A Not So Great Britain

A Not So Great Britain

It is ironic that we are called Great Britain. Nothing about the abhorrent society that we live in today is of an exceptional quality that we can be proud of. Unfortunately, extreme levels of nationalism, xenophobia and racism have become accepted. Britain’s democratic decision to leave the European Union appears to have become a justification for hatred towards different ethnicities. However, the British people are not entirely to blame. It is the Vote Leave politicians who pulled the first brick out of the wall of equality. Vote Leave campaigners have made it socially acceptable (for perhaps up to 52% of the electorate) to be intolerant towards those that are not British. Whether it is the European leaders in Brussels or the immigrants travelling here in search of a livelihood, leave campaigners have steadily demonised those that are different to ourselves. This is not “great”, and it is certainly nothing to be proud of.

In Britain’s shameful quest for sovereignty, we have sharply lost all our influence over what happens to the world and our country. One of the key arguments that lay at the heart of the Vote Leave campaign was the concept of control over our own legislation, and how we can “unshackle” ourselves from the rules and restrictions of the European Union. The officials in Brussels have been portrayed by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson as dictators who have an oppressive grasp on our country. This appealed to voters profoundly. They questioned why we cannot have the freedom to create our own laws? Surely we should have the right to create our own legislation without the influence of an external governing body, they pondered. These are all perfectly valid points. Democracy is a valuable system we should never take for granted; in fact, it should be cherished. If 36.9% of the electorate desire for a Conservative government to create our laws, it is perfectly understandable that they would want to break away from the overpowering influence of Brussels.

However, as the seismic consequences of Brexit begin to tear the British economy apart, the evidence appears to suggest that we have become much less sovereign. Our credit rating has decreased, the pound has steeply fallen in value and we are steadily losing the power to prevent Scottish independence in the next decade. Leave voters believed they had chosen to “take back control”, to break the chains of the European officials, who were portrayed as tyrannical and undemocratic. For many xenophobes, the idea of “those European bureaucrats” having influence over our country’s politics appeared too much to endure. It must deeply hurt them to see that we have in fact lost control since we voted Brexit. Defined as the ability to govern ourselves, and to have authority over what happens within our country, it is clear there is nothing sovereign about this post-Brexit Britain. Our markets are suffering, and there is nothing we can do to prevent the tumultuous storm of a recession heading our way. The only choice our parliament can make entirely on their own is when to activate Article 50. Yet, even that decision can be overturned by the House of Lords, who are just as undemocratic and unelected as the European officials that have been demonised. Fortunately for the xenophobes in this country, the House of Lords is mostly comprised of white males, which must make it acceptable for them to have undemocratic control. Ultimately, when Article 50 is activated, we lose our influence in Europe and what happens to our own country forever. It will be they who decide what our future trade deals look like, not us. Thus, for many remain supporters, the country’s decision to leave the EU is embarrassing and appalling. In the quest for more control over our own country and break away from foreign influence, we have lost economic stability, our allies and the once strong union that defined our country. Without these, we are no longer “great”. We are just a little country who tried to augment our own power, but have lost it in the process.

Farage's poster has been highly criticised as racist and
morally disgusting 

Furthermore, many British voters opted for Brexit believing it would lead to greater controls over immigration. To be worried over immigration is a completely legitimate concern. Our public services are under strain. It is understandable why many would want to alleviate the pressure from a struggling NHS by having greater controls over immigration. However, it is repulsive how immigrants have been used as the scapegoats for all of our problems because it is easier than blaming ourselves. Whilst it is true that tighter controls on immigration would take away some of the strain on the over-worked NHS, and to perhaps take away the demand for new homes in this housebuilding crisis, to completely blame immigrants is untrue. It is our Conservative government who have made cuts to NHS funding, who have not created enough jobs or built enough homes to meet demand. Yet, we continually blame the many Europeans who come to live in the UK. Despite the fact they are 43% less likely to take out of the benefit system, instead providing vital skills that over twenty billion pounds to the economy, many British citizens have diabolized them. Many have made them the problem. Since the referendum result, reports of hate crime have risen by 57%. Europeans are being described as “vermin”, as people who the government should “send them home”. Immigrants, who have only come here to work and provide for their family, are being portrayed as a plague that has marred Britain. This portrayal is wrong and morally repugnant. How can we call ourselves “great” Britain when hate speech such as this is taking place? As Michael Keith argues, “the unspeakable became not only speakable, but commonplace”, and it is utterly repellent.  

The most extreme demonisation of Europeans is evident in the manner that the Vote Leave campaign used terrorists and criminals as a weapon of fear. On one of their leaflets, they played upon societal anxieties by highlighting how a country like Turkey, which is planning to join the European Union, is bordered with Syria and Iraq. This is an attempt to label foreign people as the other, as something different and threatening. Shockingly, this worked with a majority of the British electorate. The Vote Leave campaign’s ridiculous warnings that the entire Turkish population of 77 million, described as being full of “murderers, rapists and terrorists”, will move over here as soon as the country joins the EU. For the campaign to make this claim is absurd, for the British electorate to believe it is very worrying indeed. Believing the claim that all of the world’s criminals exist within Turkey and Syria only leads to latent prejudices and hatred rising to the surface. As discussed earlier, many British citizens have taken it upon themselves to tell foreign people to “go back to your own country”, or to “get out”, as the reports of racism have suggested. This hatred towards those who are not British can and will escalate from verbal taunts to violent acts if we do not stop demonising them now. It is almost as if the British electorate have forgotten that MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a British terrorist, or that murderers, rapists and thieves of white nationality do exist also. There is a horrifying ‘us and them’ attitude in this country; we have become divided as we choose to fear those of different nationalities, rather than work with them to create a progressive future. The chasm that splits our country is so profound that to call ourselves the United Kingdom sounds ironic and foolish.

The name of our country completely juxtaposes with the negative ideals that we are currently holding. We are a country who shuns the political influence of Brussel’s officials, yet would be the first to accept their help when the disastrous consequences of Brexit arrive. Our economy cannot survive without immigration, yet we continue to portray it as a plague that will eventually destroy us. And finally, we are a country that uses criminals from different countries as bogeymen to instil fear, whilst ignoring the atrocities that British people have committed themselves. This post-Brexit Britain is appalling and disgusting. Xenophobia has swiftly become commonplace in this depraved society that we now live in. It is ironic that national pride was used by the Vote Leave campaign to attract votes, because there is nothing about Little England that we can be proud of anymore.

In House of Cards, are the female characters only presented as victims of Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power?

Throughout Frank Underwood’s rise in power, many of the female characters are presented as suffering and as manipulated victims. His ruthless pragmatism and almost inhuman indifference allows him to suppress anyone who stands in his way. Characters such as Heather Dunbar, Rachel Posner and Claire Underwood- to varying extents- suffer attacks on their dignity, power and livelihood. However, there are occurrences throughout the series where these female characters defy what Frank expects of them, thus becoming strong, independent and stoic characters as a result. 

Note, this analysis only considers Seasons 1-3. I have not yet watched the fourth season in its entirety.

Some may argue that Heather Dunbar is presented as a victim of Frank’s ruthlessness as he attempts to sustain his power and the presidency. During her first debate, she is forced to endure sly and cunning personal attacks, from both Frank and Jackie Sharp, as they use her gender as a weapon. They try to portray her as a “bad mother” who abandons her children, and even as a “sexist” who only looks after herself, rather than the whole of America’s female population. This assault on her character increases in intensity when they try to use her actions in the past, such as sending her children to public school or her lack of a “record to defend”, in order to diminish her credibility and humiliate her. To some extent, it does appear that this attack on her character and her past victimises her, for she loses the first caucus in Iowa, thus suggesting that her public image has decreased in popularity. However, to a greater extent, it appears that Dunbar is actually Frank’s strongest obstacle in his pursuit of the presidency, and perhaps one of the most powerful female character in this television series. Throughout the third season, Frank “trails” behind her in the polls. Rather than someone victimised by Frank’s ruthlessness, Dunbar is portrayed as a formidable opponent that Frank struggles to overcome. Even when he humiliates her during the debate, labelling her a “bad mother”, she swiftly responds in an calm and human way “do I want the best for my kids? Yes I do!” Frank’s attempts to humiliate her are quickly halted by her strong and defiant demeanour as she refuses to fall to his depraved level of politics. Thus, it appears that not all female characters are presented as victims of Frank’s pursuit of power. Dunbar, a “symbol” for the power that women can have in politics, proves to be one of the strongest and most controlled characters in the series, and certainly a very worthy candidate for president that Frank will struggle to defeat in the later seasons.

Rachel Posner is portrayed as a greater of a victim of Frank’s ruthless pursuit of power. During the first season, she is essentially a pawn which Frank uses to progress through his plan to the vice-presidency. Her value never increases above this- Frank does not even meet her due to her lack of significance to him. Yet he still does what he pleases with her, using Doug to take complete control of her life. She is paid to keep silent about her sexual encounter with Peter Russo, and then to seduce him later in the season. Each time Frank needs her silenced with regards to what she knows, she is forced to “move again”, despite her pleas that she has “finally made a life for myself”. Furthermore, during her last appearance in the series structurally, she is presented as utterly humiliated and powerless. She is kidnapped by Doug- bound and gagged by a rope which appears to symbolise the oppressing constraints of Frank’s power. She is even forced to urinate all over herself “back there” in the van, which is incredibly degrading and suggests she is considered as below human by both Doug and Frank. She is repeatedly told to never “overestimate yourself”, as it steadily becomes clear for the audience that she is a victim of Frank’s abusive manipulation of her. Whilst some may argue that many of her actions suggest she is not victimised by Frank, such as the way she overcomes and escapes Doug, or the way she creates a new identity for herself as Cassie Lockhart off-screen, it is clear that all of this is meaningless. Many consider her storyline with Doug to be extra-baggage and unimportant, which is entirely the point. Other than being a minor hindrance to Doug, she is never allowed to accomplish anything substantial. As the series progresses beyond season four and beyond, her horrific, unfortunate and untimely death will steadily be forgotten by the other characters. Other than as a puppet for Frank to use in his pursuit of power, she serves no purpose. She dies as an unfortunate victim of his manipulation.

Nevertheless, women are not presented only as victims in Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power, for Claire Underwood could be interpreted as one of the most influential and powerful characters in the entire series. Her impact on other character’s decisions is incredibly substantial. For many voters in this fictionalised version of America, she is the only reason that people vote for Frank in the first place- “people like Claire”, and are persuaded to vote by what she says. During the third season, Claire even acknowledges this fact “I should have never made you president”. The use of the word “made” offers a lot of insight into the amount of power she has, for it suggests that Frank would have achieved nothing without the authority she has in this corrupt world of politics. Furthermore, her role as CEO of Clean Water Initiative would have proven very effective in getting the environmental bill to pass through Congress, if she actually decided to used her high-ranking position. She chooses not to though, and this causes a lot of delay in Frank’s pursuit of the presidency. Thus, it appears that Claire Underwood is a character who makes a substantial impact, someone who is certainly not victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power. However, a much deeper reading suggests that her authority within the show is superficial- an illusion that never becomes a reality. Ironically, as Claire becomes First Lady of the United States, she finally comes to realise that every bit of control she had over her life has been manipulated by Frank. Her business, her influence on voters and even her role as First Lady have all been for his benefit- not hers. President Petrov even observes that Frank simply “pimps” Claire out; every action she takes in the show contributes to Frank’s plans, rather than for her own benefit. Dunbar manages to get the role of solicitor general and builds a successful campaign for president alone, but Claire has nothing unless Frank gets it also. He oppressively tells her that “without me you are nothing”, suggesting how any power she had has been completely usurped and absorbed by Frank. Now she is victimised by him, feeling utterly “weak and small”. Whilst it could be argued that she is portrayed as one of the most commanding and authoritative characters in the series, her influence in events is presented as much more superficial than it is genuine. In fact, many argue that she is presented as being the most victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power, and his lack of respect for her as a person.

The female characters in this series could considered strong, defiant and powerful in the face of Frank’s ruthless pragmatism. Many of the women in this series fight for what they want and what they believe in, such as their own life, or to progress further up the political ladder. However, it soon becomes clear that this battle against Frank is often fruitless. Women are unfortunately presented as victimised by, and suffering from, Frank’s merciless desire to become the president. Often their own plans and goals are ravaged, exploited and ruined because Frank’s ambitions always come first throughout the entire show. Whilst there are occurrences where it appears that women are triumphant in their own aspirations despite Frank’s plans, it soon becomes clear that it is always the protagonist who succeeds in what they set out to do, and that women are often left victimised as a result.