First Drafts - The Prospect magazine blog

10 Responses

1. Jeremy C says:

   October 26, 2007 at 11:24 am

   Those who say that Britain has declined are wrong. Those who say that Britain has not declined are wrong. Those who say that Britain has both decined and not declined are wrong. Those who say that Britain has neither declined nor not declined are wrong. There is no “Britain” and there never was. People just make these ideas up to try to make sense of the endless flow of incomprehensible events. We cannot see the future, we do not understand the past and the present is far more complicated than either. We do not begin to understand ourselves and yet we talk of the future of “nations”. Ridiculous!
2. Podnosh Blog : High Fibre Podcasting » Archive » Whose time has come? Netsquared for the UK says:

   October 26, 2007 at 2:04 pm

   [...] revolution after another to the world. Aside from the ironic instinct to hum Jeruslaem as you read that passage it sort of sums up in my mind part of the discussion that was emerging in the Newman Ams last night [...]
3. Robert C says:

   October 26, 2007 at 11:51 pm

   As a Brit who divides his time between the US and Britain, I thought the article fair and sympathetic, even though, having lived in Washington D.C for 13 years I must say I have concluded that the special relationship must be a joke made up by a wishful thinking British Establishment who didn’t know what else to do Most Americans here as, “the special what?”. It is salutary.

   My comments are, perhaps, picky:

   I quote: “The British will probably always have a stronger tendency towards conformity than their obstreperous Yankee cousins.” Excuse me! Where does Walter Russell Mead get this one? I perceive Americans to be hugely more conformist than Brits, who do have an eccentric side. The 51% of Americans who believe implicitly in the Book of Genesis is an example. The kowtowing to the Zionist lobby is another - - it is hard to have a grown-up discussion about the Middle East for fear of being labeled anti-semitic.

   His take on the American Revolution is also actually an example of American conformism- - those wicked people in London trying to tax us out of existence, liberty, freedom, blah, blah. The fact was that the leaders of the colonies wanted to expand westwards and grab more land. The British government knew this meant yet another war with France and said “no”. Especially “no” when the colonists refused to pay taxes to have themselves defended against the French. This is a take on the American Revolution you seldom if ever hear in America. At school you only hear about liberty and the oppressive George.

   But maybe I am being too hard on Walter Russell Mead. It is not only the language and vocabulary that divide us, it is the interpretation of world events.
4. Mira A. says:

   October 28, 2007 at 9:48 am

   Natioms have characteristics and qualities - character if you will, just like human beings. It is a play of the macro- and the micro-cosmos.

   When the individual human being has a chance to live in freedom and self-responsibilty then he/she becomes a valuable asset for a society. I believe that the very society which is able to provide the highest protection for an individual will be the most successful.

   The organisation of the E.U. (and most member states) is more and more repressive. They are stealing the rights of the citizens, they are turning rights into priviledges, they are trying to take away any kind of freedom to self-decision and don’t allow the natural flow and development of life.

   It is George Orwell with even better technologies for surveillance and mind-bending.

   So when Great Britain can maintain its independance and is able to guarantee the rights of free citizens, it will have success quite naturally.
5. Bajul Shah says:

   October 29, 2007 at 12:00 pm

   Britain’s decline after the second world war was directly related to the loss of its colonies and possesions as well as the cost of the war effort. Britain had to go cap in hand to the Americans for a bail-out and the Americans demanded a heavy price - the dismantling of empire, first in India, then in Africa and elsewhere. America’s intentions were sincere enough - though access to Commonwealth markets was an economic driver. The Cold War energise the US to treat Britian and its former colonies as bulwarks against the expanding Soviet influence. Post cold-war realities meant that there was a neccesary pause and reflection on the polices prior to that period. In one aspect though the article lends greater credence to the financial regulatory system in the UK than it neccesarily deserves - the establishment figures in the Bank of England and the FSA still do not fathom the immense change in the structure and organisation of the City and the diverse pools of money driving that change.
6. lilian says:

   October 29, 2007 at 10:59 pm

   As a non-Brit residing in the US I can make observations as an outsider on both cultures.
   First of all, it has always seemed to me that the slogan “special relationship” is a politically motivated farce. The US now has people with origins from all over the world and to try to make a special relationship out of one of these sources of migration is but an insult to generations of immigrants who have shaped this country. It is also, in practical terms, complete nonesense, for there are no two worlds in English more apart than the UK and the US: culturally above all. So whoever refers to “special relationship” - and that is what American politicians do - seeks an ally in face of something else, as an easy way out. It should make anyone in this country really suspicious.
   Secondly, there is a substantial amount of ivory-tower euphoria in a view that sees the UK rising to a position of dominance. Dominance in this century will still be determined by power and the UK is very, very far away from matching the US. Besides, not every country in the world wants to dominate around the globe the way some American politicians want this, so there is definitely not a perception within the UK that the UK must take that role from the US or be a partner in it. Blair had to go over Iraq, Bush was reelected over Iraq. Is that not enough evidence?!
   All in all, this article makes me wonder what researchers in International Relations are really experts of. A bit of a historian, a bit of a political scientist and not much else seems all too often be the background. Research is only as good as the person undertaking it will be willing to openly approach data. Brilliance shows were that is matched with profound analytical skills. I have seen none of this here. It might just as well be published in the New York Times “Cronicle of the day”.
7. Szwagier says:

   November 6, 2007 at 9:38 pm

   Just to follow up on the ‘being picky’ trail. I believe you’ll find the word is “ingrained” rather than “engrained”.
8. Susha says:

   November 7, 2007 at 1:40 pm

   The OED (Prospect’s house style dictionary) lists “engrained” as a variant spelling of “ingrained.”
9. JCC says:

   November 16, 2007 at 5:08 pm

   As a Brit who has lived in America for 10 years, and in Asia for another 20, I have to say that Yanks and Brits have far fewer differences than most Brits imagine.

   This is something that Brits in particular only tend to discover when they interact with Americans socially *outside* the West.

   The ’special relationship’ at the level of ordinary people is first and foremost a mutual obsession - Both Britain and America mean a disproportionate amount to each other. In the states I found that my British accent worked enormously to my advantage. Back in the UK my American wife, and even me with my unconsciously absorbed Americanisms found similar advantages.

   This mutual obsession will not go away.

   Until 1945, Americans while admiring many things about Britain also often did their best to define how different they were by emphasising their rejection of imperialism, and their multiculturalism. It was the easy way to protect American identity, values and interests from being swamped by the Brits. Today many Britons use EXACTLY the same bulwarks to hold on to some separate sense of British identity, values, and interests.

   We must loudly insist how different we are precisely because we are so dangerously and irresistably close. The Canadians do precisely the same thing.

   I do have to say that I’m not sure about what it means when Mead says ‘Britain is Back’ - I see little evidence that the moral certitude and sheer adventurist spirit of the 16-19th centuries that underlaid British foreign policy are returning.

   If the Royal Navy sees real expansion, then perhaps he has something - but right now it is still in the same overall process of shrinking that has continued since 1945, with small blips.

   The British armed forces, like the Canadians before them are headed for a future where they are little more than modules to be slotted in to American gaps, when and where the British public will put up with such adventures.
10. steve odonnell says:

    November 18, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    Tea, fish and chips, mushy peas, crumpets, Carry On Cleo, Asian Dub Foundation, stroppy sales assistants talking to their best maters rather than pay atention to the customer, golf, bendy buses, Ken Dodd and the Diddy Men, Essex gangsters, Max Boyce, American werewolves in london, Singing “Rule Britannia” as the water closes over our heads, the Krankies, Frank Carson, Spangles, Hillman Imps, Doctor Martens, Razzle, Paul Weller, Posh and Becks, Lowry, Edith Cavell, Mary Seacole, “Monty flies back to front” in Colemanballs, Frank Skinner,bombs on buses, Bobby Moore, mooning at OAPS on Blackpool pier, OAPS mooning back, Big Issue sellers outside shops and tube stations, National Geographic in dentists waiting rooms, Trevor McDonut, the Queen, the Strolling Bones still touring, Bono my arse, George Formby and Johnny Vegas, Rolf Harris and Glen Michaels Cartoon Cavalcade. Gibberish on blogs.