|
vincentML -> RE: Obama and inconsistency (1/31/2010 8:34:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Ah, too bad. I have lunch frequently with a neighbor who is formerly a trade rep for the US. He has a flat in a London suburb as well as one downstairs here. We have been debating the ideas of Howard Zinn who just passed and got around to Zinn's notion that big change comes from resistence and protest in the streets. My friend argued that common folk at the baricades here in the US need intellectuals to lead them in their protests. The point of all this being the inertia of the US govt.
He says he will explain to me why the UK form is superior. Doesn't sound so from what you say. It should be an interesting discussion.
Thank you, NG.
I'd argue that change comes from your environment which in turn generates your tradition/history/the way you think which in turn forms the future.
Take England as an example: our form of government hasn't changed for 400 years and in that time the Germans and French have had countless revolutions (or attempts at revolution) plus dictatorships etc. We have the luxury of being an island without the threat of an army marching over our borders back in the day of imperialism. That in itself has led to moderate views and political stability. There's no charm in radical change here and there's a sort of cautious optimism rather than the big ideas that are a feature of German and French history and can still be seen today.
In terms of our political system - it would be hard to argue that it's superior Vincent. Money doesn't have the influence here that it does in the United States (and there are cultural reasons for that) but class is still an obession in England and by virtue of this issue we ultimately have the same problem of narrow interests dominating the political scene.
In terms of intellectuals leading the protest - my understanding is that England and the United States have plenty of intellectuals to go round - the issue is that they're sceptical of such protests and believe that negative freedom is the best form of government.
Your first and last paragraphs are of a piece I think, Gent. In the video link supplied by Brain elsewhere on this Board Howard Zinn argued that the history of America had defects which were detrimental to women, Labor, and people of color. Starting of course with the necessary compromise over slavery in the Constitution. Bitter arguements followed in both houses of Congress from 1820 though to the fragile resolution brought about by the War of 1861. Lincoln's initial goal was to maintain the Union. It took the Abolitionist movement to alter his thinking. This was a movement lead by intellectuals in mass meetings (held in England as well) and through newspapers. The Three Branches of Government could not otherwise resolve the issue.
Zinn makes a similar argument for the Suffragette Movement to acquire the vote for women, the Labor movements of the 1870s/80s and the 1930s; the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s; and the protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s. All of these were mass activist protests organised and lead by highly educated people. My point is they all brought about radical change in our traditions, history, and the way we think.
The one glaring exception to my mind is the failure of the protests against the GWB/Blair war with Iraq. People marched but the protest fizzled here amidst a barrage of media patriotism, the outrage of 9/11, and possibly the apathy which was an unintended consequence of an all volunteer armed force. We now have a populist movement of the Tea Party which vents it's anger at both political parties and is somewhat of a street movement for change but seems to be in disaray at the moment.
We also were an island protected by Oceans against land invasions although a weak world player while the great nations of Europe were in contention. Mostly during that time we expanded westward to the Pacific to build an internal empire at the expense of Mexico and Spain while your nation was building an external empire. We first emerged as an external Colonial Power with the war against Spain.
We have a class system not so salient as yours but a force to be reckoned nevertheless. There are countless examples. The most obvious in the 2008 election was "Joe the Plumber." Class plays a role in our politics.
Why is it, I wonder, that we have a history of bottom up populist movements that have changed our culture and you in the UK do not? Is it because your class differences are so much more formalized that intellectuals would not lead a protest by the majority classes? I think that is what you suggest. Or does your Parliament achieve so much as to keep all classes content? Or do you mean by negative freedom that in large measure your govt does little and leaves the people alone?
Curious Yank here. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
