Where are we heading?

The Election for Change -Times Online: "Yet while the idea that it is time for a change has many advocates — even the Government puts itself forward as a champion of change — there is remarkably little agreement over what it is time to change to. What sort of Britain do we want? What vision for this country are we being offered?"

I'm reading this somewhat up-beat discussion of where the Times want the UK to move in the future. In Sweden we seem to want the job-line or the handout-line. However, I don't seem to recall that I have heard what these mechanistic objectives should lead. The visions of the two blocks please? And please end the technobabble on TV?

Is Sweden going to side with Norway and the UK and stand by the side of the EU and EMU? Sweden seems to be split on this issue. We don't speak with one voice, like the EU. However, the US, masters of one voice speak, nowadays speak with many voices as well. It's Republican, Democrat, Independent and Tea Party advocate and even recently the military who claim Israel is dangerous to their soldiers.

Another question is whether Sweden is going to follow the lead of Denmark that led to the top NATO job or if we are going back to neutrality politics? Denmark has lost over thirty soldiers in the wars and is more hardened than the Swedes today. Carl Bildt today confirms that the Parliament of Sweden is not in charge in a comment on our security politics on his blog. We have apparently not had a firm grasp of what we have been doing earlier. Perhaps we are split on that one as well? It would be interesting of Fredrik Reinfeldt followed up on Bildt's comment with a note on trashing our constitution.

The Swedish election differ from the British on one very important matter--the economy. I have a feeling that the Conservatives are not to keen on taking over the financial situation and that Labour rather wants to continue at the helm to weather the storm they are in. In Sweden it seems like Social Democrats have disappeared and that we will get environmental stuff with a foreign policy from the Left party.

The British election might end up becoming hung, as they say, and there will be a possibility that the Liberal Democrats, the third largest party, might side with Labour and form a coalition. We have the Sverige Democrats instead. Apparently 4-5% of the Swedish population is supposed to be treated like paria so they are not likely to side permanently on either side.

People in Sweden have a vision of a society that is gender equal which is interesting and possibly good if it materializes naturally. Apparently the quotation rule for boards in Norway has led to an exodus from Sweden of highly talented women that have made the Norwegian quota possible. There were not enough women in Norway. I'm against such quotations but I like the idea of a gender equal society. However, I would predict that we are going back to a neutrality politics in our foreign policy in this case and distance ourselves from the EU. Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, claims that gender equality around the world is a matter of national security for the US.

So, unlike many countries in the EU Sweden could look forward-- especially if we we plan for ourselves. The economy is good. We are well on the way on the Green trail. We are a superpower in international aid, they say. We spend our 3% on research even if there seems to be problems of spending them wisely. However, we don't have enough jobs. Can you imagine that? There is not enough for people to do, especially young people. This is a mystery to me.

Hillary Clinton Atlantic Council Speech | Atlantic Council

Hillary Clinton Atlantic Council Speech Atlantic Council: "To expand freedom to more people, we cannot accept that freedom does not belong to all people. We cannot allow oppression, defined and justified by religion or tribe to replace that of ideology. We have a responsibility to address conditions everywhere that undermine the potential of boys and girls and men and women that sap human dignity and threaten global progress."

Hilary Clinton is the highest representative of the US in Germany today and the above citation from her foreign policy address makes me believe that the US is back on track. Freedom! It sounds so simple, however, Europe did entangle themselves in various erroneous ideologies during the time after the US civil war while the US constitution held a steady course across the Atlantic.

During the week-end I enjoyed browsing a reader by Svante Nordin called Det Politiska Täkandets Historia or The History of Political Philosophy. Nordin doesn't talk much about politics in the US, unfortunately. Pragmatism is not mentioned. Hilary Clinton speak about the trans-Atlantic relationship and rightly points out that between the two of us, the US and the EU, we can determine world policy. However, in my humble judgement I sense Germany slipping away on their own with a future together with Russia. Here they will be in charge rather than playing second fiddle with the US.

Several writers point out the difficulties that reunification resulted in. Ideologically, nostalgic former Eastern Germans are lost in the past. Die Linke is a clear example of this. It is the non-biological lure of socialism and the philosophies of Hegel and Marx that some people now turn into criticism of capitalism. They simply can't let go of these tales for the sake of lost prestige in having bet on something that looked like on the right horse but that philosophers during the 17th century would have turned down.

Earlier on during the financial crisis Angela Merkel voiced an opinion that the political system of Germany hopefully would be a model for the world. Americans probably don't think so. At least judging from the problems of carrying through a European type health care system recently. Personally I believe the world-norm will become closer to that of the US rather than to that of northern Europe. Less safety and more dynamism. Returning finally to the citation above and how one should approach the goal of spreading freedom. I don't think the military way is appropriate generally speaking. It creates too much bad blood all over the world so it comes out on the negative. It gives freedom a bad name and facilitates the spread of authorianism.

"If first amendment fails, see second amendment"

A while ago I discussed the possible reinterpretation of the American Constitution if the first amendment of the Bill of Rights failed. As the title of this post indicates, being a citation from an article by Patrik Jonsson at the Christian Science Monitor, there is an other way. At least in the United States. I have some experience that it might not be possible in the EU.

Here is the text of the first and the second amendments, respectively:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Apparently people buy guns as never before in the US after President Obama got elected. A president that swore the oath on Lincolns Bible. Perhaps a symbolic gesture to indicate the possibility of a civil war situation. Please excuse the drama but it is interesting if you consider my latest post: Pillar of a New Foundation, where I suggest, from experience, that Sweden is ruled by Human Destruction Inc.

I can't go to the government with my grievances, I tried both the police and the procecutors office, and therefore Amendment I, which exists in the Swedish constitution as well, has failed.

The cited article points out that there is a polarization of the American society right now and that the NRA, National Rifle Association, serves as a base for discontent against the liberal administration and democratic Congress. Has tyranny reappeared? People are reacting to possible legislation that would weaken or remove the second amendment. They are ready to fight. The NRA meeting with 47,000 visitors featured speakers John McCain the former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney a presidential hopeful and GOP Chairman Michael Steele.

For the Swedes it must be interesting to find out what it is that scares people in the US and what the differences might be between the organization of people in the US and the EU. Are both the Republicans and the Democrats fighting Human Destruction Inc. or has it sided with one of the parties?

What is the future of Europe if there isn't a second amendment that can be invoked? A New Dark Age?