EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
message 51:
by
Linda
(new)
Aug 19, 2015 06:05PM
I’ve thought for years and years that all of western civilization is moving towards socialism whether you like it or not. I've never liked it, but there's little you can do. Politicians like Reagan slow down the drift toward socialism, but it's headed to the left anyway --- sometimes more rapidly, sometimes more slowly. This has been true since at least the nineteenth century and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. Maybe it's what gives Germany influence even now because they invented both socialism and communism. It's not an English speaking world thing. P.S. For example, Hitler and his politics were supposed to be on the right. Yet because he was a German politician he believed in socialism. Socialism isn't something from the right, but in Germany it's all over the place.
reply
|
flag
The interesting thing is that the most anti-socialist country, the Untied States has at its very heart a socialist platform. I refer to its public education system which is used almost universally and operates all over the country. I think it is one of the reasons that America is so successful. Everybody has the same start in life. Here large numbers use the private system which immediately creates barriers and snobbiness which are very divisive.
Malcolm wrote: "Oh, this is quite fundamental. America was founded to be an equal society, although it has not always fulfilled the aim in most ways it is, even if some do better than others.But Britain is struc..."I’ve thought for years and years that all of western civilization is moving towards socialism whether you like it or not. I've never liked it, but there's little you can do. Politicians like Reagan slow down the drift toward socialism, but it's headed to the left anyway --- sometimes more rapidly, sometimes more slowly. This has been true since at least the nineteenth century and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. Maybe it's what gives Germany influence even now because they invented both socialism and communism. It's not an English speaking world thing. P.S. For example, Hitler and his politics were supposed to be on the right. Yet because he was a German politician he believed in socialism. Socialism isn't something from the right, but in Germany it's all over the place.
Linda this is the fourth time you have posted the same comment. what is going on?
On my end I don't see it posted. Now is the first time I've seen it posted when I hit the reply button and not the comment button. I've thought that my comment didn't take. I don't know how you see it when I don't.
Linda wrote: "On my end I don't see it posted. Now is the first time I've seen it posted when I hit the reply button and not the comment button. I've thought that my comment didn't take. I don't know how you see..."The trouble is with updates and stuff responses change, but seems the reply button is the one to use for now. Yes it is weird that I can see it and you can't. Maybe it is on your next page? I had that once. The page did not flip automatically.
Don't you have a public education system, too? i know that traditionally the upper crust went to schools like Eton and then followed it up with a degree from Cambridge or Oxford. You'd think by now this sort of thing would be getting outdated. Here there are Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. But nobody cares where you went to school. They care only what you earn. The class system in England has to fall away one of these days.
Linda wrote: "Don't you have a public education system, too? i know that traditionally the upper crust went to schools like Eton and then followed it up with a degree from Cambridge or Oxford. You'd think by now..."Yes we do have a public education system and parts of it are very good. The problem is we have kept the old private education system running alongside it and there is a lot of evidence that private children get to better universities and get better jobs. It all fits in with creating an ongoing elite social system. Do you know we create loads of new Lords, Sirs and Dames every year, even people who do well at sport or in movies.
America has many inequalities but it is designed to be equal. We have a lot of equality in a society designed to be unequal. Very British.
But your way of creating sirs and dames is more democratic than it used to be, isn't it? For one thing these aren't hereditary nobles, right? These are lifetime awards, right? Didn't that all change in 1964? And the fact that you give titles to people in show business and sports is something that wouldn't have been thought of 100 years ago. On the going voyage on the ship we saw Jane Seymour, the British actress turned American who had OBE affixed to the end of her name. She joked that Americans asked her if she was Mrs. Obe. She now lives in Malibu. This is an example of what I mean. It used to be that only the soldiers of the king or politicians got titles for hundreds of years. Then wealthy men like Edward's father got titles in the 19th century. This tradition ended with WW2 and Edward's generation.
I think the word modern is more suited as a word to describe the Honours system as it is called rather than democratic because nobody votes. However I disagree with the principle of setting one person above another outside obvious ranked organisations or businesses. I would have only one honour. the Order of Merit. At the moment it is in the gift of the Queen only and is used sparingly. I would scrap the rest. The OBE comes in four classes if you please! MBE OBE CBE KCBE. Left to right this is Member of the Britsh Empire, Order of The British Empire, Commander of the British Empire, Knight Commander of The British Empire. Ludicrous! If offered one I would refuse it.
That must have been what the actress Jane Seymour had. She had OBE after her name. It must have meant Order of the British Empire. But none of this is hereditary, right? That alone is more "modern" and up to date than it used to be. Without making it hereditary it's just a distinction that one person wins for a lifetime. It can't help to create a separate class of people who can then intermarry and perpetuate themselves. OBE is like winning an academy award only it comes from the Queen.
Actually it comes from the government and the Queen is just the figurehead who pins it on. But you are right these things are not hereditary. They were invented by George V, the Queen's grandfather, who feared the monarchy would be swept away in a communist revolution and decided to make it middle class and have a system where everyone could join in, rather than just the aristocracy.It is a very British way of interpreting democracy and it means that anyone who is just successful in anything can be honoured. My problem is the ranking like the military. I prefer the French which only have the one the Legion d' Honour.
Why do you say there is a ranking like the military when you get an OBE award like Jane Seymour? What is so good about the Legion d' Honour? What do the Germans have if anything? In the USA almost nobody pays attention to any award that doesn't have money attached to it.
In the list of awards I posted I did not make clear that each ranks higher than the previous so the award comes in classes to make sure the notion of class is perpetuated. Jane Seymour is one rank above the bottom.I hate the whole thing.
At the art gallery on the ship I heard somebody ask Jane Seymour if she was going to get a higher rank. She said she didn't think so. She'd become an American citizen. You know, Hollywood and such. She lives in Malibu. It's thousands of miles away from London. But she still had a British accent, though she claimed her voice training had taught her to talk with an American accent, too, which she demonstrated. Apparently she's got a deal with a British art gallery, which has an office and a gallery on the ship on deck 4L, which we are now quite familiar with. She was on the ship to display her paintings of flowers. That's what she does these days. She paints. She was even giving lessons to the passengers. She was the celebrity onboard on June 3. I have photos her her, too.
I think she is better known in America than here as she has spent a lot of time there she has gone below the radar here, especially among the younger generation. She does not appear on film or TV although I think she may have been in a theatre production not long ago.
From what I could tell Jane Seymour now spends most of her time painting pictures. She's no Georgia O'Keeffe. I saw that lady's paintings in Santa Fe. When you look O'Keeffe's painting of a flower somehow you know SHE painted it. It's all her own style. Jane Seymour's paintings look more like commercial art. A flower is a flower. You know, nothing special. Nobody would be paying attention to Jane Seymour's paintings if she hadn't been an actress first. O'Keeffe looked mannish and very serious. Like many artists she also seemed to be a loner, not very social. Jane Seymour has a way of looking as if she were still thirty something when you see her on the stage on the ship or from a distance. But when you're close up the way I was in the art gallery --- only a few feet away --- you can see the lines in her skin, etc. She's way too conscious of her appearance --- even when she paints herself standing next to flowers --- to be a great artist. Even when she was being interviewed she kept talking about her hair, etc., how she used to sit on it and how she got hired for a movie role when she was sitting on it.
Dear me. I think she sounds a bit self centred. But then I suppose most of the celebrity types are. It sounds from what you say that she uses the pictures to promote herself rather than the other way around. Sorry I am being catty!I am not familiar with Georgia O'Keefe but I am going to look her up now.
Oh yes I know exactly who she is now. Yes she was one of those very special artists who manage to give everything they paint an extra dimension which you would otherwise miss. The animal skulls especially.
I assume Georgia O'Keefe was an American. But the group in Santa Fe had an Englishman by the name of D.H. Lawrence who lived in Taos, New Mexico. You will recognize him as the novelist who penned Sons and Lovers, Lady Chatterley's Lover. The Plumed Serpent, etc. Believe it or not, he took up painting, too.
Linda wrote: "I assume Georgia O'Keefe was an American. But the group in Santa Fe had an Englishman by the name of D.H. Lawrence who lived in Taos, New Mexico. You will recognize him as the novelist who penned S..."I didn't know Lawrence had been in New Mexico. I read Lady C about 60 years ago just after it was published. It was banned when he wrote it because it was 'obscene' but eventually a new publisher decided to print it. Some establishment freak called The Royal Chamberlain (true, I am not making it up)brought a case to stop it and lost. The court drama went on for weeks and was a huge promo trail. The book was a sell out from day one. They are doing a new adaptation of it on the BBC soon. I have seen the film and other adaptations in the past so I don't think I will bother to watch. It has become a bit of a cliche.
Yes, Lawrence was in Santa Fe and Taos with his German wife who lived there until just a few decades ago. He also painted. His paintings were considered "obscene" too. But you can view them in Taos. I've never been to Taos, by the way. We planned on seeing the Taos Pueblo, etc. but when you drive into Santa Fe and see the Rocky Mountains looming behind it and know that if you drive any further on I-25 you will run into them, it discouraged me from visiting. For the same reason I've never been to Los Alamos either, and that's relevant to my novels. Fortunately the WW2 intrigue really was centered in Santa Fe and at the very hotel I always visit --- La Fonda.
Yes I remember the La Fonda bit. I rather enjoyed that because I had seen your photographs.
I never know where to comment on essays from your blog since comments are closed. This doesn't follow La Fonda, only "Gemrany Shines" on your blog. But here goes. I also sent it by email:I assume what you mean by "dictators they do not like" is Saddam Hussein, and you're going back to Iraq. Just because Bush wasn't President long enough to finish the job doesn't mean he had the wrong policy. The current administration reflects a mood of Isolationism. We need a President who like FDR is clever enough to manipulate the popular will about the Middle East. America is the only country who can make a difference here. I still say we need to sit on the region, particularly Saudi Arabia in the larger sense which includes Syria and Iraq and Egypt. Even Saladin, the man who won the Third Crusade against Richard the Lion-Hearted and made peace with the crusaders, said that if you take Arabia and Egypt you've taken the whole region and all will fall in line. What you're fighting is the heart of darkness in Saudi Arabia that came to power with the Sauds in the early 19th century, the Wahabbis, and made a pact with Ibin Saud in the 20th century. Wahabbism is a radical form of Islam that's gone mainstream in Saudi Arabia and is the reason they always want to knock down buildings. For some reason they think they are irreligious. It probably has something to do with the fact that Ibin Saud and his family were originally nomads who didn't live in buildings. We've got to take the backward Sauds out of there and set up a democratic government in Saudi Arabia. Ditto Egypt. We don't want the pyramids knocked down next!!!!! (P.S. Unless you want to move all those Near Eastern monuments and buildings brick by brick over to Phoenix and set them up in the desert over there.)
No, not just Saddam Hussein. Also Assad and Gaddafi. Iraq, Syria and Libya are collapsed states without an effective government and Afghanistan is teetering on the edge.The West has made so many misjudgments it is hard to list them. The first is the assumption that western democracy will work and take root in the Arab world. It won't. The second is that tribes, sects, religions and fragments of them will all get along fine; they don't. The third is that borders can ignore tribal homelands. Finally the biggest mistake of all is that the West can impose a solution.It can't.Our biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, is as you point out part of the problem but to try and turn it into a democracy would be to make matters worse. Essentially there is an historic conflict between Sunni and Shia. Islamic State is mainly Sunni. In containing it we have three allies Iran, Russia and Assad. Yet we regard Assad as a tyrant, we have quarrelled with Putin; only with Iran have we made any progress.
America is no longer able to impose its will and is no longer seen, even in the UK, as the power it was pre 9/11. Its political system is often referred to by commentators as dysfunctional and the fact that all it can come up with for President is another Bush, another Clinton or Trump simply re-enforces this impression. Obama is rated much more highly here and in Europe than in the US. A bit like Blair in reverse, who I know is still popular in your country but over here is reputation is completely shot.
I agree with you that America can influence an improvement (but not by force) and would enhance its ability to do so by a huge margin if it withdrew its unconditional backing for Israel. Europe has more or less disowned Netanyahu and his policies but does not advertise the fact. It needs to be more strident. You can be pro Jewish and anti-Israel.
I can’t wait until next year’s presidential election. I’ve been waiting for it for eight years. It will end my imposed news ban. I’ll be able to listen to Rush Limbaugh again. I’ll be able to read the newspaper. As you know, I can’t wait to get rid of the current administration which is now guaranteed even if his Vice President gets elected.
Do you remember the Balfour Declaration from November 2, 1917? Do you remember what it says? I think I’ve copied it here:Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
It was Great Britain that started these things, not America. America follows in Great Britain’s footsteps as it does in all foreign policy initiatives.
What is with you and Donald Trump? Why does he make you an enthusiast for the monarchy? American politics looks weird to any European. Unfortunately the British speak the same language, so they can be more shocked than the French and the Germans. It's always been a circus. Look at Andrew Jackson way back when. Not very sophisticated, huh? But remember that politicians here have to compete for attention with Hollywood and TV programs, the internet, and Star Wars games. If they make outrageous comments,it's to get attention and be heard. The fact that America can take politics so lightly shows who is really in charge here: big business. The business of America is business said Calvin Coolidge. What I think Donald Trump may really be after --- don't freak out when I say this --- is the ambassadorship to Great Britain, or the Court of St. James. Traditionally this perk position is given to a high roller who can throw his money and weight behind the guy who wins. If a Republican wins, don't be surprised. You heard it here first. Even FDR had to play at this game. He made Joe Kennedy Ambassador to Great Britain at an even more serious moment in history, and Kennedy almost caused a disaster. Why did he give it to Kennedy? Because he was so rich. That's America, for you. Money above all.
Your reference to 9/11 makes me remember that tomorrow is the 14th anniversary of the date.
Linda wrote: "Do you remember the Balfour Declaration from November 2, 1917? Do you remember what it says? I think I’ve copied it here:Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasu..."
Yes this was very important in establishing the idea of a Jewish state and Britain organised the setting up of Israel. Nowadays Israel is generally frowned upon and blamed for most of the problems with the Palestinians, because of its settlement policy. Even the Jewish community is sometimes openly critical. Parliament has passed a resolution recognising the Palestinian State, but the government did not have to act on it and did not.
Britain could have an impact if it wanted to but it has walked away and left it to the US. There is no 'Jewish Lobby' here as in the US.
The easiest way would be to withdraw recognition ( or threaten to) of Israel as an independent state, because it had failed to accept the obligations of being one. That would galvanise the moderates in Tel Aviv. Britain could do that because we set it up.
Linda wrote: "What is with you and Donald Trump? Why does he make you an enthusiast for the monarchy? American politics looks weird to any European. Unfortunately the British speak the same language, so they can..."Yes I do accept that US politics is very different to here. Trump is just seen as a figure of fun. He tried to build a golf course in Scotland and got very annoyed when the locals would let not him do as he wanted.
But you are right. He could well end up in London.There have been times when the US ambassador had a high profile here. The last time was during the Thatcher/ Reagan love in. But I have no idea who it is now and they are never reported about. I think it is a popular posting with the wives because of the social aspect of London society.
Joe Kennedy is notorious, but the Kennedys have always been regarded as mega dodgy over here with underworld connections. JFK was admired because he was young and glamourous etc and because he kept his cool over the Cuban missile crisis.
I think Joe Biden is too old. A lot would depend on his running mate. Reagan was shrewd to choose Bush senior. Bush then chose a simpleton who could not spell potato. I forget his name.
Linda wrote: "Your reference to 9/11 makes me remember that tomorrow is the 14th anniversary of the date."Yes, you are right, a dreadful day for those thousands who lost loved ones. It has much more resonance in the US, which had never been attacked on the mainland like Europe. Nevertheless we had a recent day of remembrance for the July London bombings in 2005 tenth anniversary. At the moment we are very taken up with the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. There were Hurricanes and Spitfires over my cottage this afternoon. They were doing a flypast at an event nearby. The battle was fought in the skies right above here.
Britain can't not recognize the Jewish State. It's worse than bad manners to do the opposite of what the USA does. It's especially bad manners because the Brits started it all. Yes, here there is a Jewish lobby. It's more than a lobby, and I've met the people. When I was growing up in Bethel Park, PA I didn't know any Jewish students. The few former Jews who lived around us seemed to blend in with the Protestants and Catholics. But when I went to Bryn Mawr College in Philadelphia, boy was it a different experience. That women's college and its next door neighbor Haverford College, were meccas for New York Jews, many of whom were well to do and very academic. They talked about Israel as if it were a home away from home, a kind of hobby state. To this day I read in the alumnae bulletin open invitations asking all Bryn Mawr alumna to stop by their home in Tel Aviv and say hi.
Personally I don't think Israel could survive without the US, but is the US going to withdraw its support from Israel? It doesn't matter who is in office. It's impossible.
That sounds exciting about the Battle of Britain and the air show with Hurricanes and Spitfires. Do you have a link to an article about this?
9/11 Remembered In Pittsburgh:My parents had the strange experience of being in downtown Pittsburgh at one of the department stores on September 11, 2001. They were getting ready to leave and they were told that a plane was headed for Pittsburgh. Nobody knew what it was aiming for. The Twin Towers had already collapsed. They wondered if the Cathedral of Learning at Pitt was next or the US Steel Building. Traffic was at a crawl getting across the bridge and through the tunnel when they learned on the radio that the plane had crashed outside Somerset on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. On our way East this summer we passed the site of it. They still have a sign about Flight 93 at the Somerset Plaza on the Turnpike.
Linda wrote: "That sounds exciting about the Battle of Britain and the air show with Hurricanes and Spitfires. Do you have a link to an article about this?"http://www.raf.mod.uk/campaign/battle...
I think this will give you plenty of background reading.
Enjoy!
Linda wrote: "9/11 Remembered In Pittsburgh:My parents had the strange experience of being in downtown Pittsburgh at one of the department stores on September 11, 2001. They were getting ready to leave and the..."
Yes that must have been tense. My eldest daughter lived in America and worked there at that time and was running a conference in NY when the Towers came down. We knew she was in NY but not where. We feared she was in one of the Towers. After about three hours we managed to get through to her boss who told us she was at a nearby hotel and safe. It was scary.
I don't see how somebody who doesn't own a car would get anywhere in American politics. They're all millionaires. The Senate is a millionaire's club. If you don't have money you can't afford to campaign. Also no American politician can say anything against Israel. It won't work. People here don't like open socialism. They think it sounds communist. Everything pulls towards the center. You can have a conservative or liberal accent. But then if you want to get legislation passed, you compromise.
How could Corbin become PM if he's an anti-royalist? Don't PM's have to meet with the Queen?
Linda wrote: "I don't see how somebody who doesn't own a car would get anywhere in American politics. They're all millionaires. The Senate is a millionaire's club. If you don't have money you can't afford to cam..."Well this is Britain! First of all he is a London MP and lives about a 30 minute cycle ride from Parliament and London has an excellent integrated public transport system including bus, bike,rail,underground, tube, boat and taxi,so a car is unnecessary. Second as Her Majesty's Leader of the Opposition, as he now is, he has an official car and chauffeur for political business.
The American system is money driven in a way it is less so in Britain and Europe. Here people give to parties not to individuals.
Linda wrote: "How could Corbin become PM if he's an anti-royalist? Don't PM's have to meet with the Queen?"Yes, but this is Britain again! He could easily be a republican and PM. He is also a democrat and knows that the majority support the Monarchy. He would get along with the Queen very well. They are both plain speaking no nonsense people. Also the Royal family is politically to the left. She hated Thatcher.
American Federal politics are much more for and against this or that and not as nuanced as British or European politics. But you have all the individual State governments looking after most of the stuff that affects much of daily life. We do have local councils but on a much lower scale.
I still don't understand how somebody who wanted to abolish the monarchy would get along with the Queen. Nor do I understand how the monarchy could be politically to the left. Aren't monarchies conservative and to the right?
American politics are like sports teams. They just want to win. They don’t really believe in anything or stand for anything. They’ll steal each other’s ideas and claim they had them first. There are no real “isms” or philosophhies —- just the party in power and the opposition. That’s why third parties NEVER survive. If they have any good ideas, they just get stolen. It also explains why when a politician wins, he pulls toward the center. That’s the governing position here —- you make compromises.
Linda wrote: "I still don't understand how somebody who wanted to abolish the monarchy would get along with the Queen. Nor do I understand how the monarchy could be politically to the left. Aren't monarchies con..."Being a republican does not necessarily mean that you want to abolish the Queen. It means in a democracy, given a choice, you would vote for a republic.But you would abide by the result.Corbyn knows that if there were such a referendum today 80% would vote to keep it.
As to the question aren't monarchies conservative and to the right? The answer is not the ones which survive. They know that in the modern world their power comes not from the aristocracy, but from the people. The Windsors understand that very well.Remember Kate, who will one day be Queen, has an uncle who owns a fish and chip shop. All her ancestors are working class. The Scandinavian monarchies go even further. There all ride bikes and go on busses.
Linda wrote: "American politics are like sports teams. They just want to win. They don’t really believe in anything or stand for anything. They’ll steal each other’s ideas and claim they had them first. There ar..."Yes I understand. You put that very well. I think this blog will interest you.
http://www.malcolmblair-robinson.co.u...
What about the various German royal families? Aren't they more conservative? I think the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria are particularly conservative. They don't ride bicycles. That's for certain. They are filthy rich and take part in business activities. They are also great land owners.
You are right. The German, Austrian and Russian royal families were ultra conservative and failed altogether to understand the rise of democracy inaugurated by America. That is why all their royal houses fell. The British saw that times were changing and came up with a compromise that moves more in step with public opinion, without becoming as democratised as America.
You say the German royal families fell, well, how come they own so much land in Germany and are so highly respected even now? I've seen the Kaiser's painting well-placed in certain hotels in Hamburg. The Bavarian royal family still lives in the Nymphenburg Palace on the outskirts of Munich. My friend in Austria is crazy about the Hapsburgs. She says they are well respected.
I do lots of reviews on Trip Advisor, and today they sent an email such as I’ve never seen before. “Join Us In The Refugee Crisis Relief” they say and claim to be donating $250,000.00 to the cause. They also say they will match any gift you give up to $5000.00. It reminds me of driving through Montana in an RV some years ago. There were mountain ranges everywhere and lots and lots of empty land as far as the eye could see. It made me think at the time that you could move the world’s population there —- or at least half of it —- and there would be plenty of room. Of course, Montana has lots of space but like most of the mountain west it doesn’t have enough water or much infrastructure. Maybe you could build log cabins for the refugees? Montana certainly has lots of trees.
Linda wrote: "You say the German royal families fell, well, how come they own so much land in Germany and are so highly respected even now? I've seen the Kaiser's painting well-placed in certain hotels in Hambur..."I think America has a less nuanced view of political issues than Europe where there is more tolerance and give and take. Yes all these Royal Families lost their thrones but they did not lose their fortunes. Also many people remain loyal to the monarchies, especially in an era when the reputation of democratic politicians is at a relatively low level.
I think this is connected to the development of the notion of politics as a full time profession, rather than a part time service. You only became full time if you joined a government. Now politicians are seen as a class.
