I offer the following purely as a thought experiment. I suppose it’s more of a leftward proposal, and, thus may be deemed unsuitable for this blog. I’m hoping that it may be viewed simply as a theoretical proposal to initiate thoughtful discussion of pros and cons.
I think that it would be advantageous to form some sort of global confederation of the primary English-speaking nations:
UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ. We all have a similar heritage and basically compatible cultures. Sure, we are the most conservative of the bunch, but not so much more so that we are an odd man out. We’ve certainly got more in common with Canadians, Brits, Kiwis, and Aussies than Germans have with the French, Italians, and Spaniards.
Together, we’d have the economic clout to stay ahead of China as well as enjoy a large advantage in natural resources, arable farmland, marine resources, etc.
I wish that there were some bold political leaders who have the capacity to think ahead to what is happening to the world.
Consolidation. It’s been happening in corporate America for the past 20 years. I think that we’d benefit on a forward-looking geopolitical level by doing the same.
Larry,
Congrats on your first initiated thread. You may need to clarify what you mean by confederation. Are you talking an economic/military type alliance, a NAFTA type arrangement, or forming the equivelant of one country? It’ll make a difference in the responses you get.
Larry, I have been considering a North American Union: the US, Canada, and Mexico. Canada has some and possibly all the Rare Earth Metals. Among the three nations, we have the energy and food to remain self-sufficient. Developing a better union with Mexico and insistence that they make their country less corrupt, as we should insist of the US, we could solve part of the issue of untrained and illiterate masses invading the US. If we invested in Mexico and the US instead of pouring billions into OPEC, North America could forge ahead economically and we could have truly prosperous neighbors, instead of fueling terrorism and war in the Arab World. However with our insistence on strangling ourselves with laughable energy policies and the unrelenting insistence on enriching the Far East with wealth that should be staying here in North America, we are writing our own death warrant.
Only by building wealth can we afford our Social Welfare programs. Relying on Social Welfare to fund prosperity is fool’s mission and will lead to an economic disaster.
We have the economic might and the resources to build an economic powerhouse, but corruption in the US and Mexico along with economic policies that retard business growth will prevent North America from once again enjoying prosperity.
We don’t need change, we need a complete overhaul: not of our system of government, but of the people in the government. I say this from an apolitical point of view, for of the few politicians who are not corrupt, the rest seem to be woefully ignorant or incompetent. It has also become patently obvious that the prestigious degrees of yesteryear are now of dubious value. The proof is in the big house on Pennsylvania Avenue and on the faculties of our universities.
Hi vet, Thanks. (Curt has been kind enough to give me a soapbox before, on a couple of issues).
I leave “confederation” to be open ended. Were I to be able to initiate something like this, I’d probably start out with a free trade agreement, coupled with easing of passport and VISA restrictions (e.g. making it much easier to get work visas, for example). I would try for a military alliance within NATO (an alliance within an alliance, with more formally shared responsibilities). I think that, over a very long period of time, there could be a movement toward a progressively stronger union, perhaps even culminating in unification as a single nation, but this would be a century-long process, with necessary checks, balances, milestones, and opt out clauses.
I think that the world will be changing at an ever accelerating rate. I don’t see us remaining competitive with China, if we continue to go it alone, partly considering the economic drain associated with maintaining our globally dominant military position, but more importantly considering our looming disadvantage in intellectual resources.
Hi Skook, I think that planning for an economic future based on 50 years of abundant fossil fuel doesn’t sight far enough down the road. I’m talking about getting us in shape to remain the dominant nation/culture for the 22nd century, by which time fossil fuels will not be of the same over-arching economic importance.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
good argument, Larry. well stated.
There are informative examples already, I would say.
The United Kingdom has a lot of centrifugal force. You could say that this was an enforced union, creation of a colonial relationship by conquest of Wales, Soctland, and Ireland – because it certainly was. However, in the modern world the elements of the UK have become much more alike, becoming Anglophone and economically unified for all practical purposes. And yet, the resentment at cultural and economic domination by the English remains. Ireland broke away with great violence, and elements in Northern Ireland attempted to join them, also violently.
The European Union has created a vast, arrogant, unelected, unreachable bureaucracy in Brussels that imposes multitudes of new rules by fiat. It’s made the countries involved collectively weaker, not collectively stronger. The monetary union has turned out to be a terrible idea, with the responsible economies subsidizing the irresponsible ones. Greece Spain and Italy should be inflating the hell out of their separate currencies right now. That would be fair.
Canada already feels overly influenced and somewhat ill-used by the United States. A union would exacerbate this — we’d be more in their faces than ever. The separate parts of Canada barely came together after the British divested the territory, you know. And the French Canadians still chafe at their subjugation, purge English from their street signs and documents, and dream of thwarted glory.
And just look at how Obama has treated the British. A closer association would make them more vulnerable to this kind of capricious crap and they would do well to hold onto full sovereignty.
And I don’t want a union with Mexico, Skookum. The Mexicans already here have exhibited an unfortunate tendency to bring with them their paranoid nationalism and their cultural expectations of class warfare and government corruption as a way of life.
I don’t see what a union would bring that we don’t already effectively have, i.e. the good points of an alliance are aleady in practical effect. Different regions have different governments and differnt currencies because they are different people with different ways. And some English-speaking countries are already confederations of somewhat disparate parts.
Sooner or later such an arrangement will happened, it only out of necessity for such a union/confederation. Of more importance is what will be the driving force behind such a merger of countries. How will the other countries think and act in regards to the countries forming this new confederation. Like Skookum pointed out our own government is nothing more than a sad parody of effective and responsible government. So would we have just a larger version of what we now have that supposed to pass for government? Our problems would only grow expotentially! And would countries like Russia and China form their own Union of countries in response to our actions? And which side would the lesser countries take? They would be forced too eventually if only for their own survival. Kinda like the Greater Eastern Co-prosperity sphere that Japan tried to implement in WWII. Every action dictates a re-action we all know that, but what we can’t always foresee are the unintended consequences of those actions. As for our own cultural it has become so diluted that it would not really pose a problem, but as for the socio-economic and military issues the potential problems are staggering when one really thinks them out. But then again it has to happened so someone will be dealing with those problems, and all the ones that we cannot even see till that Union happens. But just the thought of a bunch of politicians like we now have running half the world does not inspire much confidence with the final result.
It’s racist, I tell ya….
But, seriously, I have had a similar thought “The United Democratic Nations” – socialists, fascists, dictators and monarchies need not apply.
@Gary G. Swenchonis:
China has historically been interested only in unions that impose supremacy of the Han Chinese people and culture. They are currently forming relationships with third world countries around the globe to secure natural resources – purely mercantile activities.
Russia had an empire (the USSR) that they called a union of republics, but which in fact was effectively a relationship of colonizer and colonized. They are grossly paranoid and suspicious of Chinese domination.
I don’t see either nation ever forming something resembling a confederation of equals. It is not their nature to be equal.
I don’t understand what you think the benefit is, Larry. We already a collection of sovereign states with a union under a central government…. a republic called the United States. Canada has it’s provinces and local governments under their central government. And so on and so on. I doubt that anyone will be petitioning to be the 51st state anytime soon. And don’t many tend to view any such attempt to annex land as the US wanting to be “an empire”? Darn knows they’ve tried hanging that handle on us for Iraq, Afghanistan, etc… and we’ve never even considered seizing their land as part of the US… albeit extremely remote.
We already have the availability of trade for goods, and that not need be only to English speaking nations. We already have ample air and sea transport routes.
Mexico and the US have little in common, and don’t see your connection there. We simply share a border. Any crossover on lands in our historic past are fraught with wars, resisting that.
Does the POTUS go away and we have a “confederacy head honcho” instead? Or is it like a mini-int’l central government above all of our own already existing central governments, and our POTUS answers to another tier of “central government”? Our own federal bureaucracy is already so far removed from localities and individual needs… why have an even larger one that’ even further removed? Would you think the UN could govern the US effectively?
Getting rid of passports… well that’s a bad idea. Not all these nations have great security and have a high concentration of those that want to destroy us. Easy for a terrorist to get into London and pop over in the US without a passport… or run thru the even more lax Mexican security. Nope… bad juju.
So the only thing I can conclude is that this confederation you envision shares a currency, rather like the Euro… and how’s that working out for ya? Would we then be forced, like the EU, to start bailing out bankrupt nations just to protect our own common currency? And does that currency then replace the dollar as the world reserve?
I’m not coming up with one single benefit that is not already available to us as sovereign nations. But I can see a ga’zillion reasons why it’s a really bad move. So I’d say count me out on your super nation.
If such a union were to be formed, the only way I would go along with allowing Mexico in would be AFTER they got rid of their corruption, otherwise, they will just find as many ways as they can to drain money from us to them, like the United Nations is doing.
The way I read this is more of a ‘TO. Treaty Organization, but tighter. Think what nato or seato was supposed to be.
BTW, the Germans already tried your idea back in the early 19th Century. Lasted three decades or so before collapsing after wars, revolutions and arguments between the dominant nations. Tried a second time and collapsed again before two decades were up.
More recently, there was the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro following the demise of Yugoslavia. That lasted three years.
Senegambia… seven years. Union of African States… two years. Seeing a pattern here?
@PB, can a treaty be constructed that is a one-size-fits-all for so many nations? And if it’s for defense… being as we already have NATO/SEATO etc, does not the US end up holding the bag for everyone again, only this time being even more obligated?
@Larry: As my favorite foil to my “Econ for Politicians” posts, welcome to the fight Larry!
Ever since reading Orwell’s 1984 (long before 1984), the idea of Oceania made more sense for the English than joining a united Europe. There has been a true affinity amongst the English speaking people. Churchill saw it, Margaret Thatcher saw it. We have similar attitudes for basic human rights, freedom of speech, the rule of law and the need not to lie down in the face of an overpowering dictator.
I wish more on both sides of the Atlantic would see it that way.
‘Together, we’d have the economic clout to stay ahead of China as well as enjoy a large advantage in natural resources’
By writing in this sloppy fashion you obscure what you’re talking about. Who is the ‘we’, here? What I’m getting at is that while it is usually true that policies that benefit the USA (government and nation-state) also benefit its people, that is by no means automatic. There are policies of a sort that are good for ‘the USA’ – improving its GDP, the long-term budgetary outlook, maybe stock market valuations – which are nonetheless detrimental to the majority of US citizens. Our current toleration towards illegal immigration falls into this category. While your confederation ideas are rather underspecified I suspect I would view them the same way.
In the case of ‘staying ahead of China’, you seem to be trying to evoke competitive instincts again without really going into detail. Does it help us to be part of some larger economic zone, such that we can get up in the morning and say ‘look, our aggregate GDP is larger than China’s’? Uh, not really. Are there unrealized economies of scale that would somehow make a big difference to our well-being? Do we need to ‘stay ahead of China’ militarily (aren’t we already?). To the extent that I care about competition with China at all – which is not very much – I would consider either per-capita GDP or real purchasing-power parity to be the relevant metrics, and it doesn’t look to me like China is likely to catch up to us in my lifetime on those measures.
Oh, and as for natural resources… we already trade freely with all of the countries listed. Our access to Canadian timber, Australian uranium, and so on is already really good. I don’t see how entering into a confederacy really does much for us there.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
First, I really have no interest in giving up even more freedom in the name of confederation. I don’t even like the way it is working here in our own country right now.
As for long-sighted energy, how does this work for you?
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/nasa-publicly-reveals-lenr-research
Great debate, why not ask the question if the intent was serious. MataHarley already responded what I would have pointed out :
It is a unmitigated disaster. Instead of one or to countries economies nosediving themselves into oblivion its dragging down other countries into the abyss with them. Citizens of one country being forced to pay for the mistakes of another countries poor management. Add to this a bureaucracy of officials picking and choosing who must follow the “rules” and who doesn’t…..
Hell no!
@MataHarley
Mata is correct, although she won’t say what I know she is thinking-I’ll do it for her:
You “conservatives” are just as bad as the liberals and globalists who foisted GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc. on to us in the 80s and 90s.
You’re delusional, and I’m being nice when I say that.
@Larry
What do you base you assertion that the US is the most conservative of the bunch? During the 20th century the total number of years where there was a conservative British, Australian and New Zealand prime ministers in each of their respective countries exceeds that of the total number of years there has been a Republican President in the White House. With the exception of Canada – the US is the most liberal of the bunch.
Do all leftists reflexively advocate statist solutions to every non-problem? Dumb question, sorry…
Hi Gaffa, By US standards, UK conservatives are moderate to liberal (US) Democrats. Certainly to the Left of Barack Obama.
http://www.conservatives.com/
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item (!):
Item:
Item:
[nb: big brother inserting self into private family dynamic]
I could go on and on and on, quoting so called “Conservative Party” policies from the UK and the rest of the non-US Anglo world, but I want to get back to watching “proper” football — the kind played on a “field” (as opposed to a “pitch”).
British “conservative” party policies are beyond Barack Obama’s wildest socialist/Marxist dreams.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@MataHarley: “…for so many nations? ”
The way I saw this proposal was for very few nations and not totally defense. But, more of a mutual first best friend forever type of treaty. Of course there are so many what ifs, it would be very difficult to do.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I would be opposed to anything that would involve giving up our sovereignty or putting us in a position where we would have to do what Germany is doing in the EU which is bailing out nations that can’t get their act together, not that we have anything to brag about as of late. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who also believes we should pull out of the UN. With that being said, China can’t be ignored. It is on path to become the number one superpower. Should they go full scale with democratic and capitalistic reforms and dump communism (small and capital ‘c’), they would be almost impossible to stop. They not only have the population, but they have what I believe is a healthier way of looking at life and don’t have the must have it now philosophy of Western civilizations. Couple that with the way we seem to be self destructing, especially with our out of control debt, growing animosity towards one another, the proposed weakening of our military while they are growing and stengthening theirs, and they will most certainly replace us as number one.
How to keep them in check is a good question. Militarily the countries you mentioned, save for the UK and they aren’t what they used to be, would not have much to offer. Vietnam did beat China in a war, but that was over thirty years ago when VN had an experienced military. Economically, Germany has more to offer than any one of those countries. Population wise, India should be a key player in any scheme. As for our natural resources, they are useless if we don’t develop them which is exactly what is happening now with our vast oil reserves. If we are to keep them in check, we need to look internally and get our house in order first and foremost and unfortunately, we seem to be going in the opposite direction.
LARRY
excellent POST,
IT IS GENERATING A LOT, I remember MATA the what was it called the trifecta? or trilateral something,
that among USA CANADA, MEXICO,
And was not well received in CANADA BECAUSE OF THE MEXICO CORRUPTION PROBLEMS
TOO HIGH CRIMES NUMBERS,
and as for now some lack of trust is generating with USA, BUSYNESS WISE, SEEMS THAT
WHAT USE TO BE A WORD AND HAND SHAKE TO SEAL A DEAL IS BROKEN,
BESIDE THERE IS ISRAEL YOU DID NOT MENTIONNED, WHICH ARE VERY CLOSE TO CANADA’S HEART, AND SINCE A LONG TIE AND ENDURING RELATIONSHIP AND EXCHANGE OF INTELLECTUALS RESOURCES, WHICH YOU MENTIONNED ALSO NOT HAVING ENOUGH OF
IN AMERICA, WELL I must disapoint you on this quote, after watching a link on COLD FUSION, BY SCIENTIST FROM USA, THE CONTRARY THOUGHT CAME TO ME, AS I told out loud my thought of there is nothing that the USA CANNOT DO, IT SO AWSOME TO WITNESS THAT AND IT’S ONLY ONE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC RESULT SHOWN BY THE USA, THERE IS NOT A LACK OF INTELLIGENCE RESSOURCES, BUT A LACK OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINTS TO ALLOWED THAT CREATIVITY TO BECOME JOBS FOR ALL AMERICANS EVEN THE 3MILLIONS OF FELONS NEED TO WORK, AGAIN A LACK OF RESTRAINT FROM GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW THE COMPANIES TO GIVE THEM A JOBS, WICH THEY PAID THE PRICE FOR ERRORS AND DESERVE TO SHOW THEIR CREATIVITY, LOST PRESENTLY FOR AMERICA’S LOST ALSO.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING MY EXPLOSION OF WORDS, AND THOUGHTS
BYE
@Wm T Sherman: Yes I agree that China is actively courting the lesser countries to bring them into their sphere of influence, and has been for some time. And what you stated about Russia and china is true. For their past behaviors that is. Any of the major powers should be doing exactly what China and Russia are doing at the present, attempting to influence all these third world and smaller countries. But looking down the future as to who will side with who is going to be anyones bet. Look at the mess in WWI and how all the major powers sided with one another, and then the lesser countries as well. even WWII to an extent. Your point is well taken. But now resources as becoming more and more scarce, and the population continues to explode in many countries. Water and fuel and then food will be and is already a major concern for many nations. It’s not going to get better, only worse. Would it surprise me if the Russian made a Union with China? yes. But then again the world as we knew it is changing ever so quickly. Someone are someones will be the bigdogs it just remains to be seen which nations get there first. And nations will take sides again.
Larry
hi, I was also thinking, about another group with influence in CANADA are the FIRST NATIONS, WHICH WHERE HERE BEFORE ANYONE, AND OWN LAND AND FOREST AND WATERWAYS,
THEY SURELY WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSULTED FOR THAT, AND THEY ARE QUITE CONSERVATIVES ABOUT WHAT BELONG TO THEM, BECAUSE THEY PAID A BIG PRICE AND ARE NOT WILLING TO SHARE WHAT IS LEFT WHICH COMPARE IS VERY LITTLE, AND SOMEONE MENTION THE FRENCHS ALSO, would be reluctant to share the space, as we are seeing with foreigner which want to impose their religion and policy drasticly, so this already existing collusion, tell of what we could expect on the project like you mention, I never thought THE GLOBAL EXCHANGE WAS A SUCCESS TO LOOK UPON,
WE JUST HAVE TO OBSERVE NOW, OUR OWN MONEY IS SCATTERD IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND MANY AROUND US ARE DESTITUTE, THERE IS NOTHING SUCCESSFUL IN THERE,
BYE
IVAN
hi,
I won’t ask why you copied this,
why?
IVAN
I know you hate the caps, well, I’ll try again.
I’m a scattered brain on caps,
sorry
about that
bye
GaryBG Swenchonis
why the new ” B”
HI, I have notice somewhere that RUSSIA AND CHINA made a union on something,
a good while ago last year, I remember the controversy, not sure if it was CURRENTCY AGREEMENT, or exchange of expertize but they shook hands on it as a deal.
bye
SMORGASBORD
HI,
YES YOU PUT A BIG SCREW ON LARRY’S POST, ABOUT MEXICO,
and it gave me the thought that MEXICO don’t have ‘ENGLISH LANGUAGE, EITHER, SO WHY INCLUDING THEM IN ENGLISH UNION,
there is another fact to not forget, when did CHINA SUPPLIED HELP FOR THE WARS OF AMERICA?
why does anyone bow to the CHINA LEADERS,? IS THIS TO BORROW MONEY FROM THEM?
we historicly don’t owe anything to them, besides they immigrate but don’t seem to add much to the whole of CANADA, except buying our lands and farms, ski resorts, the land most valued by their panoramic view, where they built condo for condo for CHINESE ecetera, they don’t assimilate, but they are peaceful, and don’t make noise, but taking more spaces as time goes by while smiling at us.
to go further on the previous, much further, I think, it is not all right that, the one who are strong rooted for some very deep in this land of OUR AMERICAS, that they should alone pay the burden of war and war prevention, where many died for it, while the flow of immigrants and illegals get a free space and replace the dead braves, without deserving any of it, without sharing the blood spill, and cripeling burden of the real rooted AMERICANS, I maintain my position on that very strongly, even more now, with what I see in our COUNTRIES, even the elected should have contribute to the burden, because how else can they understand the values of the BRAVES. how can they grasp the soul of this NATION
of BENEVOLENT GIANTS
it take much more than brain to LEAD THIS NATION,
THOSE WHO ENDURED AND SURVIVED WILL TELL YOU
WHAT IT TAKE TO BE LEADING AMERICA THE GREAT
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT WELL.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #32
I never thought about that angle. I’m neutral on the language difference, except that any OFFICIAL dealings would have to be agreed to be in English to make it simpler, not like the UN where most countries need an interpreter.
That brings up a subject I never thought about before. Wouldn’t it be easier, and less likely to have translation errors, for the UN to require each nation’s ambassador speak the same language, even if it isn’t English?
Smorgasbord
are you talking about what I mention of MEXICO NOT BEING ANGLOPHONE,
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT LARRY MENTION ON ANGLOPHONE COUNTRIES TO UNITE
MEANING THE POLITICAL AND LOCAL ENGLISH, WHICH MEXICO IS NOT, SO WOULD BE EXCLUDE,
RIGHT? I’m not talking about UN
@ilovebeeswarzone: #36
I only mentioned the UN because the ambassadors who are in the UN don’t have to speak the same language. There are interpreters for each language spoken. It would be much easier if each ambassador spoke the same language. If we form an alliance with Mexico and Canada, each ambassador should speak the same language. That is all that I am saying.
Smorgasbord
yes I see,what you mean, but LARRY MENTIONED ONLY A UNION WITH ENGLISH COUNTRIES, and he include MEXICO, WHICH IS SPANISH COUNTRY, THAT’S WHERE I came in,
Of course it will never happen, to many what if s and too many players,
look at GLOBAL EXCHANGE, A TOTAL FAILURE EXCEPT FOR THE THIEFS
BYE
Smorgasbord
do you still like your new STATE IDAHO IS RIGHT?
@ilovebeeswarzone: #39
I wanted a small town with mountains all around. I have that now. I also live in a gun rights state. I was at the sheriff’s office one time for something and, out of curiosity, I asked how hard it is to get a concealed carry permit. The lady reached under the counter and pulled out a paper and slid it over to me. I said, “That’s it?” She said it was. I figured I might as well fill it out, since she went to all of the trouble to get the form, and now I have a concealed carry permit if I want to use it. When I go to the bigger cities, I probably will. We can have any ammo we want.
I look at it this way, if a person is going to be mugged or just beaten up by someone, would they rather have it happen in a gun restricted area or a concealed carry area?
@ilovebeeswarzone: #38
I agree that it will probably never happen. That is why I haven’t been reading many of the comments. Let’s get the problems we NEED to fix first.
Smorgasbord
yes, It seem like a good STATES, who do you think of the candidates they would favor?
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: #42
Since I don’t belong to any political party, I don’t follow the debates too much.
@Larry
Well according to many on this forum Obama is socialist so if the UK Conservatives are to the left of him does that make Churchill & Thatcher marxists? lol.
And you can cherry pick through policies (and how many of them which are substantial will get implemented I wonder) from any political party – but let’s cherry pick from actions in the past. I guess you couldn’t call a US President who spent billions of US taxpayers money on bailing out corporations, continued to add to the national deficit, who agreed that climate change was happening and that the nation was addicted to oil, wanted to legalise millions of illegal immigrants and signed off an abortion pill – conservative surely? lol
C’mon Gaffa. I’m not cherry picking anything. Just go to the US Conservative Party link I provided and read their official policies.
George W Bush wanted to “legalize” illegal immigrants. Ronald Reagan “legalized” illegal immigrants. Those were pragmatic positions. The debate today will ultimately be determined with consideration to pragmatic considerations, which, in the USA, are not comparable to those in the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ. Likewise the corporate bailouts were begun by George W Bush, in response to a genuine crisis situation, not as a matter of policy.
Everyone now agrees that climate change is happening, e.g. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html You’ll notice that every single GOP candidate is avoiding the issue, because they know that climate change denial is a political loser for the GOP. It frankly makes the GOP look silly. The issue is not whether or not climate change is happening, but the degree to which humans contribute (even this issue is a loser for the GOP), and what, if anything, should be done about it (there seems to be a silent agreement to table this debate, at least until the economic situation is clearly on a strong path to improvement).
Everyone agrees that the US is addicted to oil. The issue is how much to feed the addiction. The debate within the USA can’t be compared to that in other nations, because the dynamics of supply and demand are so different.
The “abortion pill” was approved by the FDA during the George W Bush administration.
The fact is that the British Conservative Party platform is to the left of the US Democratic Party platform. Conservative anglo governments (Australia, NZ, Canada) are well to the Left of the US Republican Party platform, and the social policies in place in the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ are clearly to the Left of those in the USA. Thus, my statement was correct (the US has more conservative governance than any of the other anglo democracies).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Larry
So wanting to put in a high speed rail network (like many western countries already have had for many years) is idealogical not pragmatic? I guess providing free health care is socialist whilst free service like policing, postal service etc is not? Saying climate change is happening and we should do something about it is automatic a position of the left? Whilst adding to a massive deficit and cuts taxing is good conservative fiscal policy? Your views sound very american-centric to me rather than what’s considered conservative. If you do – it’s pragmatic – if other do – it’s policy, not conservative and not dealing with a genuine issue (e.g. child poverty)
Meanwhile David Cameron is in a marriage of convenience with Liberal Democrats has still a program of tripling student fees, cutting universal child benefits, scrapping quangos, reducing disability payments, putting into place public sector pay freezes, has criticised state multiculturalism, has vetoed an EU treaty etc – and he’s to the left of Obama? lol. Was Thatcher to the left of Obama too? Also note the head of State for these countries is the Queen – and there are few things which are backwardly conservative as having a monarchy.
Whereas the UK – and I suspect Canada, Australia and NZ are not so ‘conservative’ to the heartlands of the US is in religion. But then again – ‘Social Conservatives’ in the modern sense – always made no sense to me – you want smaller government, you want government to leave you alone, make your own personal choices etc but you still want the state to intervene when it comes to gay marriage, contraception, censorship, abortion, euthanasia, drugs, prostitution, etc.
Hi Gaffa, I don’t disagree with many of your points. For example, I have said on this blog — many times over — that a true conservative cuts spending first and only then rewards himself with a tax cut, and that it is anything but conservative to cut taxes and make up for the resulting shortfall by borrowing more money.
But we are writing on an American conservative blog. When I wrote that the USA was more conservative than the other anglo democracies, I was writing for an American conservative audience, using American conservative definitions of what it is to be a conservative.
American conservatives are dead set against federal health care programs. This is THE blood political issue of our present time.
American conservatives deny anthropomorphic global warming and are certainly against any carbon restriction programs to mitigate global warming.
American conservatives are against government subsidies for the rail industry in general and high speed rail in particular.
American conservatives certainly are opposed to government employees serving as “community organizers” and “Big Society Digital champions.”
American conservatives recoil over the idea government telling employers that they must provide “parental leave” or setting up a government program for mediating between quarreling spouses.
American conservatives would clearly be against a program to “provide… new funds for social enterprises and charities through a Big Society Bank which harnesses unclaimed assets from dormant accounts and money from High Street banks”
This is only a small sample. I could go back and dig out a lot more.
The point is that, by the current American definition of conservatism, the British Conservative Party is to the left of the avowed policies of Barack Obama. Yes, Cameron is to the Left of Obama! By all objective criteria of importance to the American definition of conservatism. You talk about Cameron “tripling student fees.” Well, my daughter currently is borrowing $70,000 per year to pay for attending a state medical school. What does it cost to attend the UCL, the UK’s best medical school? Let’s talk about the “tripling of student fees,” shall we? When the same daughter attended the University of Bath during a “gap year” she took between high school and college, her tuition and expenses as a foreign student were considerably less than they would have been at the University of California, paying in state rates.
So it’s all relative. As I said, a British Conservative is a US liberal.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Larry
Naturally it’s relative – but as a UK person on a US forum – I would like to challenge some presumption and say it’s more complicated. Fact is political parties inherit situations from their predecessor which can be difficult to change. The NHS introduced by a Labour government is embedded in the UK and Cameron has tripled student fees from an internationally low base. And conservatives aren’t consistent in the US – just look at the republicans running.
Questions for you…
Which President presided over the Pacific Railway Acts – giving generous land grants and government bonds to subsidize the trancontintenal railway?
Talking of state aid for transportation – which President presided over the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956?
Which President expanded Social Security and Medicare benefits for Seniors?
Which President presided over the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act increasing entitlement benefits?
Which President presided over the creation of the Environment Protection Agency – charged with protecting health and the environment through regulation?
Which President announced the Clear Skies Act which aimed to reduce air pollution through the use of emissions trading programs?
Not keen on big society digital champion? Well which President put in place a cyber czar along with a foreign aid czar, bank bail czar, bioethics czar, bird flu czar, birth control czar, budget czar, cleanup czar, copyright czar, communications czar, democracy czar, domestic policy czar, faith-based czar, food safety czar, global aid czar, WTC czar, health IT czar, homeland czar, homeless czar, intelligence czar, manufacturing czar, mine safety czar, policy czar, public diplomacy czar, reading czar, regulatory czar, savings and loans czar, science czar, terrorism czar, war czar and weatherization czar?
Oh and which President set up the President’s Volunteer Service Award and created the Presidents Council on Service and Civic Participation?
Which President presided over the Disabilities Act, raised taxes, reauthorized the Clean Air Act and signed the Immigration Act increasing the legal immigration by 40 percent?
Which President introduced amnesty program for draft dodgers and introduced a 5 percent income tax increase on corporations and the rich as well as being pro-choice?
I could go on…but if you apply your guidelines what makes a conservative then you effectively rule out many, if not all of the Republican Presidents in the 60 years and beyond.
btw I see you dodge my comments about Churchill (who was one time a Liberal MP before going back to the Tories again) and Thatcher. Are they left of Obama.
As for those outside of the US – as much as it is seen as a conservative country – it is also paradoxically seen as a liberal progressive/permissive country by others in regards to American culture (inc Hollywood) and progressive reforms and social ills.
@Larry W, Bush the younger did not want t “legalize” illegal aliens. He wanted a worker program, but it wasn’t amnesty nor a path to citizenshipo.
Nor did Bush’s FDA approve RU 486. That was done by Clinton’s FDA in the middle of the 2000 election. About the best argument you can have there is that Bush’s FDA did not reverse it in his terms.
Not everyone has boarded the AGW train. Climate change is something we can all agree on. However whether man is responsible, or can control, such climate change is the source of the debate. I’m still in the group that suggests man in powerless compared to Mother Nature and her natural cycle of things. The crap they do, under the guise that man can usurp Mother Nature is a waste of time and money (and state/int’l policies) IMHO and would be better spent addressing how to deal with Mother Nature’s natural course.
The US is no more addicted to oil than any other nation and all are adddicted to having affordable energy that encourages growth. Since Obama is refusing to deal with the Keystone pipeline, and think’s it’s not in the best interests of the nation, I’d say that it’s an indication that neither jobs or affordable energy trump his AGW religion.
But while I enjoy watching a US lib/prog debated a UK/Aussie socialist as to which nation is more conservative, I will agree with you that the UK is, given most issues, far more leftist than the US – which is generally a center right nation… save in times of spending/debt like this era. In that case, the US is definitely trending more right for fiscal conservatism in order not to end up like the entitlement heavy Euro nations.
BTW, since Gaffa brings up HSR… a quest both of you share, but evidently Gaffa doesn’t know his “rabbit” during this debate – I do have to grin wondering how you’d fit in a HSR to Australia in your suggestion Anglo Union. LOL Just a joke…
GaffaUK
hi,
you know that LARRY is not CONSERVATIVES, HE WROTE A POST FOR THE CONSERVATIVES WHICH HE KNOW QUITE A BIT, because he come as a regular, but as oppose to other liberals, he keep on the classy side, on his comments, and always generate many debates,
hey LARRY, AM I RIGHT?
BYE