Charlie Rose

Ellen_Dibble  08/22/2011 10:31 PM Report

I don't know what Stewart meant about England being unusual because it had not had a revolution. He must have meant something. Maybe he was just looking at certain centuries. I also don't know what he meant about Parliament and how surprising it is that really the only thing debated there is whether troops should be dying for this or that. I would say that might be the only issue that is debated on a national level but not the district level -- although I suspect like America in the UK issues of deployment are fiercely argued at local pubs and forums whether or not the debate is official. Still, I have heard two days of Parliament in the last few months, one as to Murdock and behavior vis-a-vis hot news, and one day, House of Commons recalled as to the outbreaks of disorders first around London and then much more broadly. It struck me that the MPs were representing constituents very minutely, individually, much more closely linked to the realities on the ground in their districts than one might think listening to American congresspeople on the floor of the House. So -- I've heard Rory Stewart on various matters and read him, and I'm just thinking he's a work in progress, and that is good.

Shrdlu42  08/20/2011 01:35 AM Report

REMant, you took the word right out of my mouth. Let's add a few other examples: Magna Carta, and the Wars of the Roses. And that's just looking at English history. It seems to me the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish all staged revolts and revolutions against the British Crown at one time or another.

The British used to look with disdain at the "colonist's" ignorance of British history (ours that is). What's Mr. Stewart's excuse? (Maybe he thinks history started on the day of his birth - another "problem" Americans are charged with having.)

JohnGelles  08/19/2011 11:43 PM Report

He did say "affordable housing" -- meaning to build it or see it develop with your help in law, finance, govt, or architecture, etc., is the real accomplishment that gives profound satisfaction to his soul.

He said much the same for "broadband".

So I have to say, "Right on. Bravo. You're the real thing and no pretender."

Still he is a Brit. And his nation has Rom Morrison. And Morrison has authored "Keynes Without Debt" (Google for it). And Rory Stewart never mentioned his name. In short Rory is missing a vital part of a modern understanding of money. And money still rules the world.

Morrison would replae money with cost (not profit and loss) accounting. When that happens we will need Rory Stewart to go forward from that historical moment.

Until then Rory is just another ignorant pol. What he knows is useless -- for as long as money talks and Rory has not a clue to what it's saying.

robdverity  08/19/2011 05:01 PM Report

The recent 'revolt' in London is testimony that they are smarter than we are. Class warfare originated over here (USA, NYC) with the financial wise-guy big banks playing fast and loose with the nations asset - housing. Mr. Stewart suggested the disparity should be addressed (not just criminalizing it).

The PBS Newshour interview with street people that weren't aware of the wealth disparity in the US was at once frightening and enlightening. It explains anarchy in London and not NYC. We're too obtuse here at home to know the plutocrats have screwed the world over - but mostly us. Riots, fires and looting of gated communities and yacht clubs are justified. Lawlessness is warranted when laws are for sale to the highest bidder. Every big bank bonus baby should be exposed to angry mobs. Their antics put people under bridges for shelter, and caused a helluva lot of misery from Podunk, Iowa to Athens, Greece.

A culture deserves what it tolerates. Ask the Brits.

REMant  08/19/2011 11:32 AM Report

To say England never had a revolution is absurd. It's more like the country has been in continuous revolt, altho it seems they can't do without a monarch. They have rightly been called an ungovernable people, yet it was one of the earliest examples of a unified state. The king was beheaded in the English civil war by revolutionaries who founded a republic and ruled a decade tho the monarchy was restored after quarrels broke out upon Cromwell's death. But Charles II's Catholic brother James was in turn deposed by Protestant Whigs in the Glorious Revolution, who on Anne's death put in their own dynastic line from Hanover. (It might interest you to know that William through his mother is descended from Charles II's illegitimate offspring.)

His criticism of Afghanistan is however just, tho I don't think the Libya policy was smart, just politic, if also illegal.