BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Help me understand my politics

  
 
Happy Dave Has Left
16:27 / 10.05.07
So, Tony Blair's announcement about his upcoming resignation has got me thinking about how I plan to vote in the next election. And at the moment, I'm feeling deeply conflicted. Can Barbelithers help me understand what my politics are? I'm posting this here because I've found the 'Lithers I've spoken to both online and in person nearly universally pleasant, thoughtful and respectful, and I'm reasonably sure that I'm not going to be called any names for asking this question.

Okay, so, basically. I'm 25, originally from Scotland. I make good money at a job in London. I pay a lot of tax. I'm about to get married, to a US citizen, so I'm taking a definite interest in immigration policy. I used to be in the Territorial Army, and nearly joined the regular army, so I have personal experience of and direct connection with the military, including a lot of friends currently serving. I'd say my views on defence are essentially, support the soldier, detest the war (I specifically include Iraq and Afghanistan here, which I think are messy debacles with no clear imperative, and no clear end).
I'm very anti-state intervention in the individual's life. The move toward a surveillance state, restriction of right to protest, ID cards and everything else terrifies me. I can't emphasise that enough. It gives me a sick feeling deep in the pit of my stomach that trumps pretty much all of my other political motivations. I've considered emigrating, because with an immigrant spouse, I'd believe I'd be limited in my ability to protest further lurches in this horrifying trend without the risk of reprisal against me and my spouse. Basically I worry that something horrific (a terrorist attack on a 9/11 scale in the UK) might lead to government reactions I could not brook, and I couldn't protest it for fear things would become very difficult for me and my spouse. The fact I even think that scares me.

On the flip side, I believe firmly there should be a societal safety net, in the form of employment support, NHS and so on. I think the NHS in particular should be state-funded, but people should have the option to pay for quicker treatment if they want and can afford it.

I think the UK should rethink our approach to terrorism, particularly where the perpetrators are British-born. I believe we should work out why people are so alienated they would do such things, then try and fix them.

I came of age in the relative prosperity and hopefulness of the early New Labour years. The Tories I mainly remember for sex scandals, and being the archetypal 'posh guys in suits'. I've become steadily more disgusted with Labour's government, mainly because of their destruction of liberties I thought were ingrained in British life, but also because I simply don't trust them as far as I could throw them. A lot of the things they say are beyond belief in pandering to lowest common denominator tabloids. And toe-dip policy-making, where they introduce an idea, see if it's laughed at (on the spot marching people to cashpoints, anyone?) just anger me. It's no way to run a government. I've even begun to think, in a wild way, that if Scotland went down the independence route it might be marginally better to live in than another British Labour government.

So, after that incredibly long opener - where do I stand? Am I a Nu Tory? A closeted SNP chap? Doomed to vote Lib Dem because they're the least offensive? Help me Barbelith, for I am lost.
 
 
Quantum
16:41 / 10.05.07
You are a typical Barbelith poster IMO. I pretty much agree with all of that post and I'd just add a bit of Green. I'd say you were a Liberal.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
17:08 / 10.05.07
Ah, yes, in that breathless roundup, I forgot the Green side. I'm very definitely Green, in that I love the planet (it's just such an awesome place) and believe we need to stop fucking it up, but it also brings out the scifi optimist in me. I think this quote from Bruce Sterling accurately sums up my feelings on climate change and Green politics:

Climate change is not gonna be combatted through voluntary acts of
individual charity. It's gonna be combatted through some kind of
colossal, global-scaled, multilateral, hectic, catch-as-catch-can
effort to stop burning stuff, suck the burnt smoke out of the sky, and
put the smoke back into the ground. That's not gonna get done a little
green teacup at a time, because we've been doing it for two centuries
and we don't have two centuries to undo it.

"Reducing emissions" is a wrongheaded way to approach it. If
"reducing emissions" is the goal, then the best technique available is
to drop dead. The second-best technique is to go around killing a lot
of people. Nobody's got a lighter eco-footprint than a dead and
buried guy. He's not walking around leaving footprints: the Earth is
piled on top of him.

We're past the point where reduction helps much; we will have to
invent and deploy active means of remediation of the damage. But from
another, deeper perspective: we shouldn't involve outselves in lines
of development where the ultimate victory condition is emulating dead
people. There's no appeal in that. It's bad for us. That kind of
inherent mournfulness is just not a good way to be human. We're not
footprint-generating organisms whose presence on the planet is
inherently toxic and hurtful. We need better handprints, not lighter
footprints. We need better stuff, not less stuff. We need to think it
through and take effective action, not curl up in a corner stricken
with guilt and breathe shallowly.
 
 
alas
10:36 / 11.05.07
We need better handprints, not lighter footprints. We need better stuff, not less stuff. We need to think it through and take effective action, not curl up in a corner stricken with guilt and breathe shallowly.

I can sympathize with these sentiments--i.e., I agree that if green politics comes across as telling people that they are bad for breathing and taking up any space on this brown and dying planet it's a dead end. His language is colorful and passionate, but this is pure either/or logic, and I distrust that. I'm pretty sure we do need to learn to live with less stuff, and that will happen if we are actually paying the full price for the stuff, which we're not right now. (Paying in advance for the space it will take up when it becomes junk or paying for the recycling process of the stuff, up front.)

I'm all for better stuff, of course, partly because it might mean less stuff, eventually, but, in the mean time, it's also true that less stuff might actually make us happier than it's easy for us to understand, because 5,000 commercial messages a day have virtually programmed us to equate stuff with happiness. Open can of brand x soda=SMILE; take a pill=SMILE; new car=SMILE; shampoo!!!!=SMILES!!!!

E.g., One tv per house is plenty. Maybe this sounds obvious to you UK people and others, but in the US, most middle-class houses have at least 3. So. You're doing fairly well, and getting married and so you may someday have kids, I'm guessing. In the US, again, 3/4 of all kids have a TV in their bedrooms. This is a huge huge mistake. It actively hurts the children--it keeps them sedentary, contributes to the childhood obesity epidemic; it keeps them isolated and away from developing their skills like learning the piano or just playing or reading. It's a case where more stuff is actually terrible for human beings, and not just in the long term. It's a recipe for fat, depressed kids, but we do it to keep them "happy."....
 
 
diz
17:10 / 11.05.07
I'm pretty sure we do need to learn to live with less stuff

I disagree. Humans, as a rule, don't do "less stuff." They do "more stuff." To the degree that resources and technologies exist, they exploit them as efficiently as they can, a behavior which drives a feedback loop with technological development.

"Less stuff" is not now, and never will be, a realistic option. The only realistic option is working towards cleaner versions of the stuff we have, possibly supplemented with attempts to adapt to environmental changes we're causing. In other words, we can talk about cleaner engines, we can talk about developing strategies for the huge challenges of migration driven by climate change, but we can't talk realistically about restricting people to local communities now that the genie of fast and reliable long-distance transportation is out of the bag.

Even if it were a realistic option, it shouldn't be something we aspire to, and in any case there's no reason it's going to be necessary. Technologically speaking, it's completely plausible to plan for a future where enhanced versions of the conveniences available to Western middle-class folks are available to many more people, extreme poverty is eradicated, and environmental damage/change is kept within manageable levels, and that's far better than retreating into some sort of guilty Luddism, with the not-so-subtle Puritanism that always underlies that sort of thing.
 
 
Olulabelle
17:16 / 11.05.07
Alas, you are absolutely on the money and htis is fascinating, but doesn't this debate belong in a thread about green issues? This about Dave's politics and where he stands.
 
  
Add Your Reply