I recently read journalist Allister Heath’s article in The Telegraph, titled “Impotent, useless Britain is the weakest it has been for 500 years”, published on 7 January.
Arguing that Britain (among other European countries) has become irrelevant in America-dominated global affairs, Heath advocates for hard power and neoliberal measures to strengthen Britain militarily and technologically by cutting government spending on welfare, environmental projects, and the (to him) implicitly “non-essential” arts, humanities, and social sciences. This vision for Britain (or any country, really) is horrifying and would only plunge the UK further into social decline.
Unfortunately, I have a very limited word count to tackle Mr. Heath’s painfully shallow, state- and military-centered approach to Britain’s position and international relations as a whole, and am forced to omit many argument-worthy sections of his text. Nonetheless, I find his article worth discussing precisely because it illustrates the dangers of Trump’s actions in the international realm, particularly how they make the root issues harming British society from within seem worth neglecting in order to build surface-level strength, beneath which an abandoned society would be collapsing.
Mr. Heath blames Britain’s irrelevance on “welfarism”, “soft power”, and “liberal” projects, and expresses clear disdain towards the EU. But have we forgotten that the UK has been actively losing money that it could use to invest in the important developments of its military and technological strength since leaving the EU? Similarly, he wants Britain to abandon net zero, disregarding the fact that it would actually save the UK money compared to the costs of maintaining its current energy systems, and the additional costs that will arise with the effects of the climate crisis, like increased food costs, or natural disaster reparations.
While I agree that the UK has failed to “promote wealth creation”, how does one possibly reach the conclusion that by ignoring “class warfare”, and cutting the already insufficient support and development opportunities available to the British public, the UK would somehow sustainably build its wealth? Mr. Heath simply seems to want to mimic the ‘winning’ American system and put even more power in the hands of the few richest in the UK instead of investing in its people.
However, as strong as the US may be in the realm of global affairs, its public is suffering and continually expressing dissatisfaction with the inhumanity of its systems, particularly its health system — something that both sides of its highly polarised political spectrum agree on.
We can’t be fooled by delusional ideas that completely abandoning progressive, people-oriented social policies and projects is an admirable or even acceptable form of developing a country. Because while this approach, outlined by Mr. Heath, might be aiming not to concede to America’s hard power, it would be conceding entirely to the more significant ideological battle at play.
Trump, having won a second term in the first place, consequently generating the many geopolitical tensions mentioned in Mr. Heath’s article, is a result of an ideological fight that liberalism (and its embedded ideas of social progress and cosmopolitanism) is losing, because people are losing faith and trust in its systems, resulting in a rise of right-wing populist success. People’s socio-economic dissatisfactions are a known driving factor, and so an approach that immediately abandons preserving the progressive liberal idea (as flawed as it may be in its current state) entirely, instead of working to fix it, would only serve to deepen this insecurity and frustration. It would fuel the rise of irrational, progress-stunting actors and increase tensions in the long-term.
The EU needs to tackle its lack of a clear action plan to properly re-strengthen its message. Instead of abandoning a people-oriented progress altogether and allowing the cruelty of Trump’s politics to prevail, Britain and other European countries need to invest in their people while looking for reliable allies to collaborate with. Only this way can Europe gain the self-sufficiency and ability to safely limit its economic investments in and relationships with the US and other dangerous, yet powerful, political actors without abandoning the prospect of regaining people’s trust in their progress and peace-oriented social ideas.
Photo by Vivian Luciano on Unsplash.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Allister Heath’s take on an “Impotent, Useless Britain” — A Polemic
I recently read journalist Allister Heath’s article in The Telegraph, titled “Impotent, useless Britain is the weakest it has been for 500 years”, published on 7 January.
Arguing that Britain (among other European countries) has become irrelevant in America-dominated global affairs, Heath advocates for hard power and neoliberal measures to strengthen Britain militarily and technologically by cutting government spending on welfare, environmental projects, and the (to him) implicitly “non-essential” arts, humanities, and social sciences. This vision for Britain (or any country, really) is horrifying and would only plunge the UK further into social decline.
Unfortunately, I have a very limited word count to tackle Mr. Heath’s painfully shallow, state- and military-centered approach to Britain’s position and international relations as a whole, and am forced to omit many argument-worthy sections of his text. Nonetheless, I find his article worth discussing precisely because it illustrates the dangers of Trump’s actions in the international realm, particularly how they make the root issues harming British society from within seem worth neglecting in order to build surface-level strength, beneath which an abandoned society would be collapsing.
Mr. Heath blames Britain’s irrelevance on “welfarism”, “soft power”, and “liberal” projects, and expresses clear disdain towards the EU. But have we forgotten that the UK has been actively losing money that it could use to invest in the important developments of its military and technological strength since leaving the EU? Similarly, he wants Britain to abandon net zero, disregarding the fact that it would actually save the UK money compared to the costs of maintaining its current energy systems, and the additional costs that will arise with the effects of the climate crisis, like increased food costs, or natural disaster reparations.
While I agree that the UK has failed to “promote wealth creation”, how does one possibly reach the conclusion that by ignoring “class warfare”, and cutting the already insufficient support and development opportunities available to the British public, the UK would somehow sustainably build its wealth? Mr. Heath simply seems to want to mimic the ‘winning’ American system and put even more power in the hands of the few richest in the UK instead of investing in its people.
However, as strong as the US may be in the realm of global affairs, its public is suffering and continually expressing dissatisfaction with the inhumanity of its systems, particularly its health system — something that both sides of its highly polarised political spectrum agree on.
We can’t be fooled by delusional ideas that completely abandoning progressive, people-oriented social policies and projects is an admirable or even acceptable form of developing a country. Because while this approach, outlined by Mr. Heath, might be aiming not to concede to America’s hard power, it would be conceding entirely to the more significant ideological battle at play.
Trump, having won a second term in the first place, consequently generating the many geopolitical tensions mentioned in Mr. Heath’s article, is a result of an ideological fight that liberalism (and its embedded ideas of social progress and cosmopolitanism) is losing, because people are losing faith and trust in its systems, resulting in a rise of right-wing populist success. People’s socio-economic dissatisfactions are a known driving factor, and so an approach that immediately abandons preserving the progressive liberal idea (as flawed as it may be in its current state) entirely, instead of working to fix it, would only serve to deepen this insecurity and frustration. It would fuel the rise of irrational, progress-stunting actors and increase tensions in the long-term.
The EU needs to tackle its lack of a clear action plan to properly re-strengthen its message. Instead of abandoning a people-oriented progress altogether and allowing the cruelty of Trump’s politics to prevail, Britain and other European countries need to invest in their people while looking for reliable allies to collaborate with. Only this way can Europe gain the self-sufficiency and ability to safely limit its economic investments in and relationships with the US and other dangerous, yet powerful, political actors without abandoning the prospect of regaining people’s trust in their progress and peace-oriented social ideas.
Photo by Vivian Luciano on Unsplash.
Share this:
Like this:
Related