It was in the throes of the civil rights movement during the ‘60s that Bob Dylan first sang “The Times They Are a-Changin’,” but things haven’t exactly gone static since then. Though political gridlock and shallow histrionics seem to be running the town these days, what many disillusioned voters may not realize is the vast potential for change from this election.
True, four years ago a majority of us were swept up in a tide of euphoria driven by an energetic rhetoric of change that, for the most part, was bound to be just that. It was a natural high and an unsustainable one—voters’ optimism was practically set up to be crushed as political realities came into play.
Nevertheless, I may take the liberty of borrowing some eye-roll-inducing political rhetoric myself when I say that we now stand at the fork of two very different paths. The importance of the choice we make in November cannot be overemphasized. While I’m no political expert, I can’t help but believe I’ve seen shadows of the unfavorable change that may come to us in another country I call home: England.
I recently went to see one of my favorite authors, Zadie Smith, give a reading of her new book, NW. Her third novel revolving around the lives of north Londoners, NW examines the themes of race, ethnicity, gender, and national identity which anchor all her work.
In a Q&A session following the reading, an expat Londoner asked Smith about the political undercurrents in this portrait of a changing global city. She responded by pointing to the changes that have occurred over the past few years with the formation of a coalition government helmed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron.
“It’s a different England than we bargained for,” she said. “Change can be painful.”
She was referring to the extreme, austerity-minded cuts in public expenditures that touch all areas of British life. Even the most prized British institutions haven’t been spared from Cameron’s thrift: the National Health Service and the subsidization of university-level education have both faced the axe.
While Americans may see these cuts and the ensuing protests as mere mosquito bites for a “welfare state” that has been spoiled by seemingly endless government benefits, they present significant problems for vast swathes of Britain. For many, austerity means an end to education or losing access to a life-saving medical procedure.
Though the British political system is certainly different from that of the U.S., the narratives of people who have suffered from cuts to that system contain important lessons for Americans at this pivotal political crossroads. It’s essential to recognize that Americans, like their allies across the pond, could be facing such results if Republicans are able to institute widespread privatization and budget slashes in the coming years. After all, the pre-Cameron U.K. is an example of the very “socialist, liberal, European” system that Mitt Romney et al. have decried.
Furthermore, the Republican Party is far less moderate than that of the British Conservatives. Cameron, though certainly of the Eton/Oxford-educated upper echelon, hasn’t exactly gone around denouncing nearly half of the electorate as lazy victims. Cameron’s party certainly doesn’t tout many of the hard-right social policies that Romney has been supporting on the campaign trail, as Cameron himself supports abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, he’s a figure that voters should pay attention to as a shadowy echo of the economic policies that could drift across the Atlantic.
The devastating cuts for both defense and domestic programs set to occur in 2013 if Congress fails to reach a cost-cutting compromise could be just the beginning of a long downward spiral into extreme austerity. Though it has more than its fair share of naysayers, “Obamacare” is a significant change that has benefitted many Americans and which will certainly be torn to the ground in the wake of a Republican victory. I know it’s saved my parents thousands of dollars on something as basic as a dental appointment for my disabled younger brother. It’s also afforded another of my brothers, a filmmaker who is still struggling with the realities of that wonderful industry, insurance he otherwise wouldn’t have had. I hate to think what dismantling that system would mean for people who need it even more.
Comparing two different political systems has its flaws, since these are governments which operate in their own idiosyncratic ways and have their own unique legislative branches—juxtaposing a C-SPAN-televised session of Congress with a gathering of the House of Commons should prove that much. Nevertheless, there’s still a lot to be learned from policies across the pond and the effects they have had in our current economic climate. With the failed tactics of Bush in the rearview mirror and Cameron’s austerity measures in the side, breaking out of an insular viewpoint might be worth considering as we make our own decision about who will occupy the Oval Office.
