Posted on 05/10/2010 4:31:11 AM PDT by IbJensen
The origin of the term “Anglosphere” is disputed. Not less its meaning. Now, with the ambivalent result of the U.K.’s general election, we see that even the Brits don’t know who or what they want to be.
However, it seems clear that, if, by the Anglosphere. you mean the de facto alliance of the United States, Great Britain, Australia and Canada which has been doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in the War with Jihad since 9/11, then this muddled outcome is bad news. It also augurs poorly for any serious attempt to repeal or shrink the modern welfare state. And that’s even before you factor in the violence unfolding in Greece as its bankrupt government is being forced to do exactly that.
I side with those who take a broader view. “Anglosphere” embraces a shared culture and Judeo-Christian values as well. New Zealand and Ireland were never “on team” in the War with Jihad. Yet, they’re plainly part of a community of shared values and a common history, however terrible (racism, colonialism, classism, sexism, anyone?) that history sometimes is.
Wherever you find a parliamentary system of government, rule of law and English as the language of educated persons, there Britain was. It’s England’s gift – sometimes misbegotten - to the world. This broader definition sweeps in, at various degrees of affinity, India, South Africa and elsewhere, including the Caribbean. In other places, of course, only the empty forms remain.
The glue binding the Anglosphere together must be the combination of the so-called special relationship between the United States and Great Britain and the belief in a market economy. The latter was memorably defended by Michael Novak in 1984 in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. By the 1990’s, democratic capitalism was being hailed as the winner of the Cold War and the standard model for the developing world.
The 20 years since have proved unkind to that vision. The Chinese model of state capitalism and one-party rule is now copied. And Chinese money and Chinese influence, fueled by its booming economy, is spreading across Africa and South America. Whether China is experiencing its own real estate bubble (and, soon, a bust) may determine the course of the first half of this century.
In the meantime, what’s clear is how hard it is to turn back from socialism once your health care has been socialized and more than half of your GNP (and, usually, more than half of your population) depends on the government. In Canada, Great Britain, and Australia, efforts to reset the clock have been or are being made. So far, the results aren’t encouraging.
In all three countries, conservatives have come to power. Yet, the essential structures of decline have endured. Universal health care, regulation (and high taxation) of the economy and a a culture of dependency = military downsizing and the end of Great Power status. Only a couple generations seem necessary to change the fundamental character of a people.
In Great Britain, where this trend began in 1945, the decay is most advanced. This muddled UK election seems unlikely to change that. Peter Hitchens’ The Abolition of Britain (1999), re-read today, appears prophetic. So have the more recent writings of Bulletin columnist Mark Steyn, especially America Alone (2009). As to the future, that may be captured in Chris Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.
Europe’s economic crisis is playing out in the streets of Athens as I write.
If Britain’s Conservatives do succeed in forming a government with the Liberal Democrats, the price will probably be a further erosion of the special relationship with the United States, a further weakening of what’s left of the British military and the UK’s eventual entry into the Euro-zone. If the Lib Dems ally with the Laborites, on the other hand, that future is now. A Labor-LD alliance would also re-structure Parliament and the British electoral system so that a future Conservative victory will become almost impossible.
Perhaps the best which can be hoped for is political paralysis and a new election in the fall. In other words: let us hope that the British electorate decides to put the dice back into the cup for another throw.
Pending that, with Australia and Canada (Canada, too, has a minority Conservative government) quickly exiting the War with Jihad and Britain soon to follow, we may have arrived at that Mark Steyn moment: America alone. Does Mr. Obama care?
Actually, a RACIST, A-rab, dictatorial, Muslim Commie twit.
Robert Heinlein
A minority Con government would serve us best, but a hated LibLab pact which will be kicked out in a year might also be good.
The British hate Gordon the Leper the way you guys hate Jimmy Carter. Conservatism is on the advance in England, and rule by Brown and Clegg will further contaminate/marginalise both the Lib and Lab parties
Yes, in the short term UK-US relations will grow worse, but they couldn't grow better with Obama in the WH anyway.
Ping for later
.
Anglosphere = civilized world.
WHat book was that in?
Not sure. I read it on the internet some time back and saved it to my quote folder.
The ONLY value the relationship with the UK brings is that it provides us with a toehold into western Europe. Direct engagement with the continent can easily replace this. Foreign policy should be based on national interest, not on sentimentality and kinship amongst a shrinking portion of the population, who know everything they want to know about the UK from WWII movies, and who don't realize the scorn with which so many Brits have for the US.
A bit of online research shows it’s from “To Sail Beyond the Sunset”, pg. 227.
One I haven’t read, I’ll have to pick it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.