USA(nti-Americanism) part Deux
Remember those smarter people I was talking about? The ones who would explain how the Euro, nationalized healthcare, and a better educational system would make the EU a formidable superpower ready to overtake us? Check out this Salon article.
It makes the interesting point that Bush v. Kerry was really America v. Europe, in more ways than the Francophobic Right would have you believe.
"Kerry was an internationalist and a secularist (at least by American standards) running against a man who wrapped himself in the flag and was guided by divine inspiration. Bush didn't just run as an American; he pretty much ran as America, which Rifkin calls a nation "living in two seemingly contradictory realms at the same time," those being the evangelical Protestant faith in salvation and the rationalist drive to accumulate wealth and build industry. That cast Kerry in the role of Europe -- intellectual and irreligious, faintly stained by the ghosts of socialism and Catholicism, with a belief in universal human rights and negotiated solutions, but not much in the way of a transformative spiritual vision."
It makes the interesting point that Bush v. Kerry was really America v. Europe, in more ways than the Francophobic Right would have you believe.
"Kerry was an internationalist and a secularist (at least by American standards) running against a man who wrapped himself in the flag and was guided by divine inspiration. Bush didn't just run as an American; he pretty much ran as America, which Rifkin calls a nation "living in two seemingly contradictory realms at the same time," those being the evangelical Protestant faith in salvation and the rationalist drive to accumulate wealth and build industry. That cast Kerry in the role of Europe -- intellectual and irreligious, faintly stained by the ghosts of socialism and Catholicism, with a belief in universal human rights and negotiated solutions, but not much in the way of a transformative spiritual vision."
9 Comments:
Yeah, I saw this article too. Interesting stuff. But I gotta say, I read about a dozen articles and papers a year about the future of Europe and America and this is honestly the first one that says that Europe will surpass the U.S. in any conceivable way in the next century. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Europe is still dying. Literarlly. Their birthrate is atrocious.
Not only that, but the 35-hour work week and "vacation rights" that this article trumpets are exactly the sort of thing that keeps European nations far behind us in productivity and overall innovation. This is why I'm so keen on picking up this book. I think there's really something to it.
Plus, the Salon article completely ignores the very real threat of increased Muslim populations, rampant unemployment, and far-right/far-left resurgence that's ultimately anti-Semitic *and* anti-Muslim.
It's odd, in our current, overpopulated or swiftly getting there world, I would think people would appreciate a nice low birthrate. I guess that's a "bad for europe/good for the world" situation. If only every continent could have a negative population growth...
And I believe that article does point out that while in strict terms of productivity things like the shorter work week and mandatory vacation are bad, if you view things in terms of, you know, personal happiness, maybe not so much. Our country is sick with overworking people. The idea that in the corporate world if you aren't putting in overtime (maybe unpaid) then you're a worthless employee is ridiculous. It might actually behoove us to slow down, have some break time and be happier people.
I suppose these just represent contrasting views of Capitalism. Current American thought seems to be that unfettered capitalism is an inherent good. Anything that turns a profit, from bilking workers of their free time to polluting the environment, is good for business and thus... good. Europe seems to take the view that capitalism is a great system, but one which has its own flaws which need to be addressed and countered. I tend to agree with the latter opinion.
Of course some things are better and some things worse here or there. The one place, though, where you really have to give the EU credit is for some fairly tremendous human rights work. Things that are still being debated (and the debates generally won by the conservative side) here, like gay rights and banning capital punishment, are enshrined in the EU constitution. From a realpolitik standpoint they're plenty flawed, but so are we. From a "what they are trying to achieve" standpoint they seem to be far ahead of us.
Lowbirth rate=aging population=lower productivity, innovation, etc.
But yeah, there is a very good side to stagnant population growth.
Dammit. I hit "Publish" accidentally.
Anyway, I also agree with the idea that Europe sets less lofty goals and therefore achieves more practical results. (I suppose my disagreement is whether those results are *that* great). Our history is littered with self-made, unecessary contraditions. "All men are equal!" Here's slavery! "It's all about the little guy." Have some more big business!
America's supreme committment to being an ideal, Reagan's "City on the Hill" is great and all, but it so often sets us up for failures large and small and charges of hypocrisy from others.
Well, these days we're not even living up to those smaller goals. Gay rights? Nope. Stem cells? Only in California. Alternative energy? Not under this president. Torture? Alberto Gonzales says A-OK!
It is, in many cases, our false belief in ourself as a city on the hill that lets us gloss over these things. How many people, even after everything that has happened in the last three years probably still think that we would never go to war under false pretenses? Or never condone torture? Because, you know, we're the good guys.
It's an odd self-image problem we have. I want us to be the good guys as much as the next guy. But I also have no problem admitting that we've done some atrocious things, and I don't feel we gain anything by denying them.
This isn't really about Europe anymore.
uuuh... Europe has plenty of atrocity on its hands, but I think much of the 20th Century was spent punishing them for it in one way or another (a half century of war and fallen empires, followed by terrorism and turmoil). One would hope they've learned a thing or two, and it seems like the EU is a big step towards that. I feel like we're still so wrapped up in Nationalism that we're never going to learn anything. For instance, the people who reflexively say that to consider and address the root causes of terrorism is to let the terrorists win are really scary. You're never going to drop enough bombs to get rid of terrorism. If you worked to end world poverty and hunger, though, you'd probably reduce the instance of terrorism wuite a bit. But that means admitting that somewhere down the line someone might have a legitimate grievance with us, and that just isn't allowed.
ps-great conversation here. Me likey.
The wisest contribution the Europeans have made to International Discourse is the notion (recently championed by Blair) that if we just figure out this goddamn Palestinian state, we'll be well on our way to snuffing out the MAJOR root cause of terrorism. I'm glad Bush has openly supported such a solution, though I have my doubts it will come to pass. (How convienient that the state is supposed to be up and running by 2009...)
That said, I believe that another enabler of terrorism is that the Europeans don't have as great a stake as us in fighting it, simply because they can't. We must eliminate the hard power gap with Europe. I know, it sounds crazy for me to say that, but right now the Europeans don't seem to feel that they have any responsibility to the West's safety other than UN lipservice or the odd EU resolution.
A standing European Army capable of projecting its power across the world would go to great lengths in freeing up U.S. committments while firmly plugging the Euros into international relations vis a vis boots on the ground. Give them something to fight with and they might see what they have to fight for. An odd bit of logic, but these be odd times.
You do recall the first half of the twentieth century, right? I think part of the European attitude is that we don't NEED all these guns and stuff, and if America wants to waste its money on that stuff, then fine. We'll be over here with our health care.
I mean, it's not like they don;t have a stake in what happens. They've got plenty of terrorism to fight. They may have also come to the totally rational conclusion that invading countries isn;t necessarily the best way to fight it.
The validity of that argument is debatable, but I think it comes from a Japanese-esque aversion to warfare more than it does a lassiez-faire attitude towards global security.
For my money I'd be more than happy to withdrawal all US troops from Europe, let them fend for themselves, and see what happens. They do have a 60,000 strong EU army now.
Oh, and yeah, a Palestinian State would be awesome. Now that the Witch is dead do we get Wizard of Oz or Return to Oz? Palestinian Wheelers would be baaaaad news.
Well, that's the compromise then. US troops out of Europe; they can fend for themselves. If they want a global army, fine. If they want to keep with the current way, that's fine, too.
The Wheelers have to be one of the better ideas added to an existing work.
They're from the book Ozma of Oz, which Return to Oz is mostly based on. But in the book they're actually paper tigers, and use the "Beware the Wheelers" signs to scare people away because they're actually total fraidy cats.
There's probably a fine political analogy in there somewhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home