It was only a matter of time before an Englishman or Englishwoman openly called for the expansion of the Anglosphere. Mr. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain did just that in a piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal on April 16, 2008. Similar sentiments have existed at least since the days of Winston Churchill as Mr. Brown points out in the piece, and anyone who watched Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair would have noticed the continuation of that trend. What separates Mr. Brown from his predecessors, however, is that he talks more about culture than politics or military matters, and this is a refreshing sign.
What is significant about the call to strengthen the ties between Britain and America is not that the Brits wish to spread their language and culture around the World in the belief that they have much to offer; many before them such as the Arabs, the French and the Spaniards have entertained similar sentiments. What is significant is that the Brits hope to realize the dream by effectuating the moral merging of Britain and America.
The attempt to merge with America in a moral sense is not restricted to the Brits; a few around the World are now or have in the past tried to do the same thing. These include elements of the Canadian Establishment, the new President of France and a few other individuals and groups. But no one has come close to the success that Israel and the Jewish Lobby are enjoying in this regard at this time.
All those individuals and groups wish to go somewhere and they want the American bandwagon to take them there. But what we must realize is that when the narrative they use covers politics or military matters, they signal that they want to do more than be a part of an ongoing debate. Their approach is that of someone who wishes to usurp the power and prestige of America to implement an agenda that is beyond their ability to effectuate alone.
From the looks of it no one entity has yet achieved total and absolute control over the American train, and the human race should be thankful for that. Yes, various players have succeeded in climbing aboard the American train through the back door, so to speak, and have tried to get to the locomotive but they barely left the caboose from where they resigned themselves to meddling with the thing.
This sort of mania happens to individuals and groups that inherit a legacy bigger than them and develop a reach that exceeds their grasp. It can also happen to an idea whose time has come and gone. But unlike the situation with an individual or a group whose lifespan is limited, an idea can last a long time if not for ever. It lingers on without interruption for a while, lies low for another while but always comes back to reclaim its old place under the limelight.
One such idea is religious devotion which can do much good but also much that is harmful. With regard to the positive side of religion, it has played an important role in the march of Western Civilization from Ancient Egypt to the European Renaissance. Much of what was accomplished in the arts and architecture, philosophy and literature, ethics and esthetics was done in the name of the deities that existed at the time. And the same is true with the Civilizations that arose in the Orient and the Americas.
As for the negative side of religion, it is something that develops when the philosophy of gentleness fostered by the religious experience is upset by circumstances. To cite one example, if famine hits the land where the church stands and the latter cannot help the people who desperately need it, someone in the religious hierarchy may be tempted to use religion to mobilize the flock and go after the political authority. This is when things may escalate and risk getting out of hand.
A new religion always begins apart from the authority of the state. In most instances, it begins in opposition to the state because it comes at a time when the rulers lose touch with the masses. If the religion becomes powerful enough to threaten the state, the head of that state jumps on the bandwagon and merges his dominion with the religion. For a while after that he will lead from the caboose because the religious authority will still be running the important matters from the comfort of the locomotive.
Overzealous religious devotion is called fanaticism. But fanaticism may also be associated with a political philosophy, a cause or a movement. In these cases, the devotion may not acquire the force of the religious fervor but it can still be turned into a potent tool or a weapon in the hands of a charismatic leader.
And so I ask: what does Prime Minister Brown expect from the merging of Britain and America? Does he expect future Prime Ministers of Britain to run the new entity from the locomotive or will they be satisfied to take a back seat and meddle in the business from the caboose?
Mr. Brown enumerates the cultural achievements of the two countries and concludes with these words: “…realizing the potential for the greater good when our two nations work together …I believe that the future of our relationship can, if we choose, deliver far more even than it has achieved in its past. Not just for both our nations, but for the world.”
That is a refreshing and reassuring stance but my concern is not with this Prime Minister who is without a doubt a descent human being. My concern is what might happen if he succeeds in creating an entity that is as potent as he describes then something goes wrong. What is involved here are ideas that will linger on for a time after we are all gone. In the hand of some unscrupulous operator, the entity can be shaken and the ideas turned into a weapon that will do as much harm in the future as Mr. Brown wants to do good.
Yes, as he says, British and American charities like The Hunter Foundation and The Carnegie Corporation can work on joint projects to alleviate suffering in the World. America and Britain can work together on projects like cancer research and the human genome. But as we know, they can also work to create a fantasy like the existence of weapons of mass destruction and trigger a horrible war such as the ongoing one in Iraq. Yes, the new Anglo-American entity may heal and elevate a few people but it may also kill the many and debase the human species.
Mr. Brown has the right attitude. He proposes a way to strengthen the cultural ties between two countries which is always a good thing. But he does not allow for the possibility that something may go wrong with the merger he proposes. As a result, he does not envisage a mechanism by which to call on the new entity to explain itself when something goes out of whack, a mechanism that would put a check on its powers. For these reasons, I propose that the Prime Minister revise his plans to add a foundation such as a peace institute or a disarmament authority to the mix.
Like it or not, the English language and the Anglo-American culture are taking over the World and they may well become a permanent feature of this Planet. Because Mr. Brown has shown how conscious he is of this possibility, he is expected to create the necessary safeguards that will protect the entity from those who would use the popular ideas of the day or the religious trends of the moment to take over and turn his creation into something different from his vision.
It is not too difficult to imagine how a charismatic leader on either side of the Atlantic may come along one day and turn the World upside down. To avoid the temptation for something like this from burgeoning at all, there should be enough provisions to make certain that the entity will at all time maintain enough respect for the other cultures and religions as to let them evolve at their own pace until they come around and ask to become one with the Anglosphere if that will be their wish.
What must be avoided at all cost is to inflame the religious passions of those who would be offended by a sudden rush to do away with their system of beliefs and their customs in favor of something that is both alien and threatening to them.
There is also something to be said about the merits of diversity. Cross-fertilization of the cultures has always been a force for innovation and advancement. Thus while it is a good idea to share with the World that which has made America and Britain very successful, it is a good idea to let a few differences stand even if such differences will seem at odds with the Anglo-American landscape. In this case a little spice will not spoil the broth but will accentuate the flavor.