|
Post by unkleE on Jan 16, 2011 11:39:28 GMT
This is a comment on the Quodlibeta blog. I'm not sure where to post it as it's not history, philosophy, science or religion, so here will do I hope. Now that I have a close relative living in the US, I take a greater, though certainly not expert, interest in what happens there. And I find this statement quite incredible and unrealistically optimistic. Since the Giffords shooting in the US, many people are questioning the wisdom and morality of comments from commentators and politicians, like: - "If ballots don't work, bullets will."
- "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back,"
- "Don't retreat, RELOAD"
- Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Ms Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle.
- 'the government must be brought under control or citizens would resort to "Second Amendment remedies."' (The second amendments is about the right to bear arms.)
Some say this is all just colourful language, but in a country with a far higher level of gun deaths than other relatively wealthy countries (and a level more comparable to relatively poor and/or lawless countries), this seems to me to be a naive view. It therefore seems to me that broadly speaking, US culture does indeed put power closer to the people than many other countries (though no more than some, and perhaps less than some such as Switzerland), but an armed and sometimes angry individualism makes this 'virtue' questionable. I could many other examples, including reactions to global warming, petrol prices, terrorism threats, the financial crisis, etc, where it seems to an outsider that selfish individualism is the prime motivation for much of US politics. Maybe that's no different to elsewhere (though I think it is worse), but it is still a reason why the US needs some politics that rises above that. How do others see it?
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 16, 2011 22:11:42 GMT
I agree that the regular use of gun imagery is disturbing, and it seems to be a characteristic of US politics, though in Australia we got a taste after the Port Arthur shootings when the government bought back guns, and some of the Shooters Party began using NRA from-my-cold-dead-hands rhetoric. I think the problem here is that commentators have been too quick to accuse the Tea baggers and conservatives generally of somehow causing the deranged Loughner to do what he did. Of course, if a Republican candidate had been shot it would never have crossed their minds to blame leftists or 'liberals'. I'm just grateful he wasn't a Christian fundamentalist!
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jan 17, 2011 11:35:17 GMT
Hello both,
It seems pretty clear now that Loughner was not in the slightest influenced by the language of rightwing commentators. He was just a common or garden psychopath.
The scare about political slogans is just like the people who became convinced that violent films and video games led to violent crime. Many people still believe it despite the total lack of evidence.
My only feeling is that the way Democrats tried to tar their opponents with the blood of the shooter's victims was far, far worse than anything the Republican commentators had said. Well done to Obama for rising above all that.
However, there is no doubt that the easy availability of guns in the US is a major reason for the large number of gun deaths in that country. My own belief is that most of us have absolutely no reason at all to own a gun. I think the Democrats would be better off campaigning for gun control than trying to score cheap political capital from this tragedy.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jan 17, 2011 23:42:17 GMT
I should add that don't include anyone here in my crictisms.
J
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 18, 2011 3:25:48 GMT
James, I hardly think Loughner's "status" as a "psychopath" absolves the belligerent right from their terrible statements on killing their opponents, but my main point was elsewhere. I was concerned about Daniel Hannan's view, summarised by you, that keeping power close to the people was a better system of government than giving governments too much power, and that this was a reason for the US's wealth and freedom. I think, like many polarised political views, that it expresses only a partial truth. If we were all enlightened selfless citizens, that would surely have a lot of truth, but the evidence suggests to me that many of those exercising their individual power in the US are dangerous and quite nasty. The US is living proof that free enterprise and individual power needs a lot of correction and limitation, especially when a major part of individual power is vested in firearms. I of course am slightly left of centre, so obviously that colours my view, but I would have thought even those halfway across the spectrum to the right could see the problems with what Hannam (D, not J) says. Another example. Apparently in Houston, Texas, recently, a citizens petition repealed the use of "red light cameras" at traffic lights, because people didn't like being booked for crossing against the lights and argued the main purpose was revenue raising. (It is true that it was argued that the cameras don't improve safety, but studies show that the cameras plus longer amber light times do reduce accidents.) If you've ever been to Houston, you know it's one of the world's most car-dependent cities, with massive freeways traversed by large utes (pickups, trucks, or whatever term one uses) travelling at high speed. Driving there just got a little more dangerous because, I believe, too much power was decentralised to people who care more about their immediate wishes than the long-term good.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jan 18, 2011 5:30:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 18, 2011 6:05:17 GMT
The left is just as guilty of disgusting, violent, ignorant and aggressive rhetoric as the right. It's called "politics". You also have missed my point (I'm sorry). I haven't seen equivalent aggressive comments by the left, but if they have been made, then I agree that they too are nasty - and that they also illustrate my point. Which is that the combination of wealth (which strengthens complacency and selfishness, in me as much as in others), a culture of individualism and a gun culture doesn't need these attributes to be emphasised by a political small government philosophy, but needs some emphasis in the direction of community responsibility and altruism. And that therefore, IMO, Daniel's prescription, as described by James, is not wholly appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jan 18, 2011 11:49:05 GMT
Merkavah,could I just note that a centrist in the u.s. would be considered a right winger just about anywhere else in the developed world.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jan 18, 2011 16:19:09 GMT
Merkavah,could I just note that a centrist in the u.s. would be considered a right winger just about anywhere else in the developed world. Firstly, considered as such by whom and on what grounds? Secondly, I am identify myself as Cuban both by ethnicity and by culture. Thirdly, I paraphrase my old Philosophy professor when I say, "..and a four star british cuisine specialist would be considered a menace to public health anywhere else in the developed world, so what's your point?"
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Jan 18, 2011 18:23:13 GMT
If you allow me some digression, I'm always fascinated at how the United States and France (my country) are inverted images of each other, and nowhere more so as when it comes to the size of government. Whereas Americans are wary of big government, most of my fellow-compatriots are suspicious of any attempt to reduce its size. Also, topics deemed as "hot" in the US are fairly consensual here: abortion (to oppose it even gently is extremely risky) secularism (the closest thing we have to a state religion; religion is OK in France as long as you have none or don't show) or healthcare (no one opposes it, and attempts to reform it are usually greeted with strikes and hostile polls) To paraphrase Elephant's quip, a centrist in France would be regarded as a socialist anywhere else in the world. By American standards, our right-wing president is a moderate liberal. Only when it comes to immigration does the French right (and part of the left) become traditionally right-wing - and it's not something to rejoice. Back to this thread's object, I'm aware that American individualism has its share of drawbacks, but it also accounts for the country's political, intellectual and societal vitality. I just can't imagine the United States as an European-style social democracy and retaining its viguour - it would end like Canada (which is a fine country, but not one I'd use the word "vigorous" to describe)
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 18, 2011 22:50:20 GMT
The 'left' and 'right' labels can be pretty meaningless. I've always considered myself somewhat left of centre, because I believe that the poor and working people class people should be protected from extremes of dog-eat-dog capitalism, personal choice in religion and sexuality should be respected, and people should be allowed to criticise the state. However, I'm increasingly finding that many on the left want to make such attitudes compulsory (except for the one about being allowed to criticise the state): street preachers get arrested for preaching against homosexuality, Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf is on trial in Austria for "denigrating religious teachings" and British schoolgirls get arrested by the police for intolerance because they find it difficult to work with classmates who speak Urdu. I haven't read Daniel Hannan's book, but as James explains it I am concerned about some of the same things: that the state is stepping in to legislate what people must think.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jan 19, 2011 6:06:25 GMT
Merkavah,I was not attacking the us,just voicing a commonly held opinion,you are free to disagree.Turoldus's point about France is well made.Your point about British cuisine less so,not because it is any less true,rather because the subject at hand is politics.Do you feel the us is not a broadly right of centre country?
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jan 19, 2011 6:15:54 GMT
Chang, defining the United States' political spectrum as anything other than "chaotic", is an exercise in futility. It's people range wildly from left to right, with a few Neo-Randians and Anarchists mixed in, just in case you get bored.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 19, 2011 6:56:24 GMT
Chang, defining the United States' political spectrum as anything other than "chaotic", is an exercise in futility. It's people range wildly from left to right, with a few Neo-Randians and Anarchists mixed in, just in case you get bored. I must say I can see where Elephantchang gets that impression of the US. I don't doubt there are greenies, leftists and all sorts, but outside the US the 'religious right' gets a lot more press and seems to have a great deal more political clout than in other English speaking countries. Just as one measure, US church attendance is much higher than most western countries, and that is more of a conservative trait.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jan 19, 2011 6:57:36 GMT
Point taken,you are obviously a lot nearer to the situation than I.Most days I watch Fox news,with growing incredulity so that may have skewed my opinion....Changing the subject a bit,I have noticed very little coverage of international affairs unless the us is directly involved,when I lived in Britain I am sure the news was less domestic orientated,any thoughts?
|
|