June 17, 2008
Posted by Jay Livingston
Conservative positions in the UK and in the US don’t always coincide. US conservatives, espeically in the Bush era, are much more comfortable with the concentration of power in a strong executive. I got a hint of these differences three summers ago when we rented a flat in London for a few days. Our hostess, a woman in her sixties, picked us up at the Victoria Station and gave us a tour of London. She had been a tour guide in her day, and in addition to the usual information, she added she sometimes added her own editorial commentary.
“There’s no more Brits in London,” she said, pointing to the darker people on the sidewalks. She also had little use the “queers” that had invaded her Vauxhall neighborhood. Surely here was a Conservative, part of the electorate that kept Margaret Thatcher and the Tories in power through the 1980s – the British counterparts of Ronald Reagan’s constituency.
Yet as we passed the Houses of Parliament, she pointed out the window at a statue. “That’s Oliver Cromwell. The only dictator England’s ever had,” she paused for only a second, “except for Maggie Thatcher.”
A blog by Jay Livingston -- what I've been thinking, reading, seeing, or doing. Although I am a member of the Montclair State University department of sociology, this blog has no official connection to Montclair State University. “Montclair State University does not endorse the views or opinions expressed therein. The content provided is that of the author and does not express the view of Montclair State University.”
Subscribe via Email
British Conservatives - Then and Now
June 16, 2008
Posted by Jay Livingston
Conservatives in the UK take a position that’s opposite of US conservatives on the question of individual rights – at least the rights of those thrown into prison without any charges brought against them. (See the previous post.)
But conservatism within the UK may be at odds with itself, or at least with its old Thatcherite self. Here’s David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, as quoted by David Brooks in his column last month
Posted by Jay Livingston
Conservatives in the UK take a position that’s opposite of US conservatives on the question of individual rights – at least the rights of those thrown into prison without any charges brought against them. (See the previous post.)
But conservatism within the UK may be at odds with itself, or at least with its old Thatcherite self. Here’s David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, as quoted by David Brooks in his column last month
We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.It seems like only yesterday, though it was nearly twenty years ago, that Margaret Thatcher was saying something very different.
There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.(I’d love to use that quote as the only question on a sociology final. Discuss.)
Conservatives and Liberties
June 13, 2008
Posted by Jay Livingston
Six years. That’s how long some prisoners have been held at Guantánamo without even having charges brought against them. Too long? Certainly not, say conservatives in the US.
The conservative wing on the Supreme Court, dissenting in yesterday’s decision on this, thought that not only was locking up people indefinitely and without charges, let alone trial and conviction, a good idea. They also saw nothing in it that violated the Constitution (“Pay no attention to that habeas corpus clause behind the curtain.”)
But why is this position “conservative”? Does it fit with some universal set of conservative principles? Apparently not.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, has proposed a law allowing the government to hold terrorism suspects without charges not for six years or six months, but for six weeks. You’d think that conservatives would be shouting that 42 days is not nearly long enough. But the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron,
Posted by Jay Livingston
Six years. That’s how long some prisoners have been held at Guantánamo without even having charges brought against them. Too long? Certainly not, say conservatives in the US.
The conservative wing on the Supreme Court, dissenting in yesterday’s decision on this, thought that not only was locking up people indefinitely and without charges, let alone trial and conviction, a good idea. They also saw nothing in it that violated the Constitution (“Pay no attention to that habeas corpus clause behind the curtain.”)
But why is this position “conservative”? Does it fit with some universal set of conservative principles? Apparently not.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, has proposed a law allowing the government to hold terrorism suspects without charges not for six years or six months, but for six weeks. You’d think that conservatives would be shouting that 42 days is not nearly long enough. But the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron,
described the measure as “a political calculation” designed to make Mr. Brown appear as if he was being tough on security.This from the Tories’ own website. I’m not sure which supposedly conservative stance surprised me more – their opposition to detention without charges or their use of the first name in referring to the party leaders. Even on Fox, they don’t refer “George.”
David condemned the plans for 42-day detention, arguing they would threaten civil liberties and could alienate sections of society.
What's So Great About Purity Anyway?
June 12, 2008
Posted by Jay Livingston
“Do you read XKCD?” asked the teenager in residence when he got home from school yesterday.
“Not when they diss sociology,” I said.
“So I guess all the sociology bloggers were on this one,” he said.
Not all, at least not at the time. As far as I knew, only Anomie had blogged it. Now it’s everywhere. Including here.
Posted by Jay Livingston
“Do you read XKCD?” asked the teenager in residence when he got home from school yesterday.
“Not when they diss sociology,” I said.
“So I guess all the sociology bloggers were on this one,” he said.
Not all, at least not at the time. As far as I knew, only Anomie had blogged it. Now it’s everywhere. Including here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)