I'm trying to remember specifics
it was more political science than political application.
You know, the difference between an academic in their study and a politician in their throne.
Much like Thatcher's use of monetarist economics to justify authoritarian moves. A liberal theorist may say one thing, and the politicians may enforce it for all the wrong reasons.
Abstract ideologies are more my thing than late 19th-early 20th century British history; which is a problem, as that was a moment of time so key in their development, even internationally.
For this reason I got sucked quite firmly into feminism, as I see it as one of the few political forces, or forces on politics, which isn't THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHERS. Also, the one that stands out more independently from early British democracy in its modern form; something which I'm just not interested enough in to read up on enough to learn enough about, I'd much rather read up about Near Eastern languages, and really, really want to learn Arabic, preferably Levantine.
(, Mon 18 May 2009, 17:00, Reply)
Guys, I think the choice is obvious...
...I must become autocrat of our fair land! All hail your despot!
(, Mon 18 May 2009, 17:03, Reply)