Originally Posted by
Louis VI the Fat
Not at all! I think that neither Wilson, Colonel House, Reagan, nor Obama/Hilary's shift are duplicitous and disingenuous.
What I do think is that the Special Relationship has been experienced in an altogether too sentimental, almost childish, manner since 2003. By these standards, Britain ought now to be renaming American food by now. By these standards Britain just took it up *there*.
I have, rather confusingly, been posting two different sorts of posts: one from the perspective above, with a wee bit of provocation thrown in for good effect. And, secondly, I've said that I thought Hillary was sensible, and that one must not make too much out of all of this. Regarding this latter: I don't see why the relationship should suffer when both parties could understand the position of the other?
Sentimentalism is fine, as long as one does not apply it to politics. The relationship suffers in this crisis from too much sentimentalism, not too little.*
The UK is not the 51st state either. Special Relationship implies a deeper, underlying relationship that goes beyond petty sentiments and incidents.
It implies both parties can understand that the other pursues private interests, that there are differences, trade disputes, that each one is entitled to some naughtiness too. It means that one understands all this, while at the same time the deeper understanding is maintained.
It does not mean both parties parrot and follow each other, always. If you want that, form a Union.
*As it did in 2003. Both parties were too much embolded by the support of the other, and lost track of the virtue of a sober assesment of the situation. Blair rushed to Bush's aid, which was his overriding sentiment. Bush was highly embolded by this, by Blair.
Re: Falklands
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks