Summary: the speaker reviewed the recent history in British politics going back to the days of Margaret Thatcher, focusing on Tony Blair, the national optimism in the early days of his time in office, and the transition to Gordon Brown. The question section covered political topics like term length restrictions, party discipline, law making, and representation.
Interesting: at least twice the speaker expressed that he wished the British government was more like the U.S. government, particularly in the separation of power. I guess it is not unexpected, as he described small government to be a tenant of the conservative party. Personally, I have little experience in politics in most of its forms, but in a project for a political science class choose two parties to study closely and compare. I chose the Green and the Libertarian parties. Because these two parties have separate favorite issues, I had little to compare. Either party begins with very specific interests; the Libertarian party is interested first in a more even distribution of power, placing faith in the decision-making abilities of the average citizen, the Green party is interested in conservation of natural resources, and minimizing the impact of human activity on the planet. As major political parties, the British conservative and labor parties have to maintain a stance on a much more expansive range of issues, while being different from each other. It seems in times of great polarization or assimilation, I am disenchanted as a voter and tend to wax apathetic about participating in elections et c. as a means of making a positive impact on my society. This is where I get hypocritical. Assuming I were more motivated about social justice and activism, I would focus my energy first immediately around me, if I did not have a special issue I was concerned about that was centered in another geographic location (e.g. Darfur, Haiti, Tibet et c.). But I would focus on local because people are generally more concerned about problems if they are directly involved and believe that they can witness evidence of their own power. Being more active where I was would hopefully multiply my influence if I could make other people care, too. This is not to say I would not vote in general elections, but it would be a small part of my role as a citizen; secondary, if not purely symbolic.
Tie to Major: much ink is spilled in politics; there is always a need for somebody to write something. Ever since that bright person so long ago figured out a way to earn a living by sitting at a desk and writing things on paper instead of plowing a field or making a barrel, the bureaucrat has been a social fixture. On the humanities side, many of the most influential political texts in history are considered literature today (e.g. "Das Kapital," "Mein Kampf," "The Prince"). Novelists, poets, and other artists have changed the course of policy making and revolutions as much as politicians and activists. Other works are important for their commentary, such as Thomas Mann's "The Magic Mountain," forecasting the first world war, or T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," expressing the incredible destruction that followed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting the examples you cite predicted the shape of things to come. Next question, respectfully, is "so what?" Why didnt people do anything about it? Second question is about artists/writers: do they make things better? Do they have that responsibility when they sit down at a computer or typewriter or pen adn paper? I wish I knew.One thing is sure -- tht politician doesnt worry about that. Nor do many others. I think Salman Rushdie said it well: "Artists cannot be locked inside a passport." Another quote: "all politics is local." Find the issue in your own neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteGood questions. I know little about Mann and world history, but jumping ahead to the second world war, I know that Mann was considered Hitler's most outspoken critic, something like Hitler's intellectual opponent. As far as measuring positive impact, I do not know. Yeah, I am sure many people chose to do nothing or something else when war as it was could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteIn Eliot's case, I think the merit in the art is that he responded in poetry to the destruction in a way that accurately described / expressed it. Getting back to the idea that art in a way is not so much an isolated perfection, rather it expresses what we already feel / know but cannot express our selves.
Basically, artists are responsible for their art, but at its root, it is a responsibility to do their best. On the receiving end, people are responsible for what they admit to their brains. Sometimes, people are mislead into destructive behavior via art. However, the majority of art worth anything in history rarely ever comes from people supportive of or participative in the things most people agree are bad, such as genocide, all kinds of tyranny.
In the first Rushdie quote talking about describing the larger human condition, not only responsible for one's nation etc?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete