Hitchens on politics


——————————————————-

12 October 2006

house-of-parliament_252c-sunset_252c-1904.jpg

The real problem with the British constitution

Peter Hitchin’s view of contemporary British politics.

His overall point is that the main two parties, Conservatives and Labour, are too alike, avoid any controversial debate and are thoroughly deserving of voter apathy. It may be of interest to US readers, as I’ve heard plenty of Americans complain in the same manner about Republicans and Democrats (or Republicrats for short), that they are largely identical, inert elitists.

If they [the Conservatives and Labour] were commercial outfits, they would not survive at all. It is as if forgotten grocery chains, such as International Stores or Fine Fare, still dominated the retail market even though their shops were dingy, their prices high, their merchandise old-fashioned and shabby. But the rules of commerce don’t apply in politics. Habit and unreasoning tribal loyalty sustain brands, which would otherwise be dead.

..

There are several other subjects which are also effectively banned. You may not question the great social and political mistakes of the 1960s and seventies.

Crime can be debated, but shallowly, never in the light of its true cause, the laying waste of family life by the official encouragement of divorce and fatherless families, and by the death of absolute morality.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:55 PM


——————————————————-

At 9:11 PM, phoenix said…

This is largely correct in the US as well. We break up the tribes into “conservative” and “liberal” even though it usually refers to republican and democrat respectively. Then people blindly follow whichever one they’ve chosen, without thinking for themselves, and with the same type of arguments that feminism makes: they ignore truth and just speak biasedly on anything. If you used the same exact facts and claimed the other party did it, you’d get a completely different stance on the exact same subject. And then people afterwards have the nerve to complain that people don’t vote. It’s not like one vote even means anything, and it’s not like anything will change anyway. It seems the only way to have your “voice heard” in politics is to make a lot of money and then either run yourself or bribe politicians with “donations” and “lobbying.” Democracy doesn’t exist in any form that pundits claim it does.

——————————————————-

At 10:23 PM, Anonymous said…

It’s interesting as Lord Howe (former Chancellor of the Exchequor under Maggie) purports quite the opposite.

He was being interviewed on Straightalk – BBC News24 – about Camerons image obsession, and how the two main parties policies were increasingly similar, which was contributing to voter apathy. After which he said that he was in favor of familiar policies – which could be interpreted as collusion, to an extent – , as it indicated that the parties were ‘leading the country’ instead of chasing voters. Which, when you phrase it like that, seems mightily sensible.

——————————————————-

At 11:34 PM, Anonymous said…

Universal Liberty is inversely proportional to Universal Suffrage.

——————————————————-

At 11:39 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

It’s been a very long time since the U.S. has had an honest two-party political system. It’s amusing to listen to otherwise intelligent conservatives and liberals debating politics. They honestly believe the system, while flawed, is actually functioning as the authorities would have us believe.

Now, precisely WHO is in charge and pulling the strings behind the scenes, and just how many countries are under their power is open to question, but the fact remains that a small but immensely powerful group is running, or attempting to run politics, business and religion. Whether it’s the Zionists, Masons, Catholics, atheists, or evangelical Christians is not fully known. Personally, I think the leaders of most, if not all, of these groups are part of the power structure that rules our lives. I’m not a Christian, but there may be some truth to what many Christians claim about the world being prepared for the Anti-Christ, or a similar dictator.

The break-up of marriage and family is certainly part of the plan, as men have been immobilized and financially castrated by the system. Most men are either divorced or live in constant fear of divorce, so practically speaking, no one is watching the store.

It’s going to get nothing but worse, and the only hope a man has is to stay out of the system. By that, I mean do not get married, and do not risk getting a woman pregnant. By failing to act wisely in this area, a man places himself in the power of the family court system. Only a true celibate bachelor, such as myself, can hope to stay free.

——————————————————-

At 12:02 AM, NYMOM said…

Yes, the US is effectively like this as well.

And I assume that just like in the US, no one can discuss immigration policy realistically either w/o being branded a racist for questioning the current practices…

——————————————————-

At 2:07 AM, Anonymous said…

They are not supposed to “lead” us they are supposed to “serve” us

Max

——————————————————-

At 5:57 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

“Crime can be debated, but shallowly, never in the light of its true cause, the laying waste of family life by the official encouragement of divorce and fatherless families, and by the death of absolute morality”

Yes and who is responsible for all the fatherless families?….feminists, females and mangina governments who have used divorce and the family courts to rob children of their natural fathers. In the absent of male guidance children are now reared by females with the female view of morality i.e. if it suits me it’s OK. Not surprising that kids often have no concept of right and wrong.

——————————————————-

At 6:44 PM, Anonymous said…

They are called Republicrats and Democrans. No difference in parties unless you count the fact that Republicans borrow money they dont have to spend it while Democrats tax money they dont have to spend it. Otherwise all they do is campaign year round fighting over the few people that still bother to vote over who can spend the most money we don’t have.

——————————————————-

At 11:40 PM, Anonymous said…

Over here in Germany it’s the same. In former times we basically had conservatives(with some liberal aid) and socialdemocrats. Now they are the same. SO we got now feminine socialists like in the past and the other big party feminine socialists pretending to be conservatives. fortunately germany has a multiparty system so the liberals, leftist and the green party(green party=all evil united) are on the rise. unfortunately it’s too late for germany/europe. fortunately i am planning my emigration.

——————————————————-

At 4:42 AM, Viking said…

Here in the states I think our two parties have come to represent those who favor the mommy state and those who favor the daddy state.

The Dems, Liberals or Mommy Statists want a nurturing society that takes care of all the social ills. More programs, more entitlements, more welfare, more taxes, bigger government.

The Reps, Neo-Conservatives or Daddy Statists want a protective society that takes care of the people through being tough on criminals and terrorists. More laws, more restrictions, more soldiers, more police, better weapons, more taxes, bigger government.

In both cases the government is getting bigger and taking care of its children/citizens by not letting them grow up. Real conservatives are only now waking up to the fact that the Republitards are not conservative. They only talk the talk but they are not for smaller, less invasive govt. This next election is going to be a blood bath for the Republicans.

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: