I have been slow to come back to this thread. Partly it is because I think what I say will be easily misunderstood; but that is, in itself, an illustration of what my questions are about, I suppose. And so I will press on. I do wish to emphasise that I am not posting any of this in order "bash" America: I speak out of my own political conventions and it is genuinely hard to find a common platform for discussion. Someone else in another thread mentioned the shorthand we all use: and by this I mean the extent to which one can infer a person holds certain other ideas on the basis of where they stand on one or two you are overtly discussing. This has happened to me more than once on this forum and I have found myself surprised, and on some occasions a little angry: and so I assume it happens to other people (though perhaps less so if I am correct in attributing this to a radically different political and social landscape: by virtue of the fact that there are many more americans here and they presumably share assumptions of that sort). Such problems are very likely to arise in this kind of discussion, and especially at a time when the election is dominating debate.
Having read what US said it seemed to me that he thinks there are people who honestly believe there are significant numbers of people who would fall into the category of what I would call "traitors": that is people who would actively work to further the aims of a foreign power to the detriment of the nation.
In the uk we have of course had experience of treachery, and sometimes the traitors have been quite powerful people: so the idea is not ridiculous. There were famous examples such as Anthony Blunt and others of his colleagues who were genuinely convinced that russian communism was the future and who worked for the soviets to try to bring that system to the uk. I assume there are such examples in the US as well: and there is no doubt that this can do damage to a nation if it is undetected.
Despite this clear example the people in this country have not taken that as an ever present danger: it is treated as the aberration of a small group of people who were in a particular place and time. I do not detect any feeling that they posed a big threat to our society nor even that their position was unacceptable in terms of the content of their ideology: the "wrongness" is more located in the underhandedness and it is portrayed as largely individual failings. Now it is clear from cases like David Shayler and Peter Wright that the security forces in this country are very far from the views of the mainstream: from my point of view it is clear they are paranoid lunatics and this is view which is quite widespread. Most people seem to think of them like that but yet accept that is a price we have to pay and so give rather uneasy support to those institutions.
Some of us, who believe strongly in civil liberties, are deeply worried because the voice of those lunatics is getting louder and their rhetoric is being used to undermine our freedoms in the name of the war against terror. I think I see similar concerns amongst some of the american posters here, and it is a question as to what will put a floor under this spiral. The security people are of course always influential, especially in the uk where so much of what they do and say is secret: they have the ear of politicians and there is not enough in the way of counter voices. And because of the closed nature of their world and their necessary focus on the possibility of conspiracies they are almost bound to go quite mad. We do well to remember that IMO. This also applies to politicians who are in that circle: and at times when one's closest allies are in the grip of one of those fits of paranoia it grows readily.
But ordinary people do not buy this here: not yet at least. You cannot stand on a political platform in Britain and accuse your opponent of working for a foreign power: it just does not take, and a politician who does this will be written off. If US is correct that is not true in the united states. There at least some of the people will not laugh at such a notion.
I understand that Michelle Bachmann has lost support following the video release which is the subject of another thread. For me that would mean that there is no danger from such people, since they are clearly seen as lunatics there as well as here: yet there seems to be real concern about their influence and I am obviously not getting the whole picture because if it was as I said then she would not have said these things in the first place.
I am inclined to the view that this is largely empty barrel syndrome and that the ordinary American people are no more tempted by these folk than brits are: yet intelligent people here are truly concerned, and there is also the possibility that the Unites States is just further down that road than we are. We have certainly travelled far further than I like and the way is open before us.
One of the thing which struck me about that video was the ease with which Ms Bachmann conflated America with Business. I recognise that move and again we have been moving in that direction too, for a long time. I characterise that as "Americanisation" of our society, but I mean no offence by that: it is shorthand for a change which has been quite consciously adopted by our last few governments. I completely understand why a "pro american" stance is in our interests in international affairs: but I do not understand why adopting social views and institutions of that country is. And I see no need for it. There is a lot of resistance to that aspect even now: and I am often tripped up by that part in particular. I have come to realise that discussing social issues with americans is apt to turn into a dialogue of the deaf and I cannot over emphasise how odd it is to uk ears to hear the national health service described as "socialised medicine" I suppose it is: but here we call it common sense
Which brings me to what US said about the parallel characterisation of the right wing there and here, and to Darth Rotor's post. US is talking about a view of the right as people whose loyalty is to business rather than to the nation. This is a stark line to draw and it is not one which can be put in quite that way here because politics and business are not really on the same spectrum in quite this sense. This is hard to outline because we have a political spectrum which ( more narrowly than I like now) is related to economics and which runs from left to right, with one extreme being for full nationalisation: the other being in favour of the wholly free market: and most of us sitting in the middle somewhere. The problem is that that spectrum does not touch the question of patriotism at all. The idea is just bizarre.
As I read Darth Rotor's post it seems to me that he is talking about economic protectionism v free trade and this is a familiar concept. What is not familiar is to see it as a question of subordinating the national interest in the way he describes. Darth said
A less evocative way to express that is "who will subordinate American interests to that of others" since not all issues involve trade and labor, economy, and such.
and he rather testily ( I thought) described the way I framed my question as "idiot speak". Maybe it is. I am finding it quite hard to understand what he is talking about and I can only ask you, Darth, to accept that at face value.
When you say "subordinate American interests to that of others" what do you mean? Are you really saying that there are Americans who would see that what they proposed to do would damage your country: who would see that those same actions would benefit others (either a foreign power or a corporate group): and who would in full knowledge of those facts take those actions? That is what I am asking. And it seems utterly strange to me if you can say yes to that question. I honestly cannot see the substantive difference between what you say is a more intelligent way to put it and the way I framed it. It is likely that we both have hidden assumptions which are confusing our communication, but at present I am unable to identify them. You talk about "selling out america" and about "treason" and in the way you describe these things it looks like a distinction without a difference to me., particularly since you specifically say it is about more then economics etc. You seem to say your way of life is under threat and that is what treason is about, surely?
For me the question is resolved because of the political spectrum I judge things against. Culture and way of life are separate from economics. Prosperity is of course important in allowing choices of that sort to be made: but I can oppose economic policies which seem to me to undermine the kind of society I want to see without having to believe my opposition are "subordinating the uk's interest to that of others": It is quite clear that they are wrong headedly wedded to economic views which will have the unintended consequence of ruining those things I value: but I do not think that is what they mean to do, and when those consequences follow I think they will be as appalled as I am. And they think the same of my side, I honestly believe.
And this is important because I think there are ways to persuade and to demonstrate that they are wrong. Not easily, because there are always ways to explain important facts and outcomes away: and not without pain. We are in an era where a particular view is very very ascendant and has been for a long time: and the voices of opposition are weaker than they should be so we will suffer one of our periodic disasters I think. But this is not because anyone is anti-british in any meaningful sense at all.
I am not sure if this has helped to make things clearer or whether it has rather confused things even more: there are too many threads for one post probably. But hey ho, that is what I do. I would welcome any further comment if anyone can be bothered
No worries if you can't, though
