Janet Daley opines that politics has lost its passion. Pinning the piece on the passing of Michael Foot, she regrets that there are no longer two competing visions battling it out, as was the case between the recently-departed and Mrs Thatcher. Now its just who's the better manager of a system that neither side question in its size and scope.
That's all true, as far as it goes, but she doesn't mention the principle historical movement in this process, which is the rise of globalist power and the concomitant dismantling of national sovereignty. When decision-making in the majority of domestic matters has been handed over to anonymous committee members in foreign countries, whose conclusions are then cascaded down to the local administrators in Westminster and Whitehall, politics ceases to play any part in the action, and becomes mere punditry.
Towards the end, she contrasts the situation with that of the United States (and rattles my cage to boot):
'The Tea Party movement, which is based on the American revolutionary principle of "no taxation without representation", is challenging a government which seems to be threatening the freedom of the individual. The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another. Where is the major British party that will engage in an argument of such force and scope? Who will question the received wisdom of the middle-ground consensus?'
Wait a moment! "The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another"?
I think, Janet, you'll find only one side is doing that, the side that loves the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and reveres the Founding Fathers, and that side is outside.
That's all true, as far as it goes, but she doesn't mention the principle historical movement in this process, which is the rise of globalist power and the concomitant dismantling of national sovereignty. When decision-making in the majority of domestic matters has been handed over to anonymous committee members in foreign countries, whose conclusions are then cascaded down to the local administrators in Westminster and Whitehall, politics ceases to play any part in the action, and becomes mere punditry.
Towards the end, she contrasts the situation with that of the United States (and rattles my cage to boot):
'The Tea Party movement, which is based on the American revolutionary principle of "no taxation without representation", is challenging a government which seems to be threatening the freedom of the individual. The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another. Where is the major British party that will engage in an argument of such force and scope? Who will question the received wisdom of the middle-ground consensus?'
Wait a moment! "The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another"?
I think, Janet, you'll find only one side is doing that, the side that loves the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and reveres the Founding Fathers, and that side is outside.
3 comments:
There are no depths of quotation which the dark forces will not stoop to though.
All revolutions end in failure Janet. As America massively demonstrates. The forces of evil are all well at work, even exporting their PC crap our way, not to mention modern cultures we could really do without. That's far worse than the EU and we aren't even a US State.
"All revolutions end in failure"
This is too sweeping. It's more the case that political change cannot be done once and left alone, in the assumption that the job is finished. It's more like tending a garden. You weed it, but the weeds come back and take over, so you must be ever vigilant. The reasons things in some ways are worse in the US is because the iron fist doesn't have such a thick velvet glove to cover over it. But we may be seeing the glove come off. Watch Greece.
Post a Comment