« Which Bush era foreign policy will work best in the long-run? | Main | Richer Americans are Democrats »



John Howard overstayed his welcome. He should have stepped down as party leader and handed over to Costello. Now he faces the twin humiliation of losing the election and his parliamentary seat.

He failed to learn from Thatcher and Blair.

Much of Australia's recent economic growth has been fuelled by China. It is significant that Kevin Rudd speaks fluent Mandarin.

Finally, I am slightly worried by the term Anglosphere. What does it mean? Is it some form of Anglo-Saxon Ummah? African-Americans like me are English speakers but we are no Anglo-Saxons and we have no wish to be.

American Hispanics share the same view.

What are the barriers to entry? Are members of the Commonwealth part of the Anglo-Sphere? Where do you place India, South Africa or Singapore? What about Ireland (solidly European, adopted the metric system, resolutely anti-British)? What about Quebec?

The US and Canada are too complex and too rapidly evolving to be described as merely "Anglospheric" nations.

In the absence of a universally agreed on definition, I suggest we stick to Western Civilization. If we don't we stand the risk of promoting ethno-centrism (or even racism) in international relations.


Just to add, is the Anglosphere supposed to be the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the Arab league?

Frogg, USA

I'm reading mixed reviews on Rudd. So, I guess I'll just have to give him a chance. I'm betting that not much will change in the long run.

PM Howard was one of the world's best leaders. I'm sad to see him go; however, all things much change in politics. New faces are welcomed in Democracies.

The world was served well by PM Howard. I give my congratulations to Rudd....and, hope he serves Australia well also.

Anthony (Los Angeles)

The West owes Mr. Howard a vote of thanks. He was a stalwart ally and a clear-sighted, straight-talking leader. We could use more like him.


Anglosphere refers not to racial origin but civilizational. There is a big difference between the way countries with an English tradition of common law and individual liberty and countries founded on Roman law, such as France and Italy. They're both part of Western Civilization but show distinct differences. It's about culture. In this sense, all of the U.S. falls in the "Anglosphere" umbrella.



'Anglosphere' has nothing to do with race but differences in British / continental legal systems:

In the UK everybody, governed and Government alike are subject to the law of the land, NO exceptions, unlike Europe where immunity from prosecution is granted to eg Jaques Chirac while still president of France.

British common law protects the individual from coercion by the state, whereas the European system, based on Code Napolean, is designed to ensure the supremacy of the state.

In the Anglospere, there is a distinct separation of powers between those who make the Law (parliament), those who investigate crimes (police) and those who deal out justice (the courts). Not so on the continent where all law enforcement powers: investigation, prosecution and sentencing are in the hands of the same brotherhood.

Under British law, everything is permitted unless the law prohibits it, while in continental juristictions, nothing is permitted unless the law allows it.

Trial By Jury - the right to trial by members of the public selected at random. No equivalent in Europe, where justice is dispensed by a career judiciary.

Right to Silence - in Europe prosecutors may claim a defendant's refusal to answer questions as an admission of guilt.

Reporting restrictions - In Europe the press are free to name names and express opinions before and during a trial.

Inadmissability of hearsay - In Europe 'reported' evidence is frequently used to obtain convictions.

Habeus Corpus - no detention without public hearing for more than 24 hours, or exceptionally up to 96 hours. In Europe persons may be held without charge for months, even years, without a public hearing and without any obligation on the prosecution to exhibit evidence while it 'prepares' its case.



I am okay if the term Anglosphere is used in a limited cultural/linguistic context. What I am uncomfortable with is people trying to promote the Anglosphere as a future political association (somewhat along the lines of the Arab League).

(Is the Philippines part of the Anglosphere? Afterall, they were colonised by Americans and speak English).


"What I am uncomfortable with is people trying to promote the Anglosphere as a future political association (somewhat along the lines of the Arab League)."

No comparison. Andy very ably delineated the political system that is the "Anglosphere", and if you analyzed it, you would see its superiority to the European system with regard to individual rights.

Comparing it to the "Arab League" is a REAL stretch, since Sharia Law is even worse than European Law in terms of respecting individual rights.

Your concern regarding the Anglosphere as a system is baseless, just as your earlier comparison of Christians with the Taliban was...

Tut, tut, a case where "discrimination" is sorely needed...


Actually, when you look at it the way Steyn did, it looks more like a world-wide case of "throw the old bums out and lets get some new bums". It looks more like a mini-revolution against incumbents.

So maybe all the political analysts are reading too much into the conservative/liberal angle.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker