Anglosphere

Instapundit had this post, and Nito posted these maps in response. The basic idea is that the Blue Staters are so horrified about living under the rule of George Bush that they want to break the USA into pieces and form their own country. Of course, they are just venting.

The core strength of “liberal” America resides in the descendants of Yankee puritans, a memetic “Greater New England” that sprang from the Yankee diaspora which settled the Northern tier of the country. These folks have been living uneasily with their fellow Americans for over 350 years. They have been trying to reform the rest of us for our own good the whole time: Revolution, abolition, prohibition, civil rights, environmentalism … . Sometimes they are even right, as much as I hate to admit it. Look at a picture of Cotton Mather, or Susan B. Anthony, or any eat-your-peas liberal do-gooder. The eyes: sad at the foolishness and injustice of the world — the mouth, a mirthless line — and the jaw, set in determination to rectify the world’s wrongs and smite its wrongdoers. Those Yankees, genetic or memetic, are the core of the “progressive” element in American life, and they have been for centuries, and they’ll never change.

Still, even though secession is not seriously on the table, it is interesting that the immediate impulse of the embittered defeated party in 2004 was to think about rearranging territory, not tearing up the Constitution and forming a Second Republic.

This all has an Anglospheric dimension to it. Jim Bennett in his new book reiterates a theme he has written about repeatedly. Anglospheric political struggles tend not to aim at regime change, ala the French, who are now on their Fifth Republic since 1789. Rather, Anglospheric Constitutional struggles end up being “compositional struggles” leading to attempted or successful secessions with territorial division being the outcome. A big issue in the 18th century was about the composition of Britain, and the Act of Union of 1707 (uniting England and Scotland) led to two wars in 1715 and 1745 before Scotland was firmly embedded in a “United Kingdom”. Our own Revolution of 1776, of revered memory, was similarly a matter of territorial composition and secession, much less about Constitutional values. The Americans claimed to be fighting for their rights as free-born Englishmen, after all. In 19th Century America the big question was: Will the slave states have their own country or not? They rolled the dice and lost. A tumultuous issue in 19th Century Britain was Irish Home Rule. This vexatious problem was resolved, incompletely, by civil war and secession. The peaceful devolution of rule to Canada, Australia and New Zealand was due in part to the painful lessons of 1776 et seq.

A large part of the success story of the Anglosphere has been the ability of its communities to maintain their cultural, economic and military ties while reconfiguring the territorial elements. These reconfigurations have, to an unusual degree, been peaceful and lawful. Where violence did occur it has usually come at the end of protracted efforts to compromise and work out differences peacefully. And once a conflict has ended there have always been strong constituencies pushing to restore the many ties of civil society relatively rapidly in the aftermath. The strands of civil society, across the Atlantic, and even across the Irish Sea, have been relatively swiftly rewoven repeatedly for many centuries. (An example that comes to mind is the Treaty of Washington, negotiated by President Grant’s administration, which resolved outstanding claims against Britain as a result of its assistance to the Confederacy. There was much bitterness against Britain, but there was also a strong desire to reopen the spigots of British investment capital. There are many other examples.)

So seeing maps with “Jesusland” and “United States of Canada” should not surprise us. It is the traditional Anglospheric way of thinking out loud about how to resolve seemingly irreconcilable differences. One way is to leave, physically, for some new place — “light out for the territories”, or “go West”, or as Davey Crocket put it “you people can go to Hell; I’m going to Texas”. And if there are too many dissatisfied people for this method to work, there is pressure to re-deal the cards on who runs which pieces of real estate.

Thankfully, for now, any proposed division of territory is merely political satire. But secession thinking is often the first straw in the wind of a storm of deeper conflict coming up.

The patterns repeat themselves like family resemblances, the living seeing echoes of their own faces in old photographs.

Jim Bennett has a new article in the current issue of The National Interest entitled “Networking Nation States”. This is a very solid piece of work, which will give us all something to mull while we wait for the book. Bennett is going to have his Anglosphere Institute up and running soon, and I will provide details about that as I get them.

OK. This should be three posts, but its late, I’m tired and I just kept typing. You have been warned.

What a vacation. Work issues ate a chunk, then a medical issue (don’t worry we’re all OK) ate a bunch more, and the return trip with four small kids was an ordeal. But mostly it was good. My sister got us a terrific house about a five minute walk from the beach in Ogunquit. With little kids, we don’t do a lot of restaurant dining, but you can get good fried whole clams at any of a dozen places, and I availed myself of this relatively inexpensive local delicacy.

I managed to finish Max Boot’s Savage Wars of Peace, (buy it here). It is a decent book, though it falls short of some of the raves it got. It is especially useful if you are not well-acquainted with America’s smaller wars. I also finished Neils Bjerre-Poulsens book Right Face: Organizing the American Conservative Movement 1945-65. That one is a great honking slab of all-beef political history of the type I like best. I may do a post at some point on the history of Conservatism, but there is a wave of current scholarship which I am not current on, and I’d like to be. It may be while on that one. I also read Bruce Gudmundsson’s book On Infantry, which is superb. I have read a shopping cart full of military books in the last several months, many of which touch on the themes which Gudmundsson focuses on like unit cohesion, and military effectiveness not being primarily a function of technology. I hope to do a big blog post on all that, too, time, energy and Divine Providence permitting. I ended up re-reading James Burnham’s (see this also) somewhat dated masterpiece Suicide of the West: an essay on the meaning and destiny of liberalism. I grew up with Burnham’s columns in National Review. He was the coldest of Cold Warriors. Like many of the initial National Review crowd, he was a former commie, and he brought an icy, hard-headed Leninist ruthlessness to the struggle against communism, which he was only able to wage through his writing. This book, once I finish rereading it, certainly merits a few good paragraphs of analysis here. I went to the Book Barn in Wells, Maine, which is a pretty good used book store. I got, for $1.50, Luigi Barzini’s American’s Are Alone in the World. Barzini was a great writer and very insightful about the United States. This will go on the shelf until the cows come home, probably, but anything by him is sure to be good and I may even get to it someday.

I also got, for $3.50, a damaged copy of G.R. Gleig’s Personal Reminiscences of the Duke of Wellington. This is a justifiably forgotten book, almost raw data for a real narrative biographer to refer to. Still, if you like this kind of thing, its very banality is a window into the political and cultural world of England circa 1830, when Gleig worked as a minion of the Iron Duke in the struggle against the Reform Bill, which was a major reform of the election of members of the House of Commons. The Duke, bless him, was a conservative of a stripe we can no longer even imagine. He loathed democracy which, with reason, he saw as mob rule. He remained a tough old bird, long after he left the army. At the time he was opposing the Reform, there was a lot of “agitation” in the country, “mobs burnt towns and sacked gentlemen’s houses”. Gleig warned Wellington to be careful coming out to his country house. Wellington responded, “I suspect that those who will attack me on the road will come rather the worst out of the contest, if there should be one.” Gleig, with a few gentlemen from the area rode out, each armed with “a heavy hunting whip, and pistols”, to meet the Duke: “I found him in his open caleche, provided with a brace of double-barrelled pistols, and having his servant likewise armed, seated on the box.” No mob emerged, so the Duke did not have to work the execution of any rustic miscreants with his own firearms. (Blair may make a good speech, but I’ll be believe he is the Iron Duke’s equal when I see him in an open-topped car with an automatic rifle in his lap.) Gleig, an Anglican clergyman, treats with admirable delicacy the question of Wellington’s relations with Mrs. Arbuthnot. I can say that as of page 224, I have gotten more than my $3.50 worth of utils out of it.

I saw Joschka Fischer on Charlie Rose. Fischer is a smooth and soothing phony. I read a column by William Pfaff in the Boston Globe, which I fished out of the trash at the airport — I’d never give a cent to the Globe. Both made the same point that it is simply awful how the Atlantic Alliance is crumbling, and how it is imperative that Europe and America work together, and according to Pfaff, how European intellectuals roll their eyes at the supposed global menace of Osama bin Laden. The only sane response to this, shorn of fully-merited profanity, is so what? Who cares? If the American public agrees with the president that there is a danger requiring a military response, and the European intelligentsia, lefty pols like Fischer, and would-be sophisticates like Pfaff don’t like it, so what? Why do we need them to do anything? If they don’t perceive a danger, stay home. Regulate the fat content of cheese, mandate a 32 hour work week, keep the grocery stores closed at night, create a “consitution” with a right to a government-employed guidance counsellor for anyone who is sad. Whatever. Do your thing, Europe. (Anyway, the Germans are in Afghanistan, because they agree it is important to be there, not out of sentimentality.)

We’ll do ours. “Ours” includes demolishing the Taliban and Saddam and hunting down al Qaeda, the purportedly imaginary menace that massacred 3,000 Americans. I was forwarded an email from an officer in the 101st Airborne recently. He had a lot to say, including this:

I know it looks bleak right now, but do not despair. Today they started to count the bodies at just one of the grave sites, and they counted at least over a hundred, and they believe that they can identify nearly a thousand bodies in this cave. I saw the photos from the sight. It’s in this cave and the bodies are pretty well decomposed though some still have hair and what not. Almost all are women and children with gunshot wounds to the head. They literally tossed the bodies into the cave into massive heaps like garbage, and then they left them there. It is pretty disconcerting to see. I have never seen so many bodies, and it reminds me of the Holocaust. We allowed this to happen twelve years ago, and after you see it, you can never be the same. You realize how you cannot allow these people to return to power. It will be a long fight.

He goes on to say: “We are America. We are the greatest country in history — not because of the countries we conquered, not because of the lands that flew our flag, we will be remembered for we are liberators, for the lands whose flags we returned.”

William Pfaff and liberals like him, for reasons of their own, would be embarrassed by these types of sentiments, and facts. They live in dread of the ironic smirks of Belgian journalists or French bureaucrats or German university professors. As for me, I don’t care about such people and I feel perfectly assured that a solid majority of Americans think and feel the same way.

The worst thing of all for these people is that what the United States is doing is working. I got an email containing some language from a senior officer in Baghdad. He does not sound like he is bogged down in any quagmire:

I travel with a loaded 9mm pistol on my lap. This place reminds me of Max Max and the Road Warrior movies. … We are fighting former regime-backed paramilitary groups, Iranian-based opposition, organized criminals, and street thugs. We have stood up governing councils from neighborhood to district to city level. We have conducted humanitarian action in numerous areas to include repair of electricity, water, sewer, hospitals, and schools; created refuse collection systems; and built numerous recreational facilities (particularly soccer fields). We have cleared hundreds of tons of UXOs and weapons caches. … On any given day I deal with the political realm of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the humanitarian realm of the NGOs, and the military realm of firefights/improved explosive devices/snipers/mortar attacks. [The brigade] contains active duty, reserv ists, and National Guardsmen. [It] has lost 4 soldiers since taking over the sector. The soldiers are staying focused and disciplined, and are getting more effective with each passing day. Our snipers have had some success of late – enough said. Even though we are still being shot at daily, the vast majority of the population supports our objectives and just want to get on with their lives. We are doing some excellent humanitarian work, but it doesn’t make the news because all the press wants to talk about is the attacks. The infrastructure is up and running and the shortfalls in electricity, water, sewage, etc., are being addressed. We have local advisory councils of Iraqi citizens set up in Baghdad and a functioning city council. The people we kicked out of power can’t stand our success, however, and will do everything they can to try to make us fail. Thus the ongoing gun battles in the streets. There is also a lot of organized crime here. I have flashbacks to “The Godfather” all the time. … We had a visit from a team from the British Army experienced in operations in Northern Ireland, and we were already doing everything they talked to us about.

These are the voices of an army which is winning, which has the momentum, and which knows it is serving a just cause. Don’t let the misleading news media reports fool you. They want the United States to fail, they want our soldiers to die for nothing, both out of malice and out of a belief that this outcome will help elect a Democrat president. But they are not going to get their wish.

To wrap up, we spent our last day out East in Natick, Mass., where my sister lives. We walked down to the town square. Like every New England town there is a Civil War monument, with the town’s dead listed by name. Natick lost about 100. Several names are in groups, three Manns, I noticed. Three brothers, maybe? The monument says that it there to preserve the memory of those who gave up their lives to save their country “in the war of 1861.” Nothing changes. Everything we have and everything we are was bought and paid for with blood. American soldiers are fighting in a remote place, tonight, now, to bring peace and order to a foreign land to advance our ideals and to preserve our safety and freedom. What they are doing is right. Those who oppose them, jeer at them, lie about them, are wrong. I will continue to pray for the souls of the ones who died so far in this war, and for their families, and for an end to these horrors for the people in Iraq and for a more peaceful and orderly world. God bless America.

Jonathan sent me this essay by Michael Barone. Do please read it.

Barone is almost always good. He is extremely knowledgeable about the real facts of American life. The piece hits home. I got introduced to Hard American in my early jobs in high school, and I got Hard America right socko in the teeth at U of C, which was do or die. I owe any success I have had in life since then to the U of C’s f*** you attitude — we give Ds and Fs here, so show me something or there’s the door. Yep, they do in the workforce, too. That’s training for reality. That’s Hard America.

One element Barone doesn’t play up, which I think is real, is that most parents believe at some level that adult life, and work in particular, which is every waking moment most of us have, is pretty much an umremitting, vulgar, ugly, loveless snakepit with a few winners and a lot of losers. In response, these parents figure that especially younger children can be spared the full brutality of it for a while. But by junior high anyway, these coddled darlings need to start understanding that dogs do eat dogs, that rats do race, and that there are far more asses than chairs when the music stops.

That’s Hard America. God bless it. It is better than all the alternatives. It rewards merit and punishes sloth. It produces wealth, freedom and opportunity — all very great goods. And it has, so far, conquered the world. Barone is probably right that it should be pushed down the age axis, so it starts at about age 12 from a current age 18. Then we will all work harder and sort out the winners from the losers earlier, and have more money.

I think it was Schumpeter who said that a certain pretty large proportion of any society will simply not be able to cut it in a capitalist economy. Let us call these people “losers.” So, according to Schumpeter, or whoever it was, these losers need to be given busy work and an income out of the social surplus of the productive part of society. This way these losers will feel like they are doing something useful, and have a modicum of human dignity, whether or not they have earned it. If this is not done, these losers will raise Hell and destroy the whole system. He was onto something.

There is a libertarian dream world in which there is no Soft America at all, a world of the future, if only this or that would happen today. This vision beckons half-glimpsed on the horizon, somewhat like the Marxian workers’ paradise, except with cleaner bathrooms and crisp efficiency and no grade inflation. It is an Ayn Randian world of competent “winners,” and no bureaucrats, toadies, or parasites like that half-retarded nephew of the boss working in the mailroom.

But this All-Hard-American-All-The-Time utopia will never be more than a delusion. There will always have to be a pretty big Soft America. There will always have to be a place to warehouse and cabin-off the losers who cannot hack it, who will always be misfits in the cash economy. Otherwise, these losers will have time to brood about their failures, find like-minded losers with grievances, blame society for their inability to compete successfully, and agitate for socialism, or whatever equivalent snake oil is fashionable, thus killing the goose for everybody. Much more prudent and humane to have them all work at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. They pretend to work, we actually pay them, and they don’t start a new Nazi or Bolshevik party or join Al Qaeda. Not necessarily a bad buy.

(Such thoughts are why I am a Conservative and not a Libertarian.)

My equivocal response to Barone’s piece worries me. Perhaps I don’t love America enough?

Not understanding, let alone liking, football, the symbol and soul of Hard America, may be a telltale sign. Perhaps this eccentricity is the tip of the iceberg, the first little blotch which will one day metastasize, cancer-like, into a genuine and more generalized dislike even of Hard America itself?

Naaaah. Never happen. I nail my flag to the mast. Here I stand, I can do no other. Football or not, Hard America is my country, warts and all.

This post on Libertarian Samizdata, critiques the current condition of the British military. The first comment to the post, in partial rebuttal, says: “The British Armed Forces are the best trained and most professional in the world. They are often terribly equipped, but that aside, I think the last two are true.”

The post and the comment demonstrate the polar positions one frequently sees about Britain’s military. On one hand, you hear that it is very good, but has some problems, particularly with its equipmen. On the other hand, you hear that the British military used to be very good, but is in really dire shape. I have tended to believe the former to be true, e.g. here.

As a Yank of the Jacksonian Anglospherist variety, I have a strong desire for Britain to continue to maintain and employ very capable military forces, both for use in its own specific interests as needed, and as the key ally to the United States that it has been for many years and which I trust it will remain. It seems clear that the British military, all services, have retained a very strong sense of corporate identity and spirit, a very strong sense of pride and professionalism. As to boots that melt, and bad rifles, and poor field hospitals, the British seem to retain a “can do” and “make do” spirit of getting on with what’s at hand, even if this or that piece of equipment is junk, as the British soldiers and sailors have done for centuries in all manner of difficult situations. (Such as this one, and here, and here and here.) So, there is indisputably a very strong foundation there, even if there are also serious deficiencies. However, it is also plausible that the current levels of funding and the politically correct crap which Blair’s government is apparently imposing are doing serious damage to this strong military foundation.

I’d like to hear from someone knowledgeable about day-to-day conditions in the RN, RAF and/or Army, about how serious things really are. Any suggestions about good sites to look at with objective facts or reliable opinions on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

By participating in what is likely to be a pretty major victory in Iraq the British military services should be in a position to make some demands from the Labor government. I hope that some thought has gone into what they will ask for. This would be a good issue for the Tories to take up — be to the right of Blair et al. on maintaining British military power and prestige. It would also be a good time for the Bush administration to reward our ally with access to the best weapons we have, to the extent that is not already happening.