[Politics] It isn't easy being Blue.

[davywavy]

Whilst out on the town a few weeks ago, I got talking to a girl in a bar. After a while, for reasons I can't recall, the conversation came round to politics. Suddenly she stopped short and looked at me quizzically.
"You're right-wing, aren't you?"
"Yup", I replied.
"Well, I don't think we should let homeless people starve to death on the street", she said, smugly ensuring her moral superiority over me and my homeless-starving ways whilst necking the booze I'd just bought her like there was no tomorrow.

A friend of mine who shares my political opinions once told me they didn't really like going to social events with many of my friends, because they knew that they would be belittled and insulted for holding their political beliefs. They found it upsetting that they would be insulted by people they barely knew not even for their beliefs, but for what those people considered their beliefs to be without even taking the time to find out the reality of the situation. In other circumstances this sort of behaviour would be considered 'prejudice'. When you're dealing with a lot of people I run into, it's called 'informed debate'. Sometimes it's nice to open LJ and read the wise words of the mind-numbingly gorgeous vulgarcriminal, who is political voice of reason.
The irony of the intellectual intolerance of many people amuses me in a bleak sort of way; most of the people on my friends list consider themselves to be tolerant, understanding and non-judgemental; however this just highlights the basic dichotomy of many people's political views - they're tolerant of any kink, perversion, social attitudes and outre behaviour which they happen to agree with. Their tolerance doesn't extend so far as being polite to people who think that, oh, say, civil liberties have been undermined quite a lot by the current government or that spending thirty-seven billion quid which we don't have every year in a slowing economy might lead to trouble later.
raggedhalo recently made a post in which he compared prejudice against vegetarians to homophobia, and presented himself as being a persecuted minority. Personally I think it's a bit difficult to be a persecuted minority when you're a socialist vegetarian in a student union, but that's just me.
Re-reading his post, it's interesting to me just how much of his argument I can apply to my own point. After all, if he can compare prejudice against sexualities with his own political views, so can I - to object to that would be prejudiced, wouldn't it? Back in the 1980's, being gay would get you socially ostracised and sometimes insulted in public, whilst being Conservative would get you social acceptance and congratulations on your snappy dress sense. And now...?
There's a comparison to be made here, I think...

Of course, I think Joe's comparison is as nonsensical as mine. But it's funny nevertheless.

Comments

They're ALL dead Dave...

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmn Dave.
You have, of course, entirely MISSED the point.
:)
The truth of the matter is this- TB IS indeed a conflicted leader, a man who has betrayed his own party, and the principles therein.
He has misled the British people. He has had some genuine foreign policy victories the like of which would do ANY PM proud (Sierra Leone) but with Iraq he has shown himself hopelessly muddled. Why on Earth did he get elected a third time?
Well, it comes down to this- I have noted that in Britain today there is a underlying neurosis. It has effected an entire generation- maybe more. In fact it effects at least 60% of the entire British population. Like all neurosis it is irrational; it is predudicial; it is unfair. But it is real.

It did not begin straight away.
Maggie was toppled and Britain remained true. Majour was elected in his own right. But during that term it began.
It effects northern cities more than southern; Scotland most of all; but it is real, and tabgible and genuine and no Conservative can escape its power.

Margret Thatcher and John Majour and the Tory governemnt of the 1980's- 90's truely and completly _truamatised_ this nation.
Comepletely.
Tony Blair may been the biggest prat on Earth... but at least he's not a bloody Tory!!!! :)
Face it Dave- the political bigotry you face goes beyond politics. It makes no sense.
Unless you see it as a reaction to a deep seated truma.
We focus on the music in a piss-taking way; we belittle the era; the 80's are seen as all that is awful about Britain. And Maggie is part of it... but it's bigger than that. Many can see the good the Conservative Govt. did during their era. But they burned their bridges doing that good. They simply acted in a such a way that it will be at least a decade before they get elected again- if ever.
I am serious. They traumatised Britain.
I'm not saying this for the sake of saying it... I have come to this after talking/listening and watching.
Why do we have Cameron looking at 'consensus politics'- it don't matter WHAT the Conservatives come up with with policy, they are bruned. Scarred. Damaged goods. He knows this- Tory polls show that voters in the last few elections have rejected Tory policies on the grounds that they are simply that- Conservative. The Tory party is trying to deal with that... but can it do this and remain the Tory party? Time will tell.

But I agree with damn near everything you are saying here Dave... they are hated. And the hate, that burning hate which you and I KNOW is seared into places like where we grew up, was born during the era of the last Conservative government. That hate is so great that i believe that not even David Cameron is enough to overcome it. That hate is so great that even now everyone is talking about the 'Brown Factor' in the next election- it is HIS to lose not Cameron's to win. That hate has, I fear, destroyed the Conservative Party- an aging party; a party with a smaller and increasingly radicalised membership (fact!).
The Liberal Party was once dominant in Britain. The 1920's saw it's death (even though it took many years to see this manifest).
I believe that the crisis the Conservatives face is simply this- they are going the way of the old Liberals. All it takes is ONE new party, like Labour was, and BANG! They are dead.
This is the crisis, the depth of it and the reason for the bigotry.
thoughts?

Re: They're ALL dead Dave...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, no I haven't missed the point - I'm taking the opportunity to point out to people on my friends list that some of them claim to be tolerant, but they're just as prejudiced and hypocritical as the rest of us - if not more so.

HOwever, to answer your point. What you say is linked to the growth of St George's day and demands for it to be a national holiday. It's something that has grown, especially since 1997. Back in the old days, the Scots, Irish and Welsh all were very vocal in maintaining their 'cultural identity', whilst the British didn't bother? Why? Because the Scots, irish and Welsh were the conquered peoples who struggled to maintain a seperate identity in the face of the conquering cultural hegemony - is.
The Thatcher era was the last era when the British were shown they could still stand ont eh world stage and be treated as equals and act independantly. Now, the face of US, Chinese and EU cultural hegemony we can't really do that any more. We're adopting the language and mannerisms of the conquered and defeated, creating cultural symbols to 'define' us because at some level we know we've lost.

There's an accepted psychological process which takes place in the minds of cripples and disabled people towards people who try and fail to help them overcome thier disability - they blame the helper for that failure. This is expressed as hostility and resentment, and the patient is unwilling to work with that helper again, preferring instead a kindly face who doesn't remind them of their failure.
Thatcher tried to make us stand, one last time - and succeeded for a while. People don't want to be reminded of their decline and so Tony Blair represents the kindly doctor who will come in, wash out behinds, tuck us in, and give us an overdose of morphine.
I rage against the mindset which just happily accepts that.

Re: They're ALL dead Dave...

[applez.livejournal.com]

For my edification, could you please define precisely what you envision as a Britain standing up and acting independently in today's world?

My thoughts:

If one is to put the UK to any kind of objective test of global power & influence - it still has a great deal going for it, but I think the UK is swallowed whole in the network of global relations that limit precisely what it can do...and the US is just starting to learn it is as entangled.

Example: I don't think we'll see another Malvinas/Falklands, the world has moved on from those sorts of confrontations. Even Iraq 2003 wasn't at the scale of relative parity. In such an event, the UK would probably perform better than it did in 1982, but realistically, in a shooting war, will face threats that far exceed the UK's resources alone...the UK needs the EU and NATO. [with regards to the UK in Iraq, I would argue it's less "shooting," and more paramilitary roadside bombing ... a continuous grinding down of resources]

Example 2: Global finance - the UK remains a global finance leader, and London is an excellent showcase of this fact...but areas beyond London have had need for assistance, to which the EU has proven invaluable. Moreover, even as a financial leader, this presents an interesting conundrum...it is a financial leader among many leaders, and cooperative action is the rule. The UK would stand to lose too much if it were to act too independently.

Example 3: Regarding trauma, and hanging on with the help of friends ... to some extent, Switzerland makes an interesting case study. CH enjoys its arms-distance from its neighbours, mistrusts their national interests, but is fully networked into regional and global economies to both secure CH's national interests, and to maintain that distance (a bit bizarre, but there you have it). It would dare say that even with their inheritance of mistrusting neighbours and arming themselves to the hilt, this integration with the world has done more to protect their interests than any army would.

I just have a very hard time imaginging an Iron Lady in 2005 doing anything productive, or substantively different (but that's another issue*), for the UK.

*You decry Labour's introduction of civil rights-abusing legislation (which the Lords have gutted, thank god!), but do you honestly think Maggie would've acted much differently than Blair after the July bombings? This in a UK that already had anti-terrorism measures in place?

Re: They're ALL dead Dave...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

1) Fair point on the globalisation and the impossibility of independant national action within it. How about a short version - Thatcher offered Dumbo a magic feather, and Dumbo hates Thatcher because he couldn't fly even with it?

2) do you honestly think Maggie would've acted much differently than Blair after the July bombings
"X wouldn't be any better than Y" isn't a decent argument in any way, and so I won't tackle it. What is important is what people do, not what they might have done if they'd been there. The 'Thatcher would have been no better' line is just as invalid as me saying 'If Thatcher had been in power then the bombers would have had massive unrequited crushes on her and never bombed London'. It's make believe, and not pertinent.

Re: They're ALL dead Dave...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Regarding 2: okay, fair enough...but the key question remains ... what would be your conservative vision for Britain.

Connected to: some examples of decisions and actions made by this government and society that you think could be done better, and how...and if you want to bite the bait, by who(m)? :-)

Re: They're ALL dead Dave...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The reason I'm inherently right wig (and thus a Conservative voter as the closest, but not a perfect map of, my views) is because I think that:
1) The role of the individual is to interact with the machinery of state as little as possible
2) The role of the state is to do and support that which cannot be acheived by private enterprise,
3) Individuals are better at spending their own money for the greater good than are governments

The Conservative party, traditionally, are better at acheiving this. They ahve always been the party more of indirect, rather than direct, taxation (some would argue this is the only real difference between Labour and Conservative) and have at least tried to reign in the public sector.

Things I would do if I were in power:
1) Take the administration of national insurance out of treasury hands in the same way as has been done with the Bank of England
2) Ban unionisation in the public sector (I think there is a strong case for unions in the private sector, but public sector unions are a yoke on society).

There are one or two other things I'd pursue, but I've recently written to the Conservative Party with the ascention of David Cameron and have yet to receive a reply - I'll be posting more when I've got an answer to the questions I've asked and been able to formulate more opinions in the face of a changed political landscape.

Re: They're ALL dead Dave...

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Interesting.
But I think flawed... Thatcher's attempts to make us 'stand up' were identical and as misguided as DeGaul's in France, or Develera's in Ireland. I totally agree with the prognosis about the Irish/Scots/Welsh (i've been saying that for years as you know), but I do not accept the 'victimisation' backlash is part of growing US/Chinese/EU cultural hegenomy. In truth Thatcher was doing the same thing as the St. George's Day supporters. And did she succead?
In a way Blair has not?
Blair HAS caused more serious debate in the EU than Maggie did. Blair HAS done more for parts of Africa (and with it earned huge gratitude which is largely unreported in the West). Maggie took a stand, but for good or for bad, so has Blair. Churchill would not back down because his views were out of step- and neither did Maggie and neither does Blair. We may hate/dislike Tony, but he HAS held true on the things he can (JUST like Maggie), and yes, his alliance with the USA over Iraq has diminished our standing globally... but so did Maggies close relationship with Reagan. Indeed, Tony is the first PM to hold close relations with both Democratic AND Republican parties. AND, we forget just how BADLY people saw Maggies relationship with America was. Dave- 'The The' was singing "This is the 51st State of the USA" when Maggie was still in office. Britain had 'sold out' to America back then.
Why I disagree with you Dave is that you are actually doing yourself an injustice. It is usually very wet left-wingers who claim the UK is being 'taken over' by the USA mate! You know better than THAT line of flawed reasoning...
The question is my friend- the growth in English nationalism/feelings of powerlessness and victimisation is NOT unqiuely British. The far right got into the last two during the last French Presidential elections- this election will be all about 'traditional French values'; America is seeing a growing malaise towards its leaders and increased feelings of disenfranchisement; Japan struggles to overcome increasingly apathy towards its leaders; Spain struggles with low voter turn out; Australia sees race riots as poor and disenfranchised men kick out at the nearest targets; look closer Dave.
It's a GLOBAL feeling, a growing feeling. The IRISH for God's sake, dispite the fastest growing economy in Western Europe were unwilling to accept an expanded EU. We are isolated and lost. A growing feeling of complete powerlessness. And it IS being felt from Inuit Action groups in Canada to farmers in Mexico to silk weavers in India to White Van Man in Essex.

The truth is- we no longer control the world. The problems the world face are SO big, no one nation can control it. We have created a global economy but have not created a system of global management. No, this is NOT some left-wing rant at globalisation my friend (I hope you know me well enough that I wouldn't be so childish as to fall into that camp). But it is about cause and effect. We have a national economy. We have a national government. We feel some control. We have choice. We can deal. We have a continental economy. We have NOMINAL European government. We feel we have a LITTLE control. We can write angry articles about the EU. We can ignore EU elections. We can react and demand our national goverment stands up to the Continental one. We can just about cope.
We have a global Economy.
We have NO global government. We have no say, no way of impacting it. We cannot change or influence global economics. We see the price of oil rise up- we are told it is because of oil buyers buying oil. Our government cannot stop the price of oil going up. We watch- HELPLESS as it does. We watch as recessions come in and go, like weather fronts, but we cannot control them. helpless we try our bit but know that we are too small. We recycle and worry about global warming and tsk at America's refusal to sign up to the Koyoto accords, but even if they did, it wouldn't actually solve the problems. And we know it.
We feel HELPLESS Dave.
And it has npothing to do with ANY of opur politicians...

Re: They're ALL dead Dave...

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmn. i will expand the points I made in the last post. They NEED expanding I think!

24% of the US economy is based upon 'services'. Roughly the same with us (up 0.6% this quarter). That is, HARSHLY defined, as the bit of the economy that cannot exist if the rest screws up. The part made of dominoes. A quarter of our economic base is based on the BELIEF in it- and more than that based on IoU's. We owe 4.8 Billion to the EU as a NATION. We the people of Britain owe £1 TRILLION to banks, building societies and those who lend money. We know this. We feel it.
We OWNS this debt? Not the governemnt- nor ANY government. Nor small cabals of evil bankers/industrialists (dispite what really pathetic left-wingers will claim). the truth is NO ONE owns this. No one CAN regulate it.
The classic model of a free-market economy is that you leave it alone. Yes, it can be harsh but it will regulate itself. But as time goes but this 'rule' is being tested, like the Theory of Gravity- and JUST LIKE the Theory of Gravity it has been found not to match the data we are receiving. In the face of quantum physics scientists know that gravity is gonna have to go and something else (maybe superstring) will have to replace it. In the face of TOTAL deregulation of the global economy, all traditional models are falling down.
The great crime, THE greatest crime of Marxism is that it did not account for human greed or the desire to have wealth. The greatest crime of the free market is that it fails to account for non-economic needs. Totally. It supposes that private industry will fill the void. And in a local/national/even semi-global model it will work. But not in the current situation. It's too big. Why else is George W. Bush, the man who said within his first year of office that one of his goals was to see that the world 'accepts the benefits of free market economics' refuse to give up protectionism of his farmers and his steel workers? Why will the French not do the same for their farmers? Why is Blair trying not to give up the rebate. And why are NO economic models being presented that the global leaders can show to people and go 'Look, look, if we do this, THIS will happen and it will all be fine'?
They would if they could! But they can't. As the Economists who advocated globalisation now HAVE it and have NO idea where it will go next. And they are seeing, like Marxism before it, they did not equate in the human condition.
People feel helpless Dave. The free market has done one awesome thing- we are a single world economy. One world. united. Every man, woman and child on Earth is part of something bigger. That is goddamn awesome.
But with it, no safeguards have been erected. Not ONE nation on Earth who has a free market economy ever established it quickly- they ALL took baby steps; placing regulations in place; carefully sheparding their populations towards the true opening up of economic constraints. The world has taken the world into a Global economy WITHOUT anyone attempting to establish such contraints. How fast? I mean really. britain took CENTURIES to go free market. Globalisation has taken place in just over two decades.
In the face of such a thing- what do we expect the results to be? I would hazard that perhaps helplessness, fustration, a longing for what was, reactionary politics and a growing sense of isolation from increasingly 'helpless' politicians (at least that is how we see them) would be inevitable. Look about us my friend. We can't get RID of globalisation. To even try would be economic suicide. But its causing problems- and no one, not one person is able to solve them.
Welcome to the REAL 'New World Order'.
(shrugs)