Right-Wing Xenophobia

[broncofan]

So I am transporting several subjects from the Pete Seeger thread to this one.

One subject to weigh in on is whether it's xenophobic to use abusive language towards British folks because they have the temerity to criticize some of the discourse coming out of the GOP.

Also, do you think it's hostile and not in the spirit of open and honest political discourse to tell someone they should leave the country because they compliment one aspect of another political system?

These questions are based on comments made by Glenntinnyc in the Pete Seeger thread.

[broncofan]

I incorporate any and all relevant posts from this thread.

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=84347

[Stavros]

Politics is an open field, there ought not to be any barriers, as long as the language is not abusive. I often miss some of the nuances in contemporary American politics because I am not listening to debates every day on the radio or on tv, and don't know all the personalities particularly Congressional Reps and most Senators, and well-known journalists; but I hope I don't get things badly wrong.

Because of the global importance of the USA and the simple fact that it is one of the most fascinating countries in the world, about which a diversity of information is easily accessible, it will attract a lot of comment from non-Americans. By contrast, there isn't much traffic the other way because I suspect most Americans are not that interested in British politics, or individual British politicians, which may be a reflection of the decline of Imperial greatness; or maybe we always had an inflated sense of our own importance.

In addition to which there haven't been many American or conservatives of other nationalities who stay the course in debates in this section; some have tended to give up in exasperation I think, so that a lot of time people in these threads are agreeing with each other, the one exception I think is the thread on guns. Whatever.

There is also the confusion of language, as a liberal in the USA is not the same as a liberal in the UK.

[broncofan]

Politics is an open field, there ought not to be any barriers, as long as the language is not abusive. I often miss some of the nuances in contemporary American politics because I am not listening to debates every day on the radio or on tv, and don't know all the personalities particularly Congressional Reps and most Senators, and well-known journalists; but I hope I don't get things badly wrong.

Because of the global importance of the USA and the simple fact that it is one of the most fascinating countries in the world, about which a diversity of information is easily accessible, it will attract a lot of comment from non-Americans. By contrast, there isn't much traffic the other way because I suspect most Americans are not that interested in British politics, or individual British politicians, which may be a reflection of the decline of Imperial greatness; or maybe we always had an inflated sense of our own importance.

I wonder how much investment of time it would take for an American to be conversant in British politics. It does seem that many of the threads in this forum are about U.S political issues and yes many Brits on this site seem to know as much about our political system as we do. I think political discussion is not a place for protectionism. If someone is interested in your system of governance and has a view, even a critical one, it's useful to have an outside view. If something seems ridiculous when viewed from within a country, chances are that's magnified for those outside of it.

Those who are right of center have not stuck around very long in this section, but do come out for certain subjects. But there haven't been a lot of fiscal conservatives, or isolationist Republicans expressing a nuanced view of larger domestic issues. More have as you said been interested in the gun issue.

[glenntinnyc]

Well said Stavros, but that's not what this stemmed from, it stemmed from the fact several members here don't like when someone else speaks their mind. I find it sad that the suggestion someone should consider leaving a place would cause such an uproar. wonder if they didn't like vegetables and i suggested they be left off their plate if they would have had the same reaction.Ironically enough it was a bunch of Brits living here that basically started the modern concept of leaving a place they didn't like in a metaphorial sense , so I'm confused why my suggestion of leaving here to someone who appeared to agree more with a British style of government would be so offensive?

[broncofan]

so I'm confused why my suggestion of leaving here to someone who appeared to agree more with a British style of government would be so offensive?

It's a common misconception. She did not say she liked the British style of government more, but that she liked the discourse in British parliament more than in our House. That does not by any reasonable interpretation mean she should want to pick up and move to another country. Just like when I say that I think Sweden has some good social programs I don't mean that I think everything about Sweden is ideal or that I would want to move there. We have blown up a big point but it's only because you aren't able to take a step back ever. You must really think people aren't capable of reading what you've said.

As I said, it's important to be self-critical. Being self-critical is not the same as being snarky. It's not the same as one-sided dumping on one's country.

[glenntinnyc]

Hysterical, She made a clear statement , she was clear in expressing her displeasure at our congress, the level of debate and twittery of the US Gov and what I said was merely a suggestion . I did not accuse her of being Snarky, that distinction is wholly yours. Being self critical is clearly a concept you don't grasp, if you did you would know what you said is snarky, as I know several of the comments I've made have been obnoxious. The difference is I don't go crying foul when someone disagrees with me. i am quite sure people are capable of reading what I said, I just don't think you are capable of understanding it. feel free to re-read everything. What Trish say's is all a joke right haha, a great number of comedians have said the exact same thing as what i said, so I guess they are all xenophobic right wingers also. Look back and see who started shit talking, wasn't me, but you and your ilk hate when someone stands up to your BS, so you hide behind your marginal wit and try to bully people into submission. Seriously take your own advice and learn how to be self critical.

[trish]

Everything's fair in love and politics. But what a person says, and the way he says it, can give you a pretty good idea of his perspective.

Case in point: In the Pete Seeger thread, after making one disagreeable comparison between our House of Representatives and British Parliament, I’m told,

“im sure you could get a visa to move there...”

I don’t dispute it. I could easily get a visa and move to Britain. But one has to ask what would prompt that particular suggestion to my comparison. What was, is, Glenn’s perspective? Where is he coming from? So I make that inquiry, in my own snarky way, and I get

“if the British Parliament is more your style I don't see why you wouldn't want to go there. I get just as frustrated with our politics as anyone else does, but its just tiring to listen to all the crap about how this place does it better or that place does it better etc etc. Either run for office and try and effect some change or move to where it's better.”

I don’t see how from one comparison one could possibly conclude that Parliament is more my style, but the sentence begins with an “if” so I give Glenn a break. But the last sentence in the quote above is not a hypothetical. It’s delivered in the imperative. But I ignore that and merely point out that one doesn’t have to run for office to effect change. One can exercise the First Amendment and speak one’s mind. So Glenn replies

“...feel free to stand on your soap box and shout out your ideas”

I take this to be delivered as a performative in the Austinian sense (e.g. when you say “I promise...” you are not only speaking but promising; that particular speech act is performative). That it is so delivered is consistent with Glenn’s imperial perspective. He delivers ultimatums and grants freedoms, though he is so blind to his own presentation of himself he doesn’t get when I reply, “Thank you, but I don’t require your consent.”

But after some more scuffling around he finally tosses in

“I am also in a position to tell some to shut up, also covered above, and once again they can choose to or not.”

which I take to be a reluctant sort of concession. He still insists he can tell me to shut up, but he now moderates that by saying I can choose not to. He likes the high and mighty sound of the imperative, “Shut up!” But now he admits it has no performative value. Glenn is in no position to invite someone to leave the country, nor is he in a position to grant or deny rights of speech. He can mouth the words, but he has no authority to invoke the performative function of those speech acts.

My view is that all of this is perfectly fine as discussions go on the internet and on HA in particular. I haven't and am not now crying foul. Any body has the right to express the words “Shut up,” but nobody other than the monitors are in a position to invoke the performative function of those words and deliver the command, “Shut up.”

[Prospero]

Thanks to Stavros for making some intelligent observations calmly. Yes I agree that it is unlikely most Americans pay much attention to British domestic politics anymore than we pay a great deal of attention to, say, Canadian political issues. The domestic politics of the US does have a special importance because it shapes the behaviour of the US on the global stage and on global economics. Pretty obvious really that we are going to pay attention to the perturbations at the heart of the US imperium.

As to Glenn. Why so belligerent?

[robertlouis]

There is also the confusion of language, as a liberal in the USA is not the same as a liberal in the UK.

Oh, I don't know Stavros. Since the establishment of the coalition between the Tories and the Lib-Dems the word "Liberal" excites almost as much hatred here in the UK.....