Anglosphere

Recent political discussions among my friends and acquaintances in Britain have been rather depressed and depressing. We all start off by saying that we absolutely have to get rid of Blair for all sorts of reasons, too numerous to list on this blog.

Then somebody asks rather gloomily what will happen when (and if) he is succeeded by Gordon Brown. We all groan. The idea of that prissy Scot who oozes hard core socialism as well as misery as Prime Minister fills everyone with loathing. (And I do mean everyone. Gordon Brown managed to lose Labour a safe seat recently in a by-election on his own doorstep in Dunfermline.)

Of course, Blair may well not leave until Brown had completely discredited himself. That is my own reading of the situation and I rather regret not putting any money on that before Blair said that he now regretted saying that he would not be leading the party in the next election.

What many people forget is that the Labour Party elects its leaders and, given its slightly crazy view of the world, it may not elect Brown but go for someone else, like the egregious Prescott. Probably not, but you never can tell.

On the other hand, somebody says, brightening momentarily, Brown will not win another election. (Prescott could not win a three-legged race against arthritic tortoises.)

And that will do what, another says. Well, we shall have a …. um … a Conservative government …. that is to say … the Conservative Party will win an election …. perhaps. That’s when the real groans start. For there is no doubt in anybody’s mind. The government that this Conservative Party with the Boy-King David Cameron and his court in charge might form will not be a Conservative one. Actually, it will not be anything but a tie-less version of a possible Liberal-Democrat government.

So, there we are. What is one to do? In my case, the obvious answer is turning to conservative history (with a small c as it is not just about the party and past governments).

Some time ago I took over the editorship of the Conservative History Journal and, having published three issues, have just finished proof-reading a pamphlet on the career of Sir Michael Hicks Beach.

That is not enough in the modern day, even for a Conservative History Group. So, I have started a blog, which will, in the fullness of time, be turned into an all-singing, all-dancing website.

In the meantime, I anticipate lots of ideas, suggested postings and (hey, if you dream, dream big) even articles for the Journal from my co-bloggers and readers.

(Link to Conservative History Blog)

Cross-posted from Albion’s Seedlings

In the Canadian case, the Anglosphere temperament that values stability, paternalism, and ordered freedom is stronger than the competing strand that values individualism, enterprise, and a more [libertarian] concept of freedom. In the UK, the two temperaments are roughly matched. In the USA, the former temperament is a distinct minority and the latter is more prevalent. This causes many people to believe that one temperament is or should be seen as expressive of a “national culture”. But the members of the minority temperament are also part of national life, and each have created a valid expression of that temperament’s values in national politics.

–Jim Bennett

Jim Bennett has a great post about the perils of importing institutions:

One could take that point further. Canada’s constitution now combines the British parliamentary system’s stong prime ministership, which with a well-disciplined majority can pretty much push through whatever legislation it wants, with an American-style supreme court with very strong powers. Rather than serving as a check upon each other, they seem to act together in creating a ratchet toward a single set of solutions for any problem — more interventions by the federal state, no matter how ineffective or obnoxious previous ones have been. Either the historical British system, or the historical American one, have been more effective in balancing government actions with freedom and an effective civil society. The Canadian hybrid seems to have imported the vices of both with the virtues of neither.

Jim Bennett corrects a would-be critic.

Update: Someone who does get it: Mr. Barone.

Update 2: John O’Sullivan comments.

Also: I was unfair to characterize Mead as a “would-be critic” or intellectual borrower. He makes his own case, which overlaps Bennett’s but is independent of it, a point that O’Sullivan takes pains to make.