Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AlohaDawg]

Slink, for instance:

In a few political and ideological threads, we've touched on differences between the UK and the US (and a little of Canada as well) and particularly the nature of faith, values, and where traditional values meet governing principles.

 Here is an interesting post from John Derbyshire, who is a contributor to National Review (admittedly conservative) and who also writes books about math.

I'm interested in your response:

HOME IMPROVEMENT [John Derbyshire]
The following is rather long (sorry, Kathryn) but it says very elegantly and accurately what many of us ex-Brits feel:

 "Hi John, I'm a Brit who has settled in the United States (Los Angeles no less!). I read your article “Afterthoughts” with great interest. I am a member of the Conservative Party in the UK and have been for 15 years... and your line: 'I do fear that this country might be made unfit to live in, as the country of my birth has been, by a misguided and corrupt humanitarianism, sentimental wallowing in past wrongs both real and imagined, and class and race resentment petted and nurtured by opportunistic tax-eaters' struck a chord. The ills in Britain are far deeper and more profound than many people realize. Britain seems to have entered, some time in the mid-1960s, a period of social and moral decline that has continued unchecked by Thatcherism, New Labour, entry to the European Union and any other political development. It really is a country unfit to live in or raise children in, which is why the birthrate is so low, the population is ageing so fast, and so many people feel that their generation should not create the next one.

The contrast between America and Britain could be best illustrated in a conversation I had with some Brit friends who I met up with recently. We were discussing the upcoming presidential campaign and the political issues of the day. They were mystified that abortion was in any way a political or moral issue. hadn't that argument been resolved long ago, and wasn't abortion OK? They were fatalistic as to the deeper meaning of a declining and ageing population (“but what can be done about it?”) And they were largely dismissive of the effect of Christianity on America, as if Christianity were some kind of social mistake or aberration that Europe had thrown off but America still laboured under.

Whom do I blame? Well I would start with the Anglican Church which has since the mid-20th century shown nothing but cowardice in the face of shrill atheism, feminism and liberalism. In trying to retain its membership, it has compromised its principles and now it has lost both….

The Conservative Party also has to take a considerable blame. It has abandoned most of its Judeo-Christian roots and is trying to build an ideology anew based on... well its not quite sure, which is why its agenda is a ragbag collection of populist policies and vague promises to cut taxes. Compared to the Republican party, which bases its agenda in American Judeo-Christian values and builds its policies up from that base, the Conservatives have no foundation, no moral compass from which to operate. The Labour party has a moral compass in its Socialist roots, and even though this is a deeply flawed base, at least it has one which is recognizable to the electorate.

Quite simply, America is a better country.

Amen to that. I know very well that I could not now live happily in Britain, though I maintain a sentimental attachment to the Ould Sod.

As to the very interesting question of why similar social forces have had a much less destructive effect in the US than in Britain, when after all the two are "cousin" nations: I personally believe that it has been the different attitudes to authority in the two places. The old class deference was still strong in England when I was a lad, and the upper classes -- and to some extent the middle classes, too -- were expected to set a good example to their inferiors. The story's more complicated than that -- there was for example much more cynicism than that tells -- but deference to authority was real and strong. Americans, by contrast, were always more self-reliant & dismissive of social ranks & privileges. We take our cues not from rank or "place," but from inner resources, spiritual and otherwise. Thus when, in the 1960s, the upper classes abandoned their claims to authority both here and there -- abdicated, in effect -- the effect was more devastating in Britain.

[slink]

OK, that is a pretty interesting read, and I shall make a comment now, and come back once I have thought about it more, as I am still fairly waking up...

It is certainly true that I consider this country to be in a decline, and do seek to emigrate at some point in the future (probably to Canada, thought not just for idealogical reasons). It is true that religious values do not effect politics so much here, but I see that as a good thing. I know it means there is no fundamental moral basis for the politics here, or at least, as mentioned, for the Tories, but it does at least mean that fundamentalism is not part of politics. This is something that deeply scares me about the US and politics, and especially when looking at the current administration.
Like I said over in the abortion thread, yes, in the UK it is just not an issue. It was sorted out long ago.
Blair is quite probably christian (I cannot remember and only assume that to be the case), but it bears no relation on his political life it seems. Labour may have roots in socialism, but unfortunately, they have been sliding more and more right-wing (essentially behaving like Conservatives of old - privatisation is rife - NOT to the benefit of the nation), while the Tories appear to be just countering ANYTHING the Labour Party say. The Tories are no longer talking of themselves as a party representing the upper classes, as the lawyer and his party have been doing, but are trying to latch onto the younger voters. Thing is, no one cares about the Tories.
7% of our nation think Michael Howard is a suitable leader.

But indeed, the social decline is affecting the country deeply. Every city you go to, has it's own subsets, it's own cliques. The most unfortunate of which being the massively uneducated - essentially the rednecks of this country. They breed and breed, and work menial jobs, and drink copiously, causing trouble for most anybody else. Be they called Chavas, Townies, Neds... They are best avoided by anyone remotely different (not wearing a tracksuit and cap and trainers). These are the same types of  people who become football rioters in Milwall say.

I think, regarding the falling birth rate, there is the issue that this is a relatively small country. It is nearly impossible now (and one of the reasons I want to move, having grown up in Scotland and experienced such a thing when I was younger) to find untouched land here. Even if it''s green and rolling, you will see fields and walls and fences, if not houses. There is simply not enough space for everybody here, and with the NHS beginning to show real signs of stress, not helped by the aging average of the population it is only showing itself to worsen.

Add to this the gradual Americanisation of our country, chiefly in rising gun crime from the black and asian street youth scenes, it is getting harder and harder to run the country (in law, policing and governance) the way we are used to it.
The one way out I see, is to go along with the EU. Go along with the EU constitution (as without accountability to the EU I no longer trust our government), use the Euro (as our currency may be fairly stable, but I feel trade would work out a whole lot better if we resigned finally), and have the backup of the EU human rights courts (which we still technically, are not answerable to). Problem is, the majority of our population are uneducated enough to make these decisions, and are stiffly patriotic to the union jack. We have recently passed a law (I think it went through) saying that no member of the BNP (British Nationalist Party - or buch of fascists who regularly burn down asian run shops and are a high percentage of football rioters &c.) cannot work in the civil service.

Anyway, long post, and these are my initial thoughts that it brought up. Moreso a kind of, more information on the UK currently post.

I shall consider it throughout the day and post later though.

[AlohaDawg]

Interesting. I thought a telling point the letter made was that without a basis for law/policy there is a 'ragbag' of policies. I disagree that 'fundamentalism' is the problem here or elsewhere.  The word 'fundamental' means 'referring to the foundation' and a basis and framework of values from which to derive and develop the foundation of government is important. Otherwise, what consistency would exist?

I think that the foundation for governance reflects two important issues:

1) From whence is derived the authority to govern, and

2) On what framework is hung the laws that govern behavior, pre- or pro-scriptively

These are two things most people have to agree on in a democracy or more correctly, a representative republic in order to have,

In the US I think that the majority of people still believe that these are derived from a divine authority and granted to the people through their free will and consciousness of their responsibility to both the people being governed and, personally, to God.

The responsibility to God is supposed, I think, to keep people from abusing their authority.

The responsibility to the people is supposed, I think, to ensure that that their best interests are served.

I guess my point is that as long as a majority of people believe in similar standards for behavior, things work fairly well. Once a nation moves toward secular humanism in general governance becomes far more complicated because now there exists a panoply of disparate views about the derivation of authority to govern as well as what makes good governance. I think that much of Europe is finding governing everyone in the way they each want to be governed to be a great challenge.

There are those who believe that religion is 'mind control' or groupthink. I disagree with the notion that people with a strong sense of values are somehow controlled. People with strong religious values control themselves, using their values as a guide and also, importantly, understand that there is a higher power and that their faith in it is real, alive, rewarded and rewarding. And, ultimately, justifying. I think that most of this (with the possible exception of justification) is applicable to a lot of different world belief systems.

I don't think that 'fundamentalism' or 'religion' is a or the problem.

I think that traditional values, on which governments were based, have eroded or changed in the population over time and only a few options exist: reframing the government to reflect majority values (difficult), reframing the government without applying values (impossible), or somehow (unlikely) reinstilling the original values in the population.

None of these sounds very possible to me in terms of America.

Finally, I have to take minor offense at your characterization of rising crime as evidence of the 'Americanization' of your country. Certainly it's evidence of moral/social decline but it's not really a fair way to describe it. It sounds to me like you have a segment of the population without sufficient opportunities, guidance, or dare I say, regulation/punishment. Crime is not an American export; nor are the ethnic youths you mention. All of Europe is having significant problems with crime and especially crime related to immigrant populations; certainly the US isn't responsible for either the immigration polices of Europe or the behavior of those who immigrate.

[slink]

I guess my point is that as long as a majority of people believe in similar standards for behavior, things work fairly well. Once a nation moves toward secular humanism in general governance becomes far more complicated because now there exists a panoply of disparate views about the derivation of authority to govern as well as what makes good governance.

I think the issue here is that in the UK, and I'm not sure about this, but christianity may not be a fair representation of the populations religion here. We are a small nation, yet have had a LOT of immigrants. Birmingham, Bristol, Leicester and some suburbs of London in particular probably have a majority of Indian and Pakistani immigrants. I know that the core beliefs of christianity are a good thing, and thus to have as the tenets (excuse my spelling, I am tre tired!) of government aren't a bad thing, but I think it has strongly affected things.
Also, I know from a lot of Brits visiting America, or having American friends, that it is not so common for people to be openly atheist in America. Here, it's such an everyday occurrence. No one bats an eyelid if you are openly atheist or nontheist. I think this may have a lot to do with the fact that religion is kept quite seperate from government, which is part of the US constitution (not quite sure if it's in the constitution - but seperation of church and state isn't quite that simple in US politics it seems! - the abortion issue being a prime example).

To address the Americanisation issue - I did NOT mean that we have gun crime because of America. Please, don't think I was meaning that in an 'American is bad and corrupting us' way. It came out wrong I know that. I just meant, the street youth scenes that gun crime is rising in, are the scenes which have been heavily influenced by hip-hop. I just meant it in a cultural way. I mean, before that most gun crime in the Uk was the Yardies in London, but I don't blame Jamaica for that, merely the people IN London. I just think that, without the blase attitude that some US culture and media have, it has given a negative-positive influence on the burgeoning music/street scenes over here. I do feel that if hip-hop wasn't so focused on guns and bling and bitches, then the asian and black hip-hop and garage scenes over here wouldn't have gone the same way. I think this particular set of crime, which is being discussed as a big issue of late here, is less to do with immigration. It is a subculture of people who were born in this country. They are British citizens, not immigrants, and they are killing each other for the same reasons as happens in the US, in the hiphop street cultures. OK, there are other crimes happening, but few involving handguns (or any other kind of gun), thanks to our laws against them.
That said, I am just about the last person who thinks that hip-hop should be censored, regardless of how much I disagree with the demoralisation of women, hatred of gays and the seemingly glorified murder.

Back to the cultural divides here briefly...
I went to Birmingham to visit a close friend of mine a couple of times, (who is asian-british) and I was happy to see that, everywhere I looked there were people of all backgrounds. I live in the middle of nowhere, and there was one black kid at my school. Then one asian kid arrived (offspring of the family who ran the asian restauraunt in town), and that was it. Now there are a few black families, some chinese and some asian, but it is still one of the least diverse populations I have seen, and so to go somewhere with such diversity was incredibly refreshing. And yet there is this very heavy divide, thanks to the BNP and it's followers. When discussion of immigration comes up in politics, it is essentially a majority saying 'NO MORE', as this country has long been where people strive to get to.
As someone who strongly believes that the world would be a better place without borders, it deeply saddens me, but well, it's never going to happen, as capitalism ensures it won't.

Basically though, as, essentially an atheist (at least politically), I feel it is wrong to base any government on one religion, when a considerable enough number may believe something other. I feel it is wrong to generalise, when the basic moral imperatives of humans should be enough. OK, many of those moral imperatives are included in say, the christian commandments, but I feel they should be a basis of governance purely because of their moral reasons, and not because of their inclusion in any one belief structures ways of thought.
Like was said in the religion thread that has started - Be nice to people, don't be a fuck, repeat. OK, there should be more than that, but essentially all legislation and governmental decisions should be based on the moral/human rights - Greed is wrong, murder is wrong, all people are equal, treat others as you would want to be treated &c.

I agree, that people with strong religious values, control themselves using their values as guidelines... I just don't think government should dictate those values, on such a broad and diverse set of cultures and religions. I feel that religion can do so seperately, and government should be a purely nontheist entity, so as to set the basic values. Unfortunately, greed, in particular, stops government doing so effectively, but I don't feel that this is any different in the US, regardless of faith in politics - the war on Iraq, not taxing relatively enough based on income (taxing for the rich really should be a lot higher) &c.

Like I say, I am very tired, but this is very interesting, and has made me think a lot more about our politics than I tend to. And like I say, if any of this sounds like I am insulting the US, I truly am not, I just may be wording things badly as my brain isn't at its best at the moment!

[AlohaDawg]

Awesome post...

First, in my opinion although the Constitution does proscribe the government from establishing a state religion, it certainly does not preclude lawmakers, judges, or leaders from applying their own values in making, upholding, or interpreting law. I imagine we expect those folks to be consistently wise in the prosecution of their duties and therefore consistent, and the most consistency comes from their core beliefs. Many such beliefs are religious in nature.

Those values, at the time of the founders, were predominantly Christian values - and I believe much the same can be said of the original intent and foundation of modern British law. As populations become less and less Christian, I think we see where breakdowns can occur. Britain's population is what, half that of the US with probably a much higher percentage of non-European immigrants. So the balance, I imagine, shifts much faster and continental Europe (Holland for instance) is currently starting to realize that they must learn how to govern in a multicultural nation.

I think that in a multi-cultural setting your belief that "basing governing tenets on any (one) religion is wrong" is a good one. However, your government and population (at least since the Roundheads and the Cavaliers stopped fighting) has been stable and in terms of values, homogenous up until the 20th century.

So the $1,000,000 question seems to be "How does a government and a population adjust to shifting values in their population while maintaining a sense of nationalism and a functional government?" I think it comes down to understanding what values people share across the population and working toward ensuring government serves and protects those values.

America is kind of different in this regard as a  young nation - older nations have a much deeper and more entrenched sense of identity steeped in much longer histories which lends itself to more xenophobia and nationalistic fervor. There are few Americans who don't have immigrant roots so to the thinking person, the we-they mentality is foolish at best...except for those of us without Immigrant ancestors, who have some rightful claims to be the "we" and would like the "they" to do a better job of compensating and righting wrongs.

[slink]

I think you definitely hit on something, in regards to America being a young nation, in regards to multi-culturalism and politics in that regard.
It reminded me of a particularly good lecture I attended at a conference earlier this year on Canadian Multi-culturalism, that Will Kymlicka gave. Fortunately, I found it online!
The Canadian Model of Diversity in a Comparative Perspective
I highly recommend it, as it was a fantastically interesting lecture, essentially claiming that the successes of Canadian cultural diversity was pure luck in timing.

The policies that Canada has adopted with respect to its various forms of ethnocultural diversity (immigrant groups, indigenous peoples, the Québécois) are broadly similar to those adopted by many other Western democracies, following the same basic trends over the past 30 years (Kymlicka 2003).
What is true, however, is that these policies are often more successful in Canada than in other countries. Policies for accommodating diversity may be similar across many Western democracies, but they have worked more smoothly in Canada, with less of a backlash, higher levels of public support (or at least public acquiescence), and higher levels of comfort and security on the part of minority groups.

...
But it’s important to remember that the multiculturalism policy in Canada was not initially intended for non-European immigrants. It was initially demanded by, and designed for, white ethnic groups – particularly, the Ukrainians, Poles, Finns, Germans, Dutch, Jews. And it was demanded under very specific conditions – namely, as a reaction to the rise of Québécois nationalism, and the political reforms adopted to accommodate it.

...
The key point here, for my purposes, is that throughout this whole period from 1963-1971 when multiculturalism was first debated and adopted, the process was driven by white ethnics. It was only much later – in the late 1970s and 1980s – that non-white immigrant groups became active players in the multiculturalism scene.
This is important, because it means that a fundamental fear that many people have about multiculturalism, particularly in Europe, simply did not arise in Canada when multiculturalism was first adopted – namely, the fear that the logic of multiculturalism requires tolerating illiberal practices brought to the country by immigrant groups.

...
I think there are three main reasons why the critics’ attempt to reframe multiculturalism as an issue of tolerating illiberal groups failed:

(a) First, the multiculturalism policy had been in place for 20 years before the issue of cultural relativism or the limits of tolerance emerged. It had become institutionally embedded, not just in a particular federal government department, but in virtually every public institution – multiculturalism had been written into the mandate of the CBC, public schools, social services, museums, and so on – not to mention its inclusion in the Constitution in 1982.  More generally, an entire generation of Canadians had grown up with this idea, become comfortable with it, and viewed it as an important part of the Canadian identity. The idea of abandoning multiculturalism, after such deep institutional embedding, was simply inconceivable. This is not just a matter of bureaucratic inertia, but also a recognition that there were reasons to adopt multiculturalism as part of a larger policy of managing ethnocultural diversity in Canada that were not captured by the critics.

(b) Second, by the time that the question arose about whether non-European immigrants would use multiculturalism to demand accommodation of illiberal practices, it was already answered in practice. After all, by 1990, when the question first arose in public debate, non-European groups had already, slowly and imperceptibly, taken their place within the larger framework of Canadian multiculturalism. Since the 1970s, visible minority ethnic organizations had begun to take a seat at the table, and so we already had a good idea about what sorts of demands they would make in the name of multiculturalism. And the reality is that no major immigrant organization had demanded the right to maintain illiberal practices. The Somalis had not demanded exemption from laws against FGM;  Pakistanis had not demanded exemption from laws against coerced marriages; and so on. If there was a danger that non-European immigrant groups would contest the basic principles of liberal-democracy in the name of multiculturalism, it would have occurred already by 1990, but it hadn’t. These groups had already proven their willingness to work within the framework of a liberal (human rights-based) multiculturalism.

(c) A third reason concerns the role of Islam. So far, I have been discussing “non-European immigrants” as a single category, all of whom are seen as potential bearers of values and traditions at odds with the values of Western liberal-democracy. But some non-European groups are seen as more of a threat to these values than others. In particular, throughout the West today, it is Muslims who are seen as most likely to be culturally and religiously committed to illiberal practices, and/or as supporters of undemocratic political movements. This is particularly the case after 9/11, but has been true for several years now (I think it probably dates back to the Islamic revolution in Iran).
   As a result, the fear that multiculturalism is a vehicle for perpetuating illiberal practices is linked to the size or proportion of Muslims. In most of Western Europe, the largest group of non-European immigrants are Muslims – up to 80 or 90% in countries like France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherlands etc. And many of these Muslim immigrants are from parts of Africa or South Asia where traditions of FGM or arranged marriages persist, or where Islamic fundamentalism is strong.  Racism and Islamaphobia combine to generate a perception of recent non-white immigrants as illiberal.
   In Canada, by contrast, Muslims are a small portion of the overall population (less than 2%), and form only a small fraction of the recent non-white immigrant groups. 90% of our recent immigrants are not Muslim. The two most visible immigrant groups in Canada are the Caribbean blacks (particularly in Toronto and Montreal), and the Chinese (particularly in Vancouver). Neither are Muslim, and neither are perceived as bringing "barbaric" or "illiberal" practices with them. There are certainly many prejudices and stereotypes about these groups, particularly against the Caribbean blacks. These include perceptions about criminality, laziness, irresponsibility, lack of intelligence, and so on. In short, old-fashioned racism (Henry 1994). But the idea that these groups have a religious or cultural commitment to offensive and illiberal practices is not particularly salient.

It is very hard to pick out any specific parts, as the whole thing is very insightful. I have a hell of a lot of respect for Kymlicka, and it only grew after this lecture, which was part of a very interesting conference on Law hosted by the Edinburgh Centre for Canadian Studies and Dept. of Law.
Well worth a read, as it also explores why the model of Canadian multi-culturalism is not effective in other nations (particularly Europe).