A debate at Alarming News has sparked a number of thoughts that I have hastily garbled here…
In the UK we have a rough-and-tumble adversarial system of government and a lively, varied and sometimes vicious media. But in recent years, at home and around the dinner table, our political differences rarely provoke heated partisan debate. (I’m not talking here about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq—I’m talking Labour versus Tory.)
Meanwhile, in the US, where the media often gives politicians an easy ride and where politicians seem to treat each other with far too much respect, the dinner party can be a dangerous place to express your views. Does the one thing have anything to do with the other?
In Britain we have a saying that goes something like this:
Rugby is a game played by hooligans and watched by gentlemen, while football is a game played by gentlemen and watched by hooligans.
(Although the photo goes some way towards disproving this theory, I know.)
Does this translate into politics? Are UK politicians the hooligans and electors the gents? And vice versa in the US? Because it seems to me that Americans take their “living room” politics a lot more seriously than we Brits. I can remember over the years barely a couple of times in my life in England when the atmosphere has deteriorated rapidly because of a good or a bad word said about the Labour or Conservative Party. But in New York it seems to be par for the course.
I have a tendency to play the devil’s advocate at times, especially with a beer in hand. I remember not long after arriving in New York suggesting to a couple of people I had just met that perhaps George Bush was not the evil moron we were all led to believe. They soon excused themselves from the conversation. Likewise, suggesting any kind of criticism of one or other US party often leads to an instantaneous shift into defensive mode of the “with us or against us” variety.
I suspect that one of the main reasons for this difference is the closeness of the past two presidential campaigns and the fact that America has been through a tremendous change since September 11. I also suspect that with Labour firmly ensconced in power since 1997, many Labour supporters are more critical of their own party than the Tories. After all, if the Conservatives can’t challenge Labour somebody has to—and why shouldn’t that someone be a person who cares most about where their party is headed.
I know this is a little jumbled. But I had to get it out there. So that I could get on with the day.
Very interesting post . . . and indicative of why you’re in my favorites tab on my web browser. Intelligent thought and consideration about the issues are sorely lacking in political blogs these days.
As an American, my first reaction is that it is our politicians who have turned from gentlemen (and women) into hooligans over the past few years, precisely because of the sharp divisiveness present in today’s political discourse. One is no longer supportive of an idea, seemingly, but in opposition to all conflicting ideas. If the idea is identified with the left or right, then one is grouped with the respective side immediately. Moderates are deemed so simply because they cross a party line on any single issue, or are deemed as “obstructive”.
This kind of mindless groupthink looks an awful lot like hooliganism to me, but I can understand your side of it as relating to British politics (which I won’t even pretend to comprehend enough to discuss the point here).
What’s really interesting to me is the seeming erasure of the left/right line in this country and its replacement with the Bush/anti-Bush line. The way I see it, whether he’s right or wrong, Bush is a strong, willfull leader — just the sort that can guide a unified nation through a trying time such as the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, depending on who you ask, our nation is either a) not unified against terrorism or b) trapped in a made-up war with nothing to be unified against, as Bush is the one causing the problem.
It’s true that terrorism is not the Axis powers in World War Two — it’s not even the cold war. It’s a different kind of threat (or lack thereof, depending again on who you ask), and Bush may or may not be handling it correctly. History will tell.
My personal take is that Bush is not an evil moron, but that his rigidity coupled with a majority Congress can provide other evil morons with opportunities to be both evil and moronic. We’re seeing it the cases of Delay, Cheney, and Rove, but we’re also getting it from the divisive spitefulness of several leading Democrats.
Perhaps our upcoming Congressional and Presidential elections should be decided by Rugby games. I’d pay to see that.
i left you one at an, too, EINY, but basically i like your thoughtfulness. that’s what i do with my jumbly thoughts, too, especially when i’ve seen something as disturbing as humans who hate each other recklessly. it has to come out somewhere — and there’s something intriguing, if a little self-hating, about doing it in a space where people will come along and check your thoughts/feelings against the greater universe.
and it’s nice to know somebody got it.
Spiteful Democrats? Really? How about all the spiteful Republicans during Clinton’s last term? Bush isn’t divisive at all, he’s quite pigheaded and not adaptive to the situations in front of him.
Before the last election I was asked by the owner of the pizza place below my office, “Why would you support Kerry? We’re on a ship in the middle of an ocean, do you want to switch captains?” My response was. “I most certainly do if the ship is headed straight for an huge iceburg, but the captain doesn’t want to change course!”
Because it seems to me that Americans take their “living room†politics a lot more seriously than we Brits.
Could the fact that the USA is a lot more democratic than Britian make a difference?
In the USA, they have town meetings, a whole stack of layers of government with actual powers (county, state, fed), elected sheriffs, DAs and mayors which all encourage citizen participation.
In Britain, we have district and county councils which don’t really have any powers other than what central government tells them to do. Even central government is dictated to by an unelected bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels. All that’s left to discuss is trivialities about whether the Tory brand of middle of the road or the Labour brand should be in charge of what’s left.
This is hillarious! And so true. I often feel like Americans turn into hungry wolves when we discuss politics. Something happens to us - we howl, we foam at the mouth, we hiss and strike. So much so that my grandmother set a rule in her house - no politics (where democrats and republicans often collided). And I’m considering doing the same
Now, I didn’t know it could be otherwise. I’ll have to travel off to England and other exotic locals in order to sit down, have a cup of tea, and discuss such matters in a civilized manner. Wow!
Michael, flattery will get you everywhere.
Candy, thank you.
Dennis, what if the second captain was even worse than the first?
Mark, that’s a damn good point. In Britain our vote seems to make very little difference. We don’t even vote for our MP as much as the party we want to be in power. What if my Conservative MP was the best man for the job in my constituency but I wanted Laboour to run the government?
And Alison. Reasoned debate in Britain has certain limits. If you traveled to England I’m afraid you would find that America and Americans are rarely discussed reasonably…
Then we’re all doomed either way.
Aha, Dennis. So now you are coming around to my way of thinking!
Did I ever mention that I wanted to write a novel? I was going to call it “The Inevitability of Death.”
Pavlik, I think by raising hooliganism and political debate in the same breath, you raise an interesting point. I can’t comment on American political mores; I know nothing about them. But I think what you say about political debate in England rarely getting heated is not because we are fantastically mature on this front and can discuss things calmly and fairly. I think the English are actually hopeless at disagreeing with each other - however politely - and this is why these conversations perhaps never take off in the first place. Cue hooliganism and, stretching the point a long way, but allow me licence, I think this is a result of aforementioned English inability to disagree nicely so you get groups of men who dare to disagree on which football team is best, say, who drink themselves disagreeable and then have a good old punch-up. It’s debate at another level. I don’t mean to lampoon England and its debate totally. The parliament is a good example of proper, civilised and, often, no-holds-barred debate and it’s all the better for that (and fantastic theatre). If I can add a Euro-angle, I think what our continental cousins can show us a thing or two about is debate at the (dinner-)party level; you can have a good old heated debate and disagree till the cows come home but there won’t generally be any hard feelings or personal offence taken. Maybe we Brits and Americans do have a version of politeness in our culture which is too fragile to be exposed to bruising debate.
And don’t get morose with that novel of yours. I hope it’s subheading will be, “…but, bearing that in mind, how can we make life bloody nice for the three-score-years-and-ten that we are here?”
PS. I think rugby is played and watched by gentlemen and football is played and watched by hooligans, but what do I know?
Dennis, you miss my point, although you bring up a good one too. Of course the Republicans were ridiculously divisive and spiteful during the Clinton era. My point is that Clinton’s era will be remembered more for Lewinsky than any policies he enacted, and therefore he was not as strong a focal point of divisiveness in the country. Bush will be remembered for Iraq, and his rigidity has ensured a sharpening of the divisiveness in this country beyond that of any other recent leader, for good and for bad (probably mostly for bad).
And I hated the argument that I shouldn’t vote for Kerry because we were in the middle of a war — but, as pointed out by Mr. Berger, I wasn’t convinced he’d be a better captain. I don’t like much of what Bush has done, but voting for someone else I don’t like just to avoid voting for him is the very kind of reactionary politics I see as the problem.
We need a leader that appeals to both sides and can listen to all sides of an issue, not just Rove’s, and who has never done anything the hypemongers can run with. Unfortunately, that excludes humans.
Anybody read the last couple chapters of “I, Robot” recently?
Yikes. I think I’m ready to order an advance copy of “The Inevitability of Death”. Of course, if things continue to get worse, a title like that will make it sound like a “feel-good” novel!
It’s funny, I really remember Clinton more for strengthening of environmental requlations and concern for the general wellbeing of Americans and people beyond our borders. I also remember him for trying to avert another problem in the Balkens by putting a stop to the situation in Kosovo.
I have a few friends from Serbia and Macedonia who think what he did with NATO was a terrible thing. Honestly, I believe he thought he was doing the right thing. With Bush, I get this feeling there is always some sick agenda behind everything he does.
I actually voted for Bush in 2000 thinking he’d be more like his father. The minute he started destroying all the work Clinton did on the environment, my opinion about him changed completely.
Bush is more a corporatist than a traditional conservative.
“The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power”
–Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy
I’ll remember Bush more for his support of Torture and destruction of freedom and life than anything else.
Sure.. Kerry was a total douchebag, but I’d rather would have given him a chance than let Bush continue making a mess of things.
The problem is we need a leader period!
Paul– Yes, discussing politics in the US really does open a can of worms (or Pandora’s box).
I believe there is a bit of hooligan in every gentleman. It’s fuzzy logic, more gentleman and less hooligan is more or less desirable by some.
Well, I’m not going to try to convince you of anything different, believe me. I respect your opinion.
Besides, if we start arguing here, EINY is likely to accuse us of being hooligans!
=+)
http://y.wimp.com/v/presidential.wmv
Enjoy!
[...] Busy day, so no time for posting. Could I suggest a peek at some interesting conversations going on in the comments sections here and here. [...]
Perhaps then, everyone is civilized, until it comes to discussing American politics and culture? It’s funny, I used to hate my country until I lived overseas and discovered that I’m actually just a misanthrope. Everyone is horrible! And not just Americans!
I understand how you feel, alison. I lived in Germany for a year and was constantly surprised by the similarities in thought and and conflict. How do you address the problems of humanity as a whole while respecting the boundaries of country and culture, and especially when everyone, yourself included, is screwed up?
When I was but a lad, I always loved the idea of space travel and was enchanted by Arthur C. Clarke’s idea that space exploration could become “the moral equivalent of war” — the somewhat naive concept that if all countries could focus their attentions outward, where there are limitless boundaries, territory, and resources, war would disappear. It’s a nice thought, but people will always be people, and people really do have a lot of potential to constantly do the wrong thing, whether it’s cutting in front of somebody on the freeway or dropping bombs. The older, more cynical person I have become is still enchanted by the idea of space travel but firmly convinced that war is not fought over resources or territory but because people fight wars, period.
Still, it’s a nice idea. Who knows, given different circumstances, it might be worth a try . . . just so long as everyone understands that the U.S. has dibs on the Moon, so hands off!
=+O