Thursday, August 02, 2012


Anglosphere
The Monarchist takes a Romney aide’s stating the obvious about our Anglo-Saxonness (Hastings jokes aside, traditionally it means ethnically and/or culturally British) as a jumping-off point for the idea of America joining the (British) Commonwealth, not a surprising fantasy for that site.

Pros:
  • The obvious: we’re kin. (Sailer: in IQ and school testing, white America and the white Commonwealth are about equal. On average, the ethnic British are pretty smart.) We speak English. Nothing wrong with loving the mother country. (Look how much Americans love the royals and ‘Masterpiece Theatre’, things like ‘Downton Abbey’.)
  • Clout in the sense of moral authority (the Burkean Empire of ideas the article refers to) and, if needed to really defend from a common enemy, America’s real power.
  • That Empire of ideas is an accomplishment of white talent and society but isn’t racist; it isn’t race-based in principle*; it’s equal-opportunity. As it should be. (Adnan Sarwar, Takimag’s British soldier of Pakistani descent: the army’s a meritocracy. The article mentions black ex-colonials more British than the British. Reminds me of Obama’s grandfather.)
  • The Empire never really went away (the Rhodes Group/CFR got its way, understandable given the Anglosphere is natural) so we might as well admit it by bringing its most important de facto member back into the club.
  • On paper it wouldn’t give up American independence.
  • That harkening to a Burkean conservatism and, indirectly, to Catholicism, even though Britain’s proudly Protestant (and now irreligious), is why I cheered too when Canada’s navy and air force became Royal again. As Pope Benedict is doing at least in my pocket of the church, you can go home again/unerase history: Canada as part of the British forces that fought WWII. I like the Red Ensign too.
  • Better for Britain to be united to its kin than the New German Empire, the EU.
Cons:
  • Like with Ireland, for whom it’d make sense to rejoin, insurmountable emotional resistance despite the closeness. The special relationship’s complicated. Of course what has always defined Americans, even when cultural ties were arguably closer, when there were more Americans of British or at least white stock and/or they had more power, is not being British. Sure, the accent’s famously different: English was different when America was settled, 400 years ago; the ‘Britishy’ sound of the rest of the Anglosphere evolved much later, when most of it was settled. (American speech evolved too. Noah Webster invented American spelling.) Generations of nice Catholic immigrants have adopted our national myth, and have a weaker tie of course to Protestant Britain; good luck selling Irish-Americans on symbolically being under the Queen. Not going to happen. (Ireland might as well be in, thanks to geography thus lots of crossover. Many Irish don’t hate the Brits; they’re related! When Ireland quit, Britain hastily passed a lot of laws making Irish citizens essentially the same as Commonwealth, so as not to hassle the Irish living in Britain.)
  • The resistance makes sense: for much of our history Britain was a threat. The War of 1812 was really a failed American conquest of what’s now Canada (we burned their parliament first; thanks, LRC); we’re taught the lie that it was ‘American Revolution II: Defending Ourselves’ (it’s where the national anthem came from; I’m all for replacing it with the more singable ‘America the Beautiful’). But sure, when Britain was top dog, British-Americans feared for their independence. (As recently as the 1920s, the last years of full Empire, there was a naval arms race and there were last-resort war plans! The US would have grabbed Canada and the Canadians would have tried to sit tight until the British sailed over to rescue them.)
  • More important, even though the Revolution is problematic to true conservatives (the King was not the villain!), the idea of the free, peaceful Old Republic is good. Americans should be suspicious of appearing to give it up. The New World Order dressed up as anglophilia.
  • Sorry, Britain, but now that America’s in the driver’s seat: the abuse of American power rightly scares Euro-liberals such as the British. This whole reunion project could be a neocon plot to tack a veneer of anglophile respectability (like Bill Buckley’s Cold War-era National Review) on its wars of conquest. Again the NWO. Business as usual, only the president is an honorary knight or something. (Some of us conservatives blame the idea of America as an Empire of ideas, rather than an ethnicity, for that interventionism but I won’t go that far. They have a point that it’s America’s secularized Puritanism, its civic religion, gone bad.) Airstrip One, the Coalition of the Bullied, cannon fodder, literally wasting some Sgt Sarwars on stupid wars in the Mideast. Britain’s watchword should be ‘Britain first!’
  • On that note, America should stay out of Britain’s wars. ‘America first!’ It’s in our best interest and, unlike Canada and Australia in WWs I and, really, II, we don’t have to go! WWI never should have been fought; the Brits and the banksters suckered us into WWII (British spies literally seduced key Americans into going to war), which the USSR won, getting 50 years for their empire. George Washington had the right foreign policy: friendship and peace-building trade with all, entanglement with none. Even when they’re family. Britain should rebuild its own navy.
P.S. Interesting observation from Gordon Reid, a Scot who has visited here since the early ’60s and now lives here: America’s what Britain would have been if it had had the room to grow.

*Which nobody wanted to hear about Rhodesia. It wasn’t Dutch South Africa. Ian Smith is an unsung hero of the 20th century. (Defying the British to stay British.) The British, with the best intentions, ruined his country and ended up kicking Zimbabwe out of the club anyway. His epitaph could be ‘I told you so’.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave comment