It's always interesting to see how other countries perceive your national politicians. I can't speak or read French but if I could it'd be interesting to see how the French media have reported our obsession with Nicolas and Carla over the last few days.
In an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post we get a glimpse of what former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson thinks of Cameron's Conservatives and in particular Iain Duncan Smith's work on social justice:
In an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post we get a glimpse of what former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson thinks of Cameron's Conservatives and in particular Iain Duncan Smith's work on social justice:
"the Conservative approach on social policy is increasingly creative. [Cameron] has opted against boldness on economics and foreign policy [so] his main appeal is likely to be on quality-of-life issues. And he has been wise enough to turn for ideas to an exceptional politician named Iain Duncan Smith. As a former leader of the conservative opposition, Smith was largely discredited by his close identification with the Iraq war. But since losing his leadership post, he has dedicated himself to the cause of social justice within the conservative fold, gaining broad respect in the process. As chair of a policy think tank called the Center for Social Justice, Smith has gathered a group of bright young policy researchers who have published thick volumes of proposals on issues from prison reform and education to crime and family stability. British conservatives are proposing reforms that would allow parents to organize and run their own schools, that require "work for the dole," that encourage marriage and family as a way to fight poverty, and that invite voluntary associations to aid in the provision of welfare services."Not sure I'm quite that gushing about IDSs work (or that it was his Iraq stance that discredited him!?!) but it's still interesting to see a US take on our domestic politics. The thrust of the Gerson piece is that John McCain could learn something from what Cameron has done to the Tories and it's worth a read if only for a few more of those left-field observations on our politics:
"most American conservatives would find Cameron's positions on moral issues troubling. Under his leadership, the Conservative Party has not taken a stand against recent Labor legislation on bioethics that would allow the moral monstrosity of animal-human hybrids, as well as the creation of "savior siblings" who would have their genetic material harvested for ill children. On life issues in Britain, the slippery slope has become a vertical drop, with a respectable, noncontroversial, scientific barbarism at its bottom."Mmmm... much as I'm enjoying the Obama / Clinton fight and can't wait for November prose like that makes me glad they have their politics and we have ours....
4 Comments:
Are you a little superior C ? I am far from impressed at the way the Guardian takes it that if some scientists want to do something then its ok. You could cure hunger by eating babies, as was once modestly proposed you recall , so weighing supposed good is not the issue.
People of the left always say slippery slope arguments are no argument but why? Look at what happened with the EU , and indeed every slippery slope we get on they live on slippery slopes.
This atheistical glib assumption that they everything is reducible to equations whereby growing people in animal parts for experiments is fine worries me , it implies an attitude to humanity that is arrogant and self delighted .
All in all , I am not yet convinced , and the fact that all the Political Parties agree with the progressive view, only disturbed by sub political religious groups, is not something I am as proud of as you seem to be . This argument has been the wrong way round . The question is not why is this issue a conscience issue , it is ‘why does it have to be?’ .
Wel, being a spoilsport, I'm not too enamoured of either side of the pond's politics.
Of course, a lot of people on the right want to turn this country into America.
I'm not too surprised the Americans think IDS is exceptional; I think his work on social justice (or "ending poverty", as it might be called) thoughtful.
It's the stupid Evangelical Thatcherites behind him, who think that charities can solve everything (and self-righteous charities that won't give soup to gay homeless people can solve even more), and who think that the unemployed are scroungers who need to be taught a bit of self-reliance - they're what's holding him back.
Of course as I believe Macmillan said, those who talk about pools of unemployment should be thrown into them and made to swim. I hope Cameron "gets" this.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home