[Politics] It isn't easy being Blue.
Dec. 15th, 2005 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyWhilst 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
"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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: They're ALL dead Dave...
Date: 2005-12-15 10:18 pm (UTC)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...
Date: 2005-12-15 10:53 pm (UTC)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...
Date: 2005-12-16 01:22 pm (UTC)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...
Date: 2005-12-17 01:08 am (UTC)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...
Date: 2005-12-19 11:00 am (UTC)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...
Date: 2005-12-16 12:06 am (UTC)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...
Date: 2005-12-16 12:07 am (UTC)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)