 'global world' now, and that is only going to increase. Narrow 'nationalism' and 'cultural supremecism' in the 19th Century mould is no longer applicable or appropriate. We can still, as the OP says, be proud of our countries, and still feel a sense of 'belonging', and still feel happy in our culture as 'ours', but we can no longer afford to view the rest of the world as somehow 'beneath us' or oursleves as just 'better' - they aren't far distant peoples with little relevance to ourselves anymore. Actually, almost as an aside, that does raise one minor point specific to the USA, with some of its people being perhaps slightly slower to catch up with that, simply because they actually are physically so distant from anywhere other than the USA - that distance doesn't exist in Europe, or even the UK, so we do perhaps tend to be naturally slightly more keyed in to the concept of 'internationalism' anyway. We can never expect a big love-in between the European 'Left' and the American 'Right', of course - they are never likely to see eye-to-eye on much! What they can and should both do, though, is realise that there is a background to why they believe what they believe, that they are able to follow different paths while co-existing (and even working together), and that the 'other side' aren't 'evil' or 'bad' or even 'inferior', they just have different opinions for how they think their own nations should be operated, and that those differences should be mutually respected so that a spirit of sensible compromise can operate between them where they meet and interact in the global situation. We all need to listen (not assume) as well as talk, and seek common ground and understanding instead of digging ideological (or nationalistic) trenches. Of course, unfortunately there will always be many on both sides who don't and won't do that! Edited to add - sorry, 'War and Peace' again!
Priceless. I'll ask you once more. Can you answer the following questions? Or, if you are simply parroting someone else's claim, who or what is your source? So, the diktat or your source? Which law did Thatcher change? Please supply straight answers. Emotion is great, but it needs to based on facts if you want what you say to be taken seriously.
I know its very difficult for you ...but rattling ones gums is not the best way to get information that's not easy to obtain! The meet in secret.....oh yes they do.... http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN3.htm The Council has given no valid reasons for refusing to meet in public whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity...' Nikiforos Diamandouros, European Ombudsman, October 2005 As Council meetings on issues that do not relate to legislation can still be taken in secret, it can be difficult for national parliaments to keep track of changes that are being made. I myself still have a passport with "Nationality SCOTTISH" though its expired! So do try to be nice to me...please don't resort to type! I have tried to get information on the changes...but its like trying to get the truth out of bLiar, Brown, or Cameron! And just look at what these reprobates can hide! Regards Highlander
The British Left and the American Right will not accept each other. There is no need for them to do so. Britain and America have reached the proverbial fork in the road. America is going to return to a modified version of the foreign policy it adopted for most of its existence, i. e., isolationism. It's best for all parties concerned. It's the path that Tony Blair predicted America would take.
Cenydd says that the Left collapsed after the Cold War, and that is very true. At one time George Orwell - that full blooded socialist - described the whole British intelligentsia (or at least most of it) as taking their cooking from Paris and their politics from Moscow. The left during the 1930's was Stalinized - WH Auden, one of its victims and perpertrators, called that the "low, dishonest decade". The invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia may have dented that somewhat but the effects of this were long lasting. The most devastating effect was the termination of the curiousity and eclecticism of the British Left, that had produced William Morris, the Webbs and the Independent Labour Party (and ultimately Orwell, that collossus of twentieth century enlightenment). The custody of theory and philosophy was passed to the befuddled French, and the British reverted to a dangerous but philistinism. Remember that in the nineteenth century Britain was the haven for all exiles and outcasts in Europe, fleeing tyranny and oppression. Its intellectual tradition was second to none. But this was all smashed by the lazy acqiescence of the Left to the architects of the gulag. When finally the full brutality of Stalinism hit them foursquarely in the face (remember that the British Left persecuted Trotskyists as social fascists and Orwell couldn't get a publisher for Animal Farm), they never lost this stupidity. They knew they didn't support Moscow any more, but they didn't know they still thought in the old undialectical way. This led to cultural relativism - the obscenities that even though the crimes of the USSR were now well documented, the USSR should have the same "rights" in international affairs as liberal democracies, that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and that, at the extreme of this worldview, the USA was simply the moral equivalent of the murderous, barbaric, genocidal tyranny, the Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics. Against this was a quite separate development in the USA. Until the nineteenth century US and British radicalism had been more or less in step and in the tradition - as I always argue - of the Levellers and other radical republicans, of whom Paine was probably the most vocal American voice. But as Britain grappled with nineteenth century ideas the isolationism of the USA created a quite different tradition. In fact the USA should be hailed by the British (and even the French) as the child of its own eighteenth century ideals, the first country to be founded on an idea - that of liberty - and one of the few truly revolutionary nations (even by Marxist standards) that had transformed the old order. But it was the dumb Stalinism of the British Left that ignored this history: as a boy I was simply unaware - though I was educated with all the books, pamphlets and novels of the Left by my social democrat father - of the heroes of America. It is only now that I discover Paine, Jefferson and Franklin and read of the heroic acts of the American Revolution. When Reagan talked of people ringing the Liberty Bell in 1944, British people simply did not know what he was talking of, or the great awesome icon that that (Made in England) icon represents of the spirit of the United States of America. But then from the American side we find exacerbation of this, from the communists and fascists (such was the America First movement) who preferred Hitler to Churchill in 1939, to those who prosecuted a Cold War in defiance of the traditions of Paine and Jefferson. The dumb reflexes of the British Left were stimulated by an America which befriended every tyrant and reactionary cabal that it could find in its war with communism. So we remember the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Chile in 1968 (and that our craven government supported this too) by the CIA and the mass murder and barbarity that followed where Chile killed and tortured thousands of young, cultured, liberal and beautiful young intellectuals and activists - just like us. That crime by the USA still rankles now, as it should. And the conclusion cannot be avoided - particularly when we think of the bravery of butchered conservatives like Archbishop Romero - that America simply supped with Satan in these times. Similarly in the Middle East, any attempt of the people to create secular, non aligned social democratic forms of government, was smashed by US support for medieval tyrants, that now come back to haunt it (and the rest of us). So I don't recognize a new anti Americanism from a new British Left. There was always anti-Americanism from the Left, some justified, other disgracefully misplaced. There is actually no new British left. Any intellectual rigour that the Left retained in Orwell's time has lagely dissipated now, as new protestors flail about aimlessly with no program, vision or ideology. The old slander that the Left was never for anything but only against things is now perfectly demonstrated. There is no Left. It is gone. Of course we now have a generation for whom WW2 means nothing - it's history now, which it never was when I was at school. That was the liberal halcyon age when nations came together to stand side by side against nationalism. It presaged the break-up of the British Empire, and an age of prosperity for liberal democracies. It spoke of solidarity and international brotherhood. It was marked by optimism and ambition. That this was very largely American (despite attempts by American conservatives throughout the whole century to sabotage this), and determined the way America was seen by the masses, and is now being forgotten. What Albert is diagnosing is the capitulation of the British establishment - the popular press for example - to anti-Americanism. This is not from the Left. It is from the nation. Populist Blair bashing is just a symptom of it. It is not caused (but is enabled) by Afghanistan or Iraq, but by the crude triumphalism, now broadcast unfiltered unto British homes, of American exceptionalism. The new Right do not talk as Reagan talked - read what he writes and he is a civilized, courteous but very conservative world leader - but as schoolyard bullies and arrogant thugs. British people do not like this, and take this for a symbol of America as a whole, which it is of course not. But it does represent about a third of the USA, and is given a free pass by another sixth. And because we have never known our Paine, or our Jefferson, we Brits are left without any ability to respond to the new American Right - Tories all, in their hostility to science, secularism, tolerance and democratic govrnment - as they strut their stuff. Because we have lost our own political traditions and are now flailing about in post Empire days, consumed by a mushy philistinism and infantile ignorance, we simply do not know how to deal with it. Except by denouncing America, a nation which sprung from the political loins of our very own radicals.
You write beautifully. I agree with your characterization of Orwell. One of the giants of an era. Here is something I truly loved for the beauty of its analysis: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RmmhUejouY"]Allistair Cooke: 'Decadence vs. Vitality' - YouTube[/ame] The prescience is scary. The analysis is an example of the Britain for which I felt affection. America is now like the Italian peninsula in the sixth century of the common era. What once was can never be restored. What will be is anyone's guess. Living in a time of transition is sort of confusing. What is likely is that the America that was will be lionized as the Golden Age by the next generation of Americans in the same way Greeks of the age of Alexander idolized the Greece of Pericles and Solon. In such an age it is for the best that entanglements outside the western hemisphere be avoided. I understand what turned the British Left against America. It seems like it happened so quickly. The British were very unforgiving. The price of experience is very high. It's too bad. The moving finger having written moves on.
I agree there is no need for the British Left and American Right to accept each other in terms of them not having to reach agreement, but I also don't believe there is any need for the 'proverbial fork in the road' to be anything other than an acceptance of that fact, the fact that the differences of opinion are just that not some 'manifestiation of evil', and the fact that we cannot and should not try to actually demand that the other side change their views (but should work together in a spirit of mutual understanding and compromise where issues are of interest to both). Both the UK and the USA have a history in interfering directly in the affairs of other countries (and that also applies to several other countries in Europe, of course), and I agree completely that that is something both need to address (and I think both probably will address, to some extent). The potential danger of 'isolationism', though, is in it going too far and reaching a point of trying to forget that the rest of the world exists completely - in the modern global society (and time can never be turned back to destroy that), that really is no longer an opinion. There needs to be lessons learned from history, and the history of such interference. There were times (two World Wars being the obvious examples) when sitting back in isolation would have been disastrous not only for other countries, but for the UK and USA themselves in the long term, but what has been almost equally disastrous is the policy of creeping, insidious, ongoing interference the internal affairs of other countries, attempting to manipulate their governance for our own benefit in various ways, often on the basis of nothing more sensible than the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' principle. That theory has caused some appauling mistakes that have blighted the lives and politics of entire regions for generations, and there needs to be a realisation that it really isn't necessarily the case - interfering in internal politics to prop up one appauling and brutal dictator because he opposes another one that opposes us has caused so much harm in the world (and obviously I don't really need to mention the history of both Bin Laden and Saddam there, but they aren't unique cases). True 'isolationism' is no longer possible. Locking ourselves away from the world just won't work, particularly in the context of a world which is still suffering the effects of such interference - there is a moral obligation for us to not just abandon those places, and not create a whole new problem by direct interference, but by helping their people to overcome the problems that we have been so instrumental in creating. What needs to change (from both the US and the UK, and others, of course) is the attitude that we consider it appropiate to actually interfere with the world to 'improve it', instead of communicating with it and dealing with it in an open, understanding and consilliatory manner. That is where I confess to having a concern about the potential direction of US 'isolationism' - the animosity show by some towards the UN. Certainly, the UN is not a perfect organisation and could do with some reform, but simply becoming isolated to the point of just ignoring the rest of the world is not going to be the best way forward for anyone. It certainly won't help the perception of the US that fosters the 'anti-American' sentiment that, in extreme cases, had created the current threat of international terrorist against the US. The US does need to engage with the international community for its own benefit, but in a positive way that demonstrates that it has the will to listen, understand and compromise, not just veto, dictate or impose. There is another significant issue of difference between the US Right and UK Left worthy of note, I think - that of religion. Our countries have very different backgrounds of the way in which religion has influenced our political thinking and processes. The UK was effectively embroiled in an ongoing and hugely violent and divisive internal religous conflict from the day Henry VIII declared a break with Rome up until the mid 18th century, and even beyond in the case of Ireland - it is something that still manifests itself in certain places from time to time. It has cause untold numbers of death through the actions of successive monarchs, Civil War and various uprisings, and at times torn the whole fabric of society apart, literally setting brother against brother and neighbour against neighbour throughout the land. Despite the fact that there is an 'established' church in England (with until recently its bishops sitting in parliament) it has left many of the people with a deeply ingrained distrust of any percieved real or direct influence of religion on politics. As a result, the direct influence of religion in mainstream UK politics is virtually non-existant - our politicians seldom, if ever, mention God (whatever their personal religious views may be), certainly during political speeches. On the other side, the American right wing has a very strong conservative religious influence at its core, quite naturally given the religious part in the origins of the country (and that part of its birth that was directly a result of the Uk's internal conflicts), and the fact that it hasn't really been rent assunder in the same way as the UK by religious conflict since. Despite the clear separation between church and state in the US, the religious influence on right wing politics is huge, and quite naturally distrustful of political ideas that don't seem to be expressely based so firmly in similar interpretations of those conservative religious principles. American politicians seem (from a UK perspective) to insert God into their speeches at every opportunity, and religion seems to be an essential part of any political speech. From a UK perspective (especially the Left), American politics seems to be 'obsessed with religion' (an impression enhanced by the firebrand preachers, a breed that really don't exist to any great extent in the UK, spitting fire over particular political policies on a regular basis), and from a US perspective (especially the Right) no doubt UK politics seems to have 'abandoned God' (indeed I have seen video of items from Fox News saying exactly that about the UK and Europe, even suggesting that we have all gone back to paganism, and that that is what is wrong with our politics and society). That's a clear difference of opinion, for very sound and understandable historical reasons, that goes to the core of how both lots of people think, and causes an inevitable point of distrust and friction. However, we do need to recognise again that it is a difference of opinion that we don't need each other to change to enable us to work together and deal with each other with respect and understanding, and doesn't make either of us 'bad', just different in the way we view things and do things in that context. Obviously, though, that's not necessarily easy, given the depth of personal feelings that are involved in religious views. To tie that back to the basic premise of the OP, religion in politics is, and has historically been, just the same as any 'nation', in effect. It is capable of, and has done, great good (in terms of providing basic and essential moral guidance for legislation, for example), and it is capable of, and has done, great harm (in terms of conflict and oppression). That doesn't mean we should be inherently 'for' or 'against' it, or the way each other view it, but we do all need to recognise, as with our nations, that it has done good and bad things in the past in order to try to ensure that the future balance is on the side of its better aspects. In doing that, in order to get along in the world (which is in everybody's interests), we have to operate again on that principle of understanding and compromise, not on either interference and imposition or on isolation and consequent suspicion.
What the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with your claim that Thatcher stopped you from calling yourself Scottish? This won't do, Highlander. Changes in the law are public record and you said explicitly said Thatcher had changed the law. The EU are the last people to stop you from calling yourself Scottish and national parliaments are perfectly capable of keeping track of the laws they vote on. You have nothing whatsover to base this claim on. We all know politicians of all persuasions can hide stuff, though not changes in the law, that the public should know. Not exactly breaking news is it? And you asking someone to be "nice" to you is a barefaced cheek after some of the insults you hand out.
I don't believe that is a fair characterization. I do not have a "gnawing hatred of all things English." There are English qualities -- real or now imagined -- that I admire. A coolness of mannerisms, a sense of fair play (no matter how poorly executed), a history of political radicalism, the cherishment of wit and subtlety (although sometimes to a fault; I have on more than one occasion noted that an Englishman would rather humiliate his opponent than directly prove him wrong), and excellent essayists (craftsmen whom are derided by American literary critics, unfortunately) are but a few of the things that I find very attractive about traditional English society. Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that there are many atrocities that England committed (or that you invented a terrible legal system!) and that I find many present aspects of modern English society repugnant. But, what of it? I'm equally critical about the United States in many respects, and find many aspects of my own society equally disgusting. I have been repeatedly and inanely slandered as an America-hater, a traitor, a foreign appeaser, and so on by the neoconservative rabble on this forum.
You overwhelm me with the caliber of your posts. Imo the British left looks at American Christians of the evangelical and fundamentalist varieties the same way American conservatives view Muslims. We are all prisoners of our prejudices. Britain and America don't need to have a common vision or world view. We are parting. This is what American isolationism means. It provides tremendous clarity in an uncertain world. America's internal problems are so great and intractable that it has no choice imo but to turn inward. To be quite frank my version of America is gone, and with it my loyalty to the polity. I am post-American. This distinguishes me from most other conservatives. But give them time and they will come around to my point of view. The UN is doomed. It can't adapt to a changed world. It is fixed in post-WWII mode. The world will pass it by.
That is fair comment, with which I mostly agree. You have, in the past, declared a repugnance for all things British, and it was that upon which I commented. The above statement of yours is entirely reasonable, so I apologise if I mischaracterised you.
It think that's probably about right - the Britishpopulation probably do have a natural tendency to be deeply suspicious of religious fundementalism, from whatever religion it comes (including religions which are widely shared by themselves). The UK tends towards moderation and pragmatism in such things (understandably, given the background of damage that religious fundementalism (particularly between Catholics and Protestants) has done within UK society over the centuries), prioritising the need for us to all get along with each other for the sake of peace in the world. I would say that attitude of suspicion also guides the attitude towards Israel, and the fundementalists who seek to cement its expansion on the basis of religious justification about 'the promised land', so to speak - it's not that people are at all 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Israel' (far from it), but merely pragmatic in their wish for moderation and compromise so that the problems in the Middle East can actually be solved peacefully rather than spiral downwards into bitter and destructive religious conflict. It seems, to many of us over here, somewhat ironic, although inevitable, that the more radical religious conservatives in the US are so vocal in their opposition to the radical religious conservatives within Islam - they are seen in many ways as manifstations of the same forces within the different religions. In a sense it's not so much that the British are 'prisoners of our prejudices', but have a strong desire (or 'prejudice', I guess you could say) to see others get over their prejudices against each other for the benefit of the peaceful existance of mankind. Organised religion within the UK these days is mostly pretty mild-mannered, peaceable and consiliatory. It's not generally combative towards other religions (there are exceptions, of course, but not many), and tends to concentrate on messages of getting along and being nice to others (rather than 'fire and brimstone' stuff). Religion itself tends to be seen very much as a personal matter for the individual, and not something that anyone else really has the right to get involved with, or something that shoudl be directly involved in the development of political policy, especially if it is policy against other religions. What is often mistaken for 'political correctness' is really just a manifestation of that - people (of all religions) in the UK mostly just want to get along with each other and live peacefully together without there being great friction between sections of the community on the basis of personal beliefs - our history is littered with the bloody results of such frictions. I certainly agree tyhat it needs to be more able to adapt to a rapidly changing global society, but I think it is capable of reforming to enable it to do that. In my opinion, the whole world (including the USA) would be better off if the USA engaged positively with that process from within, rather than setting itself apart from it.
I was surprised by this comment. No legal system is ideal, but why do you think the English system is terrible? I haven't heard of a better one.
Where have I intimated a repugnance for all things English? Certainly quite a few things, but not all things. Why, Civil Law, of course. Common Law is much more unaccountable due to the fact that judges may, essentially, change the law over time. Codified law is much less prone to judicial activism, and enables the Judiciary to remain more independent from the Executive. In the US, Presidents appoint judges based on their political philosophy, which is an absolutely horrid thing.
The Christian Right is less powerful politically today than it was during the Reagan era. I think the British Left just can't get over George W. Bush, his faith, and his neo-conservatism. Religion is likely to play a diminished role in America in the coming decades. It will be more vibrant, more evangelical, but it will be less influential to the majority. I am an atheist, but I don't begrudge any one his or her faith. We all need something to believe in. The UN is going to become a dead letter because it is not in the interests of either China or America to permit any dilution of their power. The UN is anathema to the American Right.
