A Well-Written Essay is Not A Revolution

This is a well-written essay. I will give the author all his flowers: it's well-written, it's compelling, it's even persuasive (in parts) but it's also utterly wrong.

'Reflections on the revolution in England' immediately grabs your attention, because: what Revolution? The anti-immigrant riots? The criminalization of speech? There's a reason people sailed away from that Island over there and landed on these shores, buddy and it's because there hasn't been a revolution on that sceptered island and its relationship with speech has always been sketchy. This is the same Kingdom that brought us the Star Chamber after all

Full credit for this quote, however:

The latter shed more heat than light-- the American grasp of European affairs is generally poor, a quality amplified by orders of magnitude when discussing the European grasp on American affairs, which is simply abysmal.

Truer words have never been put to paper or screen. It's even worse because a long-standing complaint of mine is the insistence on the British Right to import GOP talking points and controversies into its discourse. Remember when they complained about the Presidentialism of Blair? Why on Earth would you think that CPAC memes would play on the other side of the Atlantic? Why is Liz Truss at the RNC? Why would you want to import the glorious hot mess that is American political discourse?

But enough of that, back to this essay:

A Revolution? No, friend: the English don't do Revolutions. They re-arrange the deck chairs occasionally in a very English way, but that's about it. Brexit might well have been the closest that they've come, but it's also very telling that both of the major parties have committed to honoring the results of the referendum. Granted, (most of) the Tories agreed with the result and there's a touch of Menckinish schadenfreude with Labour's stance, but they're sticking to it. 

The notion that America's fascination and concern with the fate of England has to do with the idea that we are the inheritors of English liberty is also a bit laughable. "The Tree of Liberty grew and changed and spread, But the seed was English." the author quotes a poem from an American ex-pat, Alice Duer Miller. The seed was English? In essence, I can agree with that, because the English Civil War was more complicated than even I realized. There were moments where it could have tipped over into Revolution, but the Levellers were crushed, the Diggers ostracized and when more moderate members of Parliament were like, 'Hey, man, we just want a King that's going to acknowledge our authority a bit, you know?' there was a straight up military coup.

The great and good of England were so bad at the Revolution that they tried to offer Cromwell the Crown (a bridge too far for even him) and when it was obvious that his son was not up to the job, they did what the Establishment of any country usually does if they're trying to survive: they cut a deal.

Well, what if it's the Glorious Revolution of 1688? (You say, hopeful that the tortured metaphor might turn out to make a lick of sense). Nope, sorry-- Parliament decided that they weren't going to deal with the whole Catholic thing again and brought in a Monarch who would be Protestant and subject to their authority. Less of a Revolution and more of an elite-deckchair rearranging situation. Every true candidate for a potential Revolution in England has been one from above. The peasants didn't catch King John at Runnymede and force him to sign the Magna Carta after all, his barons did. 

And really- though I can't speak to the author's political leanings, this essay has certainly be popular on the Right in America- the metaphor fits if that's your worldview. You want an elite that's going to rearrange the deckchairs to benefit you and yours. That much America did take from England, with its electoral college and frank distrust of its people. "Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?" The people are dissolved-- ah, the secret fond wish of the American Right. (And to be fair, the American Left as well.) Dissolve the people, elect another-- never mind doing the hard work of winning the people. Never mind persuading the people. The people deserve exactly what crumbs will be allowed to drop from the high table of America's princelings and no more. 

But no, we must mourn the death of England. Convinced that our fate will be theirs, which is ridiculous, but so then is this increasing genre of obituaries for Britain/Europe/England that the Right likes to indulge in. Despite the paranoid fever dreams of the American Right and the tortured tiresome replies from the Left-- I swear, if I see that XKCD comic one more fucking time-- I don't think we will ever see an American jailed for offensive speech. That's what the First Amendment is for. The dirty little secret of our politics is that neither side wants to fix the immigration system- at least at the Federal level. States will talk a good game, but someone's gotta work on the kill floors and pick the crops and white people aren't gonna do that shit for those wages. 

America is just too big and too complicated. An elite Establishment? Maybe, a couple of decades ago-- but anecdotes are circling online that people are voting with their feet there two. New York is forecasted to lose 3 Congressional seats at the 2030 census. People are pulling their kids out of Colombia, Yale, and Harvard and sending them quite literally anywhere else after those campuses, our Etons and our Harrows beclowned themselves this spring. Our Establishment wishes it had the surveillance technology of the British government. (And to be fair: it probably does, but nowhere near the CCTV coverage you have in places like London.) Our Establishment desperately wants the speech controls the British government has. But whether it's because you said something transphobic or anti-Christian online, jail won't happen. Other life consequences sure might, but not jail. Not a fine. 

Because this is America.

So, you say there's a Revolution? I say that Britain has struggled with migration for decades. This isn't new. Enoch Powell gave his speech nearly sixty years ago now. Race riots consumed the country in 1981. They did so again in 2011. And unlike America, where 'Far Right' generally means some neckbearded anti-semite with a podcast, 'Far Right' in the UK means people who shave their heads and think that everyone should wear the same colored shirts (brown) and march in straight lines together. And as they were a lot closer to that particular portion of world history than we were, a reaction- even if you think it could have been heavy-handed- is to be expected.

Do I think Britain is struggling with migration and how to assimilate people into British society? Yes. Do I think there are going to be some hard decisions ahead for this Labour government? Yes. Do I think there will be debates conversations and policy changes? Yes. But I also think it's beyond ridiculous that after fourteen years of Tory government, it's just now that a Border Command is being established. They've been mucking about with ridiculous schemes to send people to Rwanda and stopping none of the boats. So the blame is plentiful and can and should be shared as widely as possible.

The Right mourns the supposed death of England and Britain because 'look what they took from you' resonates with their voters. But without meaningful policy to back it up, you've got nothing but empty paeans to a bygone era. Good writing doesn't make up for a stunning lack of intellectual depth that's emerging as a real problem in Conservative thought. Two decades ago, I would have called them the ideas party-- even if I didn't agree with a lot of their ideas. But now? Now they're the meme party and between our two parties here in America, I'll let you guess which one forms an effective governing coalition first.