|
Zonie63 -> RE: Those awful far-right groups (2/11/2015 5:24:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I'm using a mobile, and with it being tricky to edit bits of posts I can't really quote your best as I'd on forever. This is the best I can do, Zonie.
We have Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair to think of in terms of war. Thatcher undoubtedly right wing; Blair arguably left wing. I personally will always maintain that Blair is left wing, but because the left had become almost unelectable he disguised his ultimate goals in centre ground politics.
Thatcher's venture into the Falklands Islands smacked of a certain amount of jingoism. Whereas Blair truly believed we were in Iraq to help people. Neither are good enough motives in my opinion, and Blair knew this so included forged documents in his dossier and by passed Parliament. Tony Blair was actually a very good Prime Minister, easily the best in my lifetime, the shame being that he is remembered for Iraq and he should have been remembered in a far better light. Most don't have any sympathy with a man who displayed wanton abandon for the people he was supposed to be serving, regardless of his crusade motives.
In America, I think the right-wing supporters of the Iraqi invasion were also of the belief that we were there to help people. The right-wing typically plays the "damsel-in-distress" card, and in this case, the atrocities and threat of Saddam Hussein's regime was at center stage. Their arguments carried the general implication that those who were against military action in Iraq were leaving poor innocent women and children to be tortured and slaughtered by the evil tyrant.
For much of my life, I've observed that that's how right-wingers often operate and how they often portray the geopolitical situation (and often apply it to domestic politics as well), like it's some kind of comic book drama of fantastic superheroes and evil arch-villains who can't be negotiated with, are thoroughly irredeemable, treacherous - just as most fictional villains are portrayed in popular culture. They look at deeply complex global situations and come up with very simplistic, one-dimensional perspectives on what's going on in this world and what our role is in it. Reagan managed to sum up 1000 years of Russian history in two words: Evil Empire.
Those on the left might typically try to scratch the surface and probe deeper, as they tend to reject the "good guys vs. bad guys" dime novel approach to world politics.
quote:
I could be wrong here, but I seem to recall one of your politicians standing up in the '70s and attempting to persuade his peers that the people of the United States have a duty to help other people, I think his name was Alexander someone. Commentators over here trace the rise of Neo-Liberalism to around that time, but clearly they only know so much of the US system but could be wide of the mark.
As far as politicians in the 70s, I'm not sure I can recall anyone named Alexander offhand. I'll try to jog my memory a bit. Still, there have been plenty of liberal politicians who believe that we have a duty to help other people. When it's done in the form of some kind of foreign aid package, it usually comes with strings attached - a practice sometimes referred to as "dollar diplomacy" which even conservatives might support on occasion.
I do see how the 1970s might be marked as the time when neo-liberalism started to rise, although I think Jimmy Carter might have been more representative of the old guard liberals from the FDR-Truman era. Conservatives also changed from being stalwart isolationists into rabid interventionists. The Democrats and the liberal faction were clearly losing hold by the 1980s, as the Presidential elections of 1980, '84, and '88 had the Democrats on the losing end of the stick. Somehow, Clinton was able to reverse that trend in '92, with a little help from Ross Perot. I was more in the Jerry Brown camp myself at that time, and some liberals seemed to view Clinton as a conservative in sheep's clothing.
quote:
I've read some people on here say the United States can't win. When they're not involved others are asking why, and when they are involved they're the Great Satan. I think there is some truth in this, and sometimes people are looking for an angle to cause an argument.
Within the US, I've noticed that whenever any discussion related to foreign policy comes up, it operates under the assumption that the United States of America is not just one of hundreds of nations in this world doing its best to survive and get by; the implied assumption is that we are the world's "superpower" and that we have some sort of higher purpose and greater responsibility in this world that no other nation (past or present) could ever possibly imagine. Just like our comic book heroes, we're involved in some monumental life-or-death struggle with great "evil" in the world that we simply can't give up the fight.
I often get the sense that there is some merit to the criticisms from the outside world. It would be one thing to simply condemn us as imperialistic power which bullies and intimidates other nations into submission. But that we also add all this rhetoric and the belief that "we are doing good in the world" and only "helping people" carries such an air of hypocrisy and duplicity that it might multiply the rage directed against us.
quote:
They're not perfect, but then who is? Any country in the world could have the bones picked over it and there will be skeletons to be found, I suppose it's a question of degree and I would say the United States' record compares pretty well.
I suppose it can be said that we might be somewhat more "enlightened" and not so aggressively murderous as some regimes out there. Of course, that makes us far from innocent, and I've always been somewhat reluctant to get into moral relativism anyway. Just as with every election, we often have to choose the lesser of two evils, but there still might be some room for improvement.
quote:
Perhaps the difference with England is that WW1 near bankrupted the country and whole villages of men were wiped out in Pals battalions. I'm aware that there was a high casualty rate in the US civil war but perhaps not as destructive as WW1.
That may be so. Another difference is that we didn't have to repeat the exercise later on.
quote:
When you talk of US history, I'm not sure how many people are aware that when black American soldiers were stationed here in WW2, their memoirs include comments such as: "for the first time in my life I was treated as an equal and felt free". The US authorities, aided by the British authorities who did not want to upset a powerful ally, attempted to prevent black American soldiers from mixing with locals. It didn't work. Many English women went out with black US soldiers to the horror of white American soldiers, many English attempted to stop the arbitrary beatings being dished out, and there were regular fights between groups of white American soldiers and black American soldiers with the locals always siding with the black Americans and giving them a hand. There was no problem with black Americans having a beer in English pubs, but the US authorities closed them down where they could. These are the things that make me proud to be an Englishman, but in my view it doesn't characterise the US. One swallow doesn't make a summer.
Interesting. I must admit that I haven't studied this aspect of the war as closely, although I would be interested in knowing if the attitudes of white American soldiers were all the same across the board. One thing that strikes me is that, during our history here in the U.S., we've always had significant numbers of blacks and Native Americans living here, in addition to the whites, while in Europe, it seems that their experience is only limited to the post-WW2 era. I would also compare the historical attitudes and overtly racist policies supported by English settlers in places like South Africa, former Rhodesia, and even Australia up until about 30-40 years ago.
I'm not saying that to slam anyone, as we have our own history here in America, although I think that many of us have tried to come to terms with it and support policies related to civil rights, equality, justice, and to treat people fairly regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, orientation, disability, etc. (just as the English and those elsewhere in the Anglosphere have gone through similar changes).
Most people seem to go along with it, both left and right, although it seems that lately, there have been more and more who believe that, when it comes to treating people fairly and equally, we should make an exception for Muslims.
quote:
In terms of how England and the US are viewed by others, most see us as a half-way house between Europe and the United States. I think politically this rings true. The reason why our countries have been durable allies is because our governments usually arrive at the same conclusion.
That may also be due to having a common language and both countries being relatively open, favoring unimpeded flow of information and lines of communication. We mostly listen to the same music, read the same books, watch the same movies/TV shows - with the same shades of difference one might find within a country. You have your conservatives and liberals, just as we do; and we both have a modicum of extremists at both ends of the spectrum - with neither having much pull to make any appreciable difference in the overall politics of either country.
quote:
Outside of politics, the views of Americans living in England is that we're very different people. Just about all of the comments I've read have been complimentary, but also that while they expected differences they didn't realise to what extent.
Sure, there are plenty of differences, and no doubt that there are plenty of differences which exist within each country which can be hard to discern.
quote:
I think the English are a very unique people, with marked differences to even our neighbours in Scotland and Wales, and anyone around the world who can't see that and believe we are the same ad the Americans, isn't looking very hard. That's not to say there's any derogatory view of the US in this as they have their own history to be proud of.
Well, they might see the differences, but that may be hard to discern. I remember working with someone who came from Sudan, and we were driving somewhere and had something on the radio. She remarked that what is called "Country Music" in America seemed quite similar to what is generally referred to as "Classic Rock." I explained what little I knew about the differences, and I can usually tell the difference between a Country song and a Rock song, but to her, they sounded pretty much the same.
Likewise, I can say that I've been places like Texas, New York, and California, and I would say that they are very different states from each other. Yet to someone outside of America, they may not notice much of a difference at all.
|
|
|
|
