Decline and fall
Apr 15, 2007 Euroids
Bruce McQuain writes, regarding Tony Blair’s recent j’accuse regarding the role of the black subculture in spiraling crime in England:
Unlike the French, who prefer to pretend by using the general term “youths” for a very specific group of young men who seem to delight in torching cars, Blair has decided to name names – specifically.
It’s a good point. Blair is a centrist, frequently out-Clintoning Clinton in what the cynics call,
perhaps justifiably, triangulation. Like Clinton, he frequently frustrates and is, at the end of the day, a soft centrist. But at critical moments, and far more than Clinton ever did, Blair has taken principled stands and, of course regarding Iraq, spent political capital in a way that would have been utterly unthinkable in the ultra-left-wing Labor party that preceded him.
But I demur regarding the comparison to the French. They may pussyfoot around when it comes to nomenclature, but it was they who outlawed the hijab and stuck to it, despite the howls of many Muslims and others (the law would certainly be unconstitutional here, where religious freedom and lack of state and endorsement — not only the separation of church and state — are the rule). That would be unthinkable in England, home of “Londonistan.” In fact, researching this piece, I found that the redoubtable Daniel Pipes agreed with me before I even said anything — four years ago:
The British government won itself the reputation for being tough because it joined with the U.S.-led effort in Iraq, quite in contrast to France. But when it comes to domestic counterterrorism, the French are far ahead of the hapless, head-in-the-sand Londonistanis – as I have noted earlier. Indeed, one can handsomely fill a blog with evidence of British multicultural lassitude and counterterrorist ineptitude.
It’s all the more credit to Blair, then, who is in his swan song as British Prime Minister, for at least saying it. Yet it’s hard to imagine what could be better down the road, given what’s become of that once-great country — much of which happened during, and because of, the extended Blair Era.
Whereas regarding France, well, what all was there to decline from, exactly?
UPDATE: More lassitude — the kind multiculturalism usually ends up descending on — from Meryl Yourish.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I’d suggest that there’s a major difference in how power is distributed in the governments of the UK and France. France is still extremely centralized, with the government in Paris having far more authority, responsibility, and raw power to effect things than exists in the UK.
The UK has devolved powers to the countries that comprise it (Scotland, N. Ireland, and to a much lower degree Wales), but especially to the counties and the municipalities. Every town has it Council with authority to make changes in practically every regard, from health care to education. All they lack is the ability to print money and create standing armies.
It is at this level, IMO, that the real mischief takes place. Fuzzy thinking, feel-good politics, and PC-ness run amok are the product of poor education standards (depending where you are, they’re even worse than in the worst of the US, certainly not better). The UK is of a largely socialist bent, with many seeking to undo the reforms of Thatcher in the ’80s. An attitude of ‘You owe me’ predominates, though it is challenged by a small, but extremely successful entrepreneurial class created through the Thatcher reforms.
Central government cannot control how the devolved governments exercise their powers, even when that exercise runs counter to government policy. Generally, they’re all running in the same direction, but not at all on the same track. France has nothing like that devolution and the central government can and does put the boot in when it thinks it necessary.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:35 am
That’s a very good point, John, though of course there are probably half a dozen significant cultural differences that we’d have to take into account as well. These might include the two countries’ significantly different political traditions and the way democracy developed in each, the influence — however attenuated at this point — of Catholic versus Protestant culture (now there’s a centralization for you), and one of two the most obvious differences: English food is virtually inedible; the other I will not mention but anyone who has been abroad knows what I mean. This last will really put you in a bad mood for a few centuries.