36 Comments

1. jedrury:

Daley is right that Chirac is the embodiment of European political cynicism. France has a way of keeping its politicians around for a long time; like retread tires. The emergence of Nicholas Sarkozy, a new younger Gaullist, may upend the Sly Fox. What fascinates is that Chirac, unlike Mitterand, may be, in an historical sense, a transitory figure who has little positive impact on European affairs.

Feb 23, 2005 - 10:36 am 2. Knucklehead:

Europeans have found something better, and more readily controlled, as a substitute for personal liberty. They have found wealth: mass prosperity and the kind of government-subsidised economic security that their countries, traumatised by generations of war and unrest, have never known. Since the Cold War ended, they have been able to consolidate the post-war economic miracle with a “peace dividend”: all that money that used to be spent on arms could go into more and more generous welfare and pension arrangements. So now they are not even fit to defend themselves, or to sort out a mess in their own Balkan backyard. Why should they join in any crazy scheme to bring peace to the rest of the world?

They will trade anything for “stability”. They do not view “freedom” as a matter of what one is free to do but, rather, as “freedom from” things… most importantly freedom from uncertainty. There are many Americans who would gladly leap on the “stability” as “freedom from uncertainty” bandwagon. There are many “westerners” in this world who do not want the messy conflicts of democracy – what they want is a benevolent dictator to take care of everything. Stalin and Saddam as “Uncle” are preferrable to lunatic cowboys like Reagan and Bush.

Feb 23, 2005 - 10:44 am 3. neo-neocon:

I’m far from an expert on history, but I wonder whether Europe ever was so all-fired keen on liberty. Yes, the French Revolutionaries made a big squawk about it (at least at first). But it didn’t take long at all, did it, for that to fall by the wayside, hard? And every other Eruopean country, as far as I know (except for the glaring exception of the British Isles, which I don’t consider to be Europe, exactly) simply has no strong tradition of commitment to liberty.

So, it’s hard to say that Europe has traded liberty for security. I think the liberty trade happened long ago. First they traded it for tyranny, and now they’ve traded tyranny for security and “peace” (the welfare state and appeasement of dictators and bigots).

Historians (and I know you’re out there!), feel free to correct me.

Feb 23, 2005 - 10:50 am 4. neo-neocon:

Knucklehead–yes, the Grand Inquisitor syndrome.

Feb 23, 2005 - 10:51 am 5. Knucklehead:

Neo,

With a little luck Katherine will drop by and comment on the willingness of many people to trade “freedom of” for “freedom from”. She lived where people traded an awful lot of “freedom to” to get at some “freedom from”. I have some vague understanding for the “social justice” types who claim to want a world where people are free from the ravages of poverty, but it seems such a short jump to people wanting to be free from all inconvenience, all conflict however minor, free from all need to make a difficult decision, free from any chance of that risk will fail to pay off. I don’t get it but people by the millions will align their entire lives to some “system” just to be “free” from… what?

Feb 23, 2005 - 11:13 am 6. jerry:

Liberty as we understand it is only found in the Anglosphere. Our conception of liberty comes through Hobbes and Locke. The only continental input comes from Martin Luther who said “one should not be forced to accept what one cannot believe.” Continental Europe has always favored autocracy. The French Revolution had more in common with Bolshevism then with freedom.

Europe sold its honor and manhood, yes that so-called sexist concept, for the security provided by the United States. They may live in comfort but deep down they live in a state of humiliation. When they express hate for America they are only trying to compensate for the cowardís humiliation they feel. Having lost their connection to western culture, they have so descended into nihilism that they collective cannot retrieve their honor. Unable to muster resolve they will fall to the Muslim world waiting for the US Cavalry to ride to their rescue. However, unlike the World Wars and the Cold War, I don’t think we are coming back.

Feb 23, 2005 - 11:15 am 7. Morgan:

“…except for the glaring exception of the British Isles, which I don’t consider to be Europe, exactly”

That expresses my own feelings quite well. When I say “Europe”, I generally mean “Continental Europe”, even (sometimes) “Old Europe”. The Isles aren’t a part of it.

Somehow I can’t get my head around the idea that these Anglophone nations face the same cultural crisis that Old Europe faces. Maybe they don’t – economic growth is better, tax rates and unemployment are lower than on the continent – but maybe the common language creates a kinship that skews my perceptions.

France, Germany, Spain – those places feel foreign – it’s easy for me to come to grips with their decline. I don’t think of the UK as declining, and I keep thinking that they’ll throw off the semi-socialist lethargy at any moment.

Feb 23, 2005 - 11:22 am 8. Clio:

Y’know, W is not given much credit for being a witty guy, but I think he got off a pretty good one against Chirac yesterday when a journalist asked if Jacques was going to receive an invite to Texas and the reply came back, “We’re always looking for another cowboy.”

Given that this has been the pejorative of choice among Old European leaders, I think this was a suitably subtle but unmistakeable zinger. It also raises the question of how the French public would react to seeing JC trotting around under a ten gallon hat. Sounds to me like an invite to Crawford would pose quite the dilemma for Jacques, which makes it all the more likely that one will be forthcoming this spring. BBQ under the broiling July sun? Mais, oui!

Feb 23, 2005 - 11:29 am 9. Sandy P:

My completely uneducated, uninformed view has been this for 3ish years:

Mutated monarchy.

Unelected 1, unelected many, it’s what they’re comfortable with. It’s 1000 years of history.

We had slaves.

We never had peasants or the peasant mentality. That’s why our ancestors left.

They have national health care.

The “educated” liberal limousine elite have that mentality, therefore the fascination with across the pond. But it’s only a nice place to visit for them. Poseurs???? Or do they think they’re in an exclusive club???

The more the peasants can “afford” what they can afford, they aren’t special anymore.

How does one set the trends– have “unique” items, when the world is global and knock-offs can be here in a couple of weeks?

Feb 23, 2005 - 11:35 am 10. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

In James Buchan’s “Crowded With Genius” he does some exploration of the “Early Draft” of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Apparently the Early Draft was constructed eight or ten years before publication of Wealth of Nations and contains what Buchan seems to claim were some serious misgivings or pessimism that Smith later rejected. Buchan labels these more “Marxian” than “Smithian”. I’ve never been able to choke down enough Marx to judge what is “Marxian” and what isn’t, but what he points to suggests that even within the “Scottish Enlightenment” strain of “Classical Liberalism” there lies some propensity toward “save us from ourselves” thinking that seems to have eventually overwhelmed modern “liberalism” (what I think of as the Rousseau strain).

None of which has much to do with Hobbes or Locke I’m not even sure why I mention it other than that it seems those Dead Ol’ White Guys were pretty keen observers and darned deep thinkers and I’m glad we followed their strain rather than that gawdawful French and German abomination (liberal my arse!).

Feb 23, 2005 - 11:43 am 11. neo-neocon:

Clio, that’s a picture I’ll be looking forward to–Chirac in a 10-gallon hat. He (and most Europeans) probably thinks of it as some sort of dunce cap. Oh, the horror, the humiliation!

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:00 pm 12. Roger:

“Clio, that’s a picture I’ll be looking forward to–Chirac in a 10-gallon hat. He (and most Europeans) probably thinks of it as some sort of dunce cap. Oh, the horror, the humiliation!”

Well, not completely. It was the French Chier du Cinema that literally invented the cult of Le Western and made an artististic hero of John Ford.

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:06 pm 13. Salt Lick:

Freedom scares the Old World.

Years ago, some Spanish friends expressed astonishment when my wife and I decided to move to a completely different region of America and change our professions. The Spaniards could not imagine doing this. The friends agreed that they so valued their union-protected jobs and vacations and comfortable lifestyles that they would not be willing to trade those things for a more dynamic economy that allowed them the freedom my wife and I had as Americans.

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:18 pm 14. Sandy P:

–Is this only about the Frano-German axis? I’m afraid not. You would certainly have to Spain into the bargain…—

Fascist is as fascist does, why are we surprised????

Same old, same old.

It’s just sad.

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:22 pm 15. jerry:

Salt Lick:

My in-laws are Polish displaced persons who never really adjusted to the States. They exhibit similar amazement at our ability to pick up and move around. They were absolutely shocked when I came home from active duty in 1975 and didn’t not move in with them but go graduate school instead. They were always horrified when we changed jobs or moved to a different locale. Even today, my mother-in-law gets upset when I change assignments. I have to reassure her that that’s the way the defense/intelligence community does business. Europeans just donít understand the English speaking colonies.

My mother had a typical North American life. She grew up on farm in Saskatchewan, moved to Chicago as a teenager, retired to Arizona with my father, returned to Chicago as a widow and finished her life in Virginia. That is odyssey that is unfathomable to old Europe.

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:29 pm 16. neo-neocon:

Thanks Roger, for adding to my (admittedly extremely sparse) knowledge of Franco-American cinematic relations. All I knew till now was that the French loved Jerry Lewis. Go figure.

Feb 23, 2005 - 1:05 pm 17. mrp:

French perfidy and European military flaccidity at a moment of time during a massive offensive by a major Islamic power. It has all happened before.

The Siege of Vienna was a close-run thing. Compared to the state of affairs during the period 1683-88, I think the West is in a much better position today. The situation changes, however, the moment Iran cranks up production of weapons-grade uranium at a 60 warheads per annum rate.

Feb 23, 2005 - 1:06 pm 18. Salt Lick:

Jerry wrote “That is an odyssey that is unfathomable to old Europe.”

Maybe it’s because they’ve faced more horrors than we in America have and those horrors pounded a preference for security into their cultures. I have sympathy with that.

I was in the Peace Corps and sometimes advise college students on entering that organization. I try to be frank and tell them, “Look, you probably aren’t going to have much impact wherever you go, but you know what the biggest thing you can offer those people? It’s your American optimism and spirit. You aren’t from a people who’ve been beaten down for thousands of years to the point where they’ve compromised on hope. You are from a land that thinks men and women can do and fix anything. That idealism is what makes us great Americans and also ugly Americans. It’s our…. thing.”

Feb 23, 2005 - 1:12 pm 19. neo-neocon:

I think you make an excellent point, Salt Lick. The WWII generation of Europeans suffered terribly in a way we can scarcely imagine, and likewise the generation before them in WWI. Carnage and destruction on a huge scale.

And yet, and yet–look at the Iraqis, whose sufferings have been extreme. And look at the way the are reacting to the chance of freedom! They are seizing the bit and running with it (is that a mixed metaphor? Whatever!) Seems the Europeans lost heart, somehow, a long time ago, and I’m not sure why. They sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, or something like that.

Feb 23, 2005 - 1:24 pm 20. Knucklehead:

Neo,

I’m not willing to let the Euros off the hook just because they’ve spent many centuries suffering self-inflicted horrors. They’ve got it danged cushy now and there’s no excuse for them to keep shoving their heads in the sand about the nastiness in the around them. They’re among the first to start screeching about how the affluent and fortunate need to share the wealth. Well, there’s more to wealth than welfare payments and there’s more to sharing than having meetings in posh hotels. It’s time for Euros to start sharing the wealth by shedding some blood, sweat, and tears.

Feb 23, 2005 - 2:23 pm 21. Terrye:

Not since the Romans has Europe been this peaceful for this long. Some say they learned their lesson, I think it has to do with an overwhelming US presence and the looming Russian bear. For years they needed us to fend of the Soviets, now they think they don’t need our protection anymore so why pretend?

But the day will come when Europe will have to put its self proclaimed pacifism to the test or defend itself.

And there are still some English speaking people who feel a little squeamish at the thought of Europe returning to its old ways. We neutered them. For a reason. And our ancestors boarded ships and crossed the Atlantic for a reason too.

No… freedom is not their natural state. But there was a time when no one would have called them cowards.

Feb 23, 2005 - 2:42 pm 22. rgvdh:

Let’s not underestimate the Dutch. Their leaders may be of the usual Continental sort, but their people keep on throwing up folks like Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who are willing to risk their lives for the same sort of principles Americans risk their lives for.

Feb 23, 2005 - 2:42 pm 23. mrp:

Claus Christian Malzahn’s article in Der Spiegel is an eye-opener

Could George W. Bush Be Right? includes this delicious quote:

Maybe we don’t want the world to change, because change can, of course, be dangerous. But in a country of immigrants like the United States, one actually pushes for change. In Mainz today, the stagnant Europeans came face to face with the dynamic Americans. We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow.

via Lucianne

Feb 23, 2005 - 3:21 pm 24. Terrye:

mrp:

They did not believe Americans were serious about defeating communism either. But the Europeans were wrong then as well.

And so now they sell the Chinese weapons. What the hell, their money is green.

Feb 23, 2005 - 4:35 pm 25. mrp:

Terrye,

If anything, the Euros squawked because we were too serious about defeating the Evil Empire. About half of the Democratic Party thought the same.

The Socialists went ballistic (so to speak) when NATO countered the Soviet SS-20s with our Pershing IIs and nuclear-tipped Tomahawks. Remember the charming British ladies who chained themselves to the perimeter fencing at Greenham Common? A lot of Soviet money paid for all the protest floats, big head puppets, and free grass.

But the Pershings and the cruise missiles were installed as planned. The Russkies went to the bargaining table. The SS-20s were pulled out of East Germany; the Pershings were pulled out of West Germany; and Ronald Reagan strongly suggested that the last Soviet dictator pull down the Berlin Wall.

The self-loathing from Cadiz to Lubeck is something to behold.

Feb 23, 2005 - 6:48 pm 26. richard mcenroe:

The French Revolution was not a revolution for freedom. It was payback, commoners on aristocrats.

Can anyone think of an example of a revolt that arose from the masses that did not result in tyranny?

The American Revolution was not a popular revolt. Perhaps one third of population overall supported it, one third wanted to remain British, and one third had potatoes to grow, they were busy. The American Revolution was essentially imposed from the top down, and worked because of a wonderful accident of history: the colonies had developed a class of moneyed, educated men whose wealth was not tied to a particular class or inheritance, whose power was not bound up in their ancestry, but in large part to their own efforts, who realized that their continued prosperity was bound up with shaping a nation where others would have the same opportunity. It was, for perhaps the first time in history, a revolution led by men who had thought about the world they would have to make afterwards.

The French Revolution had none of that. They pulled down the Bastille, pulled open the granaries and then… the people of France found themselves in the position of mutineers suddnly realizing they’d just thrown the last man who could work the sextant overboard. They welcomed the first Corsican who could promise them a direction.

Feb 23, 2005 - 7:03 pm 27. chuck:

The French Revolution was not a revolution for freedom. It was payback, commoners on aristocrats.

Richard, I believe it was much more complicated than that. I think what really made the difference between the French and American revolutions is that the Colonies were already self governing democracies. The rebellion merely turned back an attempt by the Crown to impose itself and carried forward the already established order. Or anyway, that is how it looks to me in broad outline. I am not an historian

Feb 23, 2005 - 8:08 pm 28. mrp:

Not quite two peas in a pod…

Nine years after the ratification of the US Constitution, and eight years after the fall of the Bastille, the two new states were already trading broadsides in the Quasi-War.

Feb 23, 2005 - 8:29 pm 29. richard mcenroe:

Chuck ó Exactly. And in France, the Revolution killed exactly the same classes of people, not merely the aristos but the teachers, business people and educated professionals of all types who were the foundation of the colonies and the new Republic.

Feb 23, 2005 - 9:43 pm 30. nittypig:

I don’t think it will do to say that the French have no tradition of liberty. I’d put Voltaire up there with Locke and Hobbes. Ben Franklin certainly did.

What was the first country in the world to allow full citizenship rights to Jews? France.

Was Paris 100 years ago more elite-ridden than New York or London? I’d say not.

And I think anyone who admires liberty has to have some level of respect for a guy like Clemenceau – in fact the way the Dreyfus affair worked itself out in the end shows the great traditions of French liberalism at work (although it also shows the effectivelness of appeals to authority). Zola was basically a socialist, but “J’Accuse” appeals to the liberal tradition.

While it’s true that French liberal traditions have often been overidden, and that there has always been a statist element in French liberalism, I think what’s happened is that France has abandoned that part of her political heritage. I think it’s possible that it can be rediscovered, but right now I don’t see much chance of that happening.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:45 am 31. TmjUtah:

Bravo, richard mcenroe -

Chuck, I have to go with Richard here.

Yes, the strength of local communities that were largely self-governing helped lead to a workable solution. The mobs of Paris didn’t exist among the majority of American Revolutionaries. Remember “No taxation without representation”? There were jobs and work aplenty – the colonists just got tired of paying for England’s wars and then hosting battles with the french and their indian allies without support.

I weight the fact that the ability of individuals to become self sufficient via their own labor, and do so within the space of a couple of growing or trading seasons, had more to do with keeping people in their fields and shops and off the streets than any conscious group politik sentiment. There was little public tendency to demand bread from the government because the vast majority of the people shared a pioneer existence to a lesser or greater degree.

The founders were giants. The principles of citizen sovereignty, manifested in the concrete recognition of individual, inherent rights and protected by concrete definitions of the duties, not powers, of government, were indeed pie- in- the- sky liberal thought for the time. I dearly wish that kids got some taste of that in public school, but if what my kids have been taught here in Happy Valley represents education in an acknowledged conservative stronghold, I am frankly apalled at what the standard may be elsewhere.

There is a lot of “shit happens” sentiment running through history education. It’s a travesty.

As a nation we are many things. An accident of history we are not.

The french revolution was a scramble for power cloaked with slogans, fueled by mobs, and resulted in the Napoleonic Empire. The road from the Declaration through the Articles of Confederaton to the Constitution was built on visionary debate and compromise conducted by men more interested in getting back home to manage their affairs than in rule – and their actions were ratified by the votes of people who were inclined to do for themselves more often than not.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:53 am 32. Knucklehead:

Here’s a somewhat lighter view of the Euro-American dialogue.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:02 am 33. CameHomeToChaos:

The American left is not so enthusiastic about the will of the people, either. Note all the talk about the “stupid people” who voted for Bush, blah blah blah. They really think that they, the educated elite, should decide what is best for the rest of us simple folk. Thus their Europhilia, where that system is actually practiced, and their distrust of the Iraqi elections.

Feb 24, 2005 - 11:48 am 34. pom:

Well, you all seem to know a great deal about “us” Euopeans. I hardly recognize myself or my fellow countymen in any of this. Then again, I’m Dutch, and, as one of you noted, the Dutch are different. Come to think of it, they’re all different. Dutch from Germans from Italians from the Czech. Europe is not America. It’s not one country, however hard “our” leaders are trying to tell you (and us) otherwise.

Anyway, it’s fun to see how you all agree.

Feb 25, 2005 - 3:42 am 35. mrp:

Anyway, it’s fun to see how you all agree.

And many of us over here are wondering how many of you are going to vote in favor of the proposed EU constitution.

One topic I haven’t heard discussed is the one concerning military commission oaths. Should the EU ‘constitution’ be ratified, would members of the European armed services be required to pledge to ‘protect and defend’ the ‘constitution’?

By the way, what’s the current count of incinerated mosques and churches in the Netherlands?

Feb 25, 2005 - 7:49 am 36. Morgan:

pom:

I’m not sure exactly what we all agree on. Expressed above are differences of opinion over the meaning of liberty, the history of European ideas of liberty, the history of American ideas of liberty, the underlying dynamics of the French Revolution, the breadth of applicability of the generic label “Europe” and what exceptions ought to be considered in this context, the degree of difference between the US and whatever part of Europe has chosen security over liberty, and on and on…

I guess we mostly agree that Europe, on average, is more accepting of government control and oversight than the US, that Europe faces difficult demographic and cultural challenges in the years ahead, and that European governments generally favor stability over liberty in the Middle East and elsewhere.

You may well have a more fine-grained appreciation of the variation within Europe than most (or any) of us do. I think people here would be interested in hearing what you have to say on these matters – if you can avoid dropping stinkbombs and instead treat the others here as potentially reasonable people.

Feb 25, 2005 - 8:57 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: