Transition, Transformation and Radical Thinking
There is a vast difference between the forces that drove and inspired the Brexit and those that brought about the election of Donald John Trump. Firstly the difference between the two voting groups was not even that noticeable. No avalanches here! Secondly, there was an election in one country and all the fanfare that goes with it while in the Isles, there was a referendum (directing a political question to the direct vote of the electorate). Experts say that the results split Britain in many ways but the English were in many ways not really subscribed the this European thingy anyway. For a long time they were enjoying the benefits of colonial triumphs even if the Kingdom was going through withdrawal symptoms. Their Economy was much better placed and for a long time they held on to their currency. In addition to this they still have a large group of commonwealth countries that share language and major parts of culture-and some affection for the crown. Involving the highest court in the U.K was therefore also just a formality to demonstrate that the system still works even if you get the sense that its stratified society wants to remind the populace that it is still firmly in charge. But there are rifts here that expose the underbelly of a system that says it listens to the people (democracy) but that places certain institutions and their leaders at the top of its courts (and rightly so) even when this call to serve is administered not by vote but by selection. The referendum therefore upsets many in that it hails the people as supreme but still places them at the mercy of those they elect. The U.K is different in structure as well because it combines monarchy with constitution. the crown still leads although only in name but is still a very integral part of the structured and layered society. So we the people does apply in only a limited sense here. The speech is therefore only more relevant in the U.S than it is in the U.K unless of course the British were to choose to undo the fetters of blue blood like their french counter parts resorting to pruning forks instead. So even when the Supreme court steps in and recognizes the necessity of the law and the system of parliament (upper and lower) it only comes in to state the obvious and maybe stick in to the people a little more to remind them that there are levels. The broader debate which would include Russia therefore is about the larger stream of change which would call for a return of the older order. Somewhere where George is still in charge and the pioneers are still thinking about the Mayflower and having visions of autonomy. The same ancient order is what drives the leaders in Russia toward those nostalgic days when the Union was in competition with the west also commanding vast chunks of territory. The only difference is that this time around the Russians have China, North Korea and Cuba as underlings. This is why one would worry about the loss of NATO, the only force that can check the advances of a resurgent Russia. This is why DJTs words are so troubling when for example the U.S is loosing bases in the Philipines even as it gains some in Djibouti and West Africa. It still needs to have the ability to deploy its troops with speed if not for war for deterrence. The sense of exhaustion is plain for all to see and DJTs major case is to at least spend less money policing the world. This off course places him on a collision course with the U.N and the aforementioned NATO. But at the moment no one has been able to check the Russians instead being rather grateful for their success in Syria. So you could say the Russians have stolen America's thunder. This scenario will probably bring about a increase in British influence but will probably bring about a regurgitation of older post independence sentiments. This is why in some respects, the Tea Party was so relevant and why the constitution has seemed to enjoy a comeback. But so will the Saint and his escapades with the Dragon. The Reagan years and the decades that preceded those were really in my view about a western front led by George Senior (battle trained and battle ready) dealing with curtains of iron and walls splitting in East and West Germany and redefining imperial power but in a strange way reclaiming the long lost rebellious American son in his own turf.
There is a vast difference between the forces that drove and inspired the Brexit and those that brought about the election of Donald John Trump. Firstly the difference between the two voting groups was not even that noticeable. No avalanches here! Secondly, there was an election in one country and all the fanfare that goes with it while in the Isles, there was a referendum (directing a political question to the direct vote of the electorate). Experts say that the results split Britain in many ways but the English were in many ways not really subscribed the this European thingy anyway. For a long time they were enjoying the benefits of colonial triumphs even if the Kingdom was going through withdrawal symptoms. Their Economy was much better placed and for a long time they held on to their currency. In addition to this they still have a large group of commonwealth countries that share language and major parts of culture-and some affection for the crown. Involving the highest court in the U.K was therefore also just a formality to demonstrate that the system still works even if you get the sense that its stratified society wants to remind the populace that it is still firmly in charge. But there are rifts here that expose the underbelly of a system that says it listens to the people (democracy) but that places certain institutions and their leaders at the top of its courts (and rightly so) even when this call to serve is administered not by vote but by selection. The referendum therefore upsets many in that it hails the people as supreme but still places them at the mercy of those they elect. The U.K is different in structure as well because it combines monarchy with constitution. the crown still leads although only in name but is still a very integral part of the structured and layered society. So we the people does apply in only a limited sense here. The speech is therefore only more relevant in the U.S than it is in the U.K unless of course the British were to choose to undo the fetters of blue blood like their french counter parts resorting to pruning forks instead. So even when the Supreme court steps in and recognizes the necessity of the law and the system of parliament (upper and lower) it only comes in to state the obvious and maybe stick in to the people a little more to remind them that there are levels. The broader debate which would include Russia therefore is about the larger stream of change which would call for a return of the older order. Somewhere where George is still in charge and the pioneers are still thinking about the Mayflower and having visions of autonomy. The same ancient order is what drives the leaders in Russia toward those nostalgic days when the Union was in competition with the west also commanding vast chunks of territory. The only difference is that this time around the Russians have China, North Korea and Cuba as underlings. This is why one would worry about the loss of NATO, the only force that can check the advances of a resurgent Russia. This is why DJTs words are so troubling when for example the U.S is loosing bases in the Philipines even as it gains some in Djibouti and West Africa. It still needs to have the ability to deploy its troops with speed if not for war for deterrence. The sense of exhaustion is plain for all to see and DJTs major case is to at least spend less money policing the world. This off course places him on a collision course with the U.N and the aforementioned NATO. But at the moment no one has been able to check the Russians instead being rather grateful for their success in Syria. So you could say the Russians have stolen America's thunder. This scenario will probably bring about a increase in British influence but will probably bring about a regurgitation of older post independence sentiments. This is why in some respects, the Tea Party was so relevant and why the constitution has seemed to enjoy a comeback. But so will the Saint and his escapades with the Dragon. The Reagan years and the decades that preceded those were really in my view about a western front led by George Senior (battle trained and battle ready) dealing with curtains of iron and walls splitting in East and West Germany and redefining imperial power but in a strange way reclaiming the long lost rebellious American son in his own turf.
No comments:
Post a Comment