Thursday, 16 February 2017

A new political geology

Around the developed world a new political geology is becoming apparent. The fissure is not between left and right, as we have used those words, but between people who like national sovereignty, on the one hand, and internationalists or globalists.

On the side of national sovereignty are the Burkean and Disraelian conservatives, people who like the distributist ideas of Belloc and Chesterton, who were liberals, socialists of the Orwell type and the old fashioned hard left (think Dennis Skinner). In the internationalist camp are Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, classical liberals and the modern Clintonian or Blairite liberals, The Financial Times and The Economist, a lot of CEOs of banks and large multinational companies and most on the left. Many of them, like the Clintons, hope one day for a borderless world.

This dichotomy is not identical with, but is connected to, the debate between the idealist and realist schools of foreign policy. It slightly echoes the debates between Disraeli and Gladstone. 

It also reminds me of something said long ago by Disraeli.
"In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines." 


  1. David in Banja Luka16 February 2017 at 14:20

    National sovereignty or self-determination?

    The latter sounds cooler, more PC even ;).

  2. Great Dizzy quote