Posted on 06/30/2004 1:54:14 PM PDT by quidnunc
"Europe and America," said President George W. Bush in Ireland on Saturday, "are linked by the ties of family, friendship, and common struggle and common values."
Bush seems to have quite a common struggle articulating what those common values are. In Prague in 2002, he told fellow NATO members, "We share common values — the common values of freedom, human rights, and democracy." In a post-communist world, these are vague, unobjectionable generalities. It's when you try to flesh them out that it all gets more complicated.
Here's another way to look at it: America, almost in inverse proportion to its economic and military might, is culturally isolated. I know, I know — you've read a thousand articles about America's "cultural dominance." And that's fine if you mean you can fly around the world and eat at McDonald's, dress at The Gap, listen to Britney Spears, and go see Charlie's Angels 3 pretty much anywhere on the planet. But so what?
The Merry Widow was both a blockbuster sensation on Broadway and Hitler's favorite operetta. It's not enough. And on the things that matter — which, no disrespect, Miss Spears doesn't — the gap between America and the rest of the world is wider than ever. If you define "cultural dominance" as cheeseburgers, America rules. But in the broader cultural sense, it's a taste most of the world declines to pick up.
Take, for example, the weekend's main events for geopolitical jet-setters: the EU-US summit in Ireland and the NATO summit in Turkey. The US spends 3.4% of GDP on defense, the other NATO members spend on average 1.9%. So if they do share common values, Europe's prepared to spend a lot less defending them.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
F*ck Europe/Canada. What I like about our country is we don't follow the herd and never have. We LEAD.
The point of the article is that we don't.
The Merry Widow was both a blockbuster sensation on Broadway and Hitler's favorite operetta
And also a popular set of lingerie in the Frederick's of Hollywood catalog!
Hamburgers yes, federalism no
By MARK STEYN
Advertisement
'Europe and America," said President George W. Bush in Ireland on Saturday, "are linked by the ties of family, friendship, and common struggle and common values."
Bush seems to have quite a common struggle articulating what those common values are. In Prague in 2002, he told fellow NATO members, "We share common values – the common values of freedom, human rights, and democracy." In a post-communist world, these are vague, unobjectionable generalities. It's when you try to flesh them out that it all gets more complicated.
Here's another way to look at it: America, almost in inverse proportion to its economic and military might, is culturally isolated. I know, I know – you've read a thousand articles about America's "cultural dominance." And that's fine if you mean you can fly around the world and eat at McDonald's, dress at The Gap, listen to Britney Spears, and go see Charlie's Angels 3 pretty much anywhere on the planet. But so what?
The Merry Widow was both a blockbuster sensation on Broadway and Hitler's favorite operetta. It's not enough. And on the things that matter – which, no disrespect, Miss Spears doesn't – the gap between America and the rest of the world is wider than ever. If you define "cultural dominance" as cheeseburgers, America rules. But in the broader cultural sense, it's a taste most of the world declines to pick up.
Take, for example, the weekend's main events for geopolitical jet-setters: the EU-US summit in Ireland and the NATO summit in Turkey. The US spends 3.4% of GDP on defense, the other NATO members spend on average 1.9%. So if they do share common values, Europe's prepared to spend a lot less defending them.
As for the EU, Bush urged them to admit Turkey as a member. Good idea, but who's the president to propose it? In the unlikely event the United States wanted to join the EU, it would be ineligible. Why? Because "Europe" has ruled that abolition of the death penalty is a prerequisite of admission to the club. Thus, as I once pointed out to a distinguished senator, the US is ineligible to enjoy the benefits of EU membership. "Thank God for that," he said.
Unfortunately for Chris Patten and the other Eurograndees who turn up in Washington to lecture the administration on capital punishment every year, "America" doesn't have the death penalty, so "America" can't abolish it. Some individual states have the death penalty, others don't. Some that do don't use it, others use it a lot. Fifty American states are free to go their own way in this area. As I'm sure Louise Woodward – Britain's celebrated killer nanny from a couple of years back – would be the first to confirm, if you kill a baby in America, make sure you do it in Massachusetts rather than Texas.
SO THIS isn't an argument about the death penalty so much as one about the limits of democracy. The difference is that the popular sovereignty of American federalism allows local majorities to prevail, whereas in Europe the governing class decides the issue supranationally over the heads of the people.
If these are "common values," the two sides apply them in fundamentally different ways to the point where the principal European entity regards America as civilizationally beyond the pale. On a raft of other issues, from guns to religion, America is also the exception. In North American terms, it's Canadian ideas, from socialized health care to confiscatory taxation, that are now the norm in the other Western democracies and, alas, in many of the emerging democracies.
In the face of this rejection of the broader American culture, the popularity of Tom Hanks isn't much consolation. If one compares today's hyperpower with its 19th-century predecessor, Britain exported its language, law, and institutions around the world to the point where today there are dozens of countries whose political and legal cultures derive principally from London. On islands from the Caribbean to the South Pacific, you can find miniature Westminsters proudly displaying their maces and Hansards.
But if England is the mother of parliaments, America's a wealthy spinster with no urge to start dating. In the wake of September 11, some of us argued that, as "American imperialism" was already a universal slur of the Euroleft, Washington might as well make it a formal reality. In return, The Boston Globe pointed out that when you scratched the surface, the so-called American imperialists boiled down to a couple of Brits and a cabal of sinister Canadians (Bush "axis of evil" speechwriter David Frum, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Kennedy School professor Michael Ignatieff, and yours truly) trying to force our pith-helmeted retro fantasies on Washington. Real Americans, it seems, don't have an imperialist bone in their body.
The British historian Niall Ferguson attributes this to what he calls "America's attention deficit disorder": its decentralized political system makes it difficult to muster the will for full-fledged long-term nation-building; the United States is the first global hegemon whose natural instinct is to load up the SUV and go to the beach. I would say it's also the case that many Americans feel that they came to their conclusions about the value of liberty on their own and that other peoples should, too.
Of course, they had the advantage of starting out as British subjects. Nonetheless, that's one reason why they're relatively relaxed about Iraq. If the Iraqis want a free society badly enough, they'll stick with it; if they don't and they take the easy option of falling for some benign strongman, that's their problem, not America's.
While this might be philosophically admirable, the practical drawback is that power abhors a vacuum. If America won't export its values – self-reliance, decentralization – others will export theirs.
Almost all the supranational bodies – from the EU to the International Criminal Court – are, if not explicitly hostile to American values, at the very least antipathetic to them. And if you're an emerging democracy seeking the favor of these bodies, you naturally find yourself inclining to their way of looking at things – as, say, Guinea did in the run-up to the Iraq war.
This, too, is historically unprecedented. Multilateral institutions set up and largely funded by America are now one of the major causes of American isolation.
Another paradox: American garrisons not rebellious colonies but sovereign allies, so they can spend their tax revenues on luxuriant welfare programs rather than tanks and aircraft carriers and thereby exacerbate further the differences between America and the rest of the free world.
In the Eighties, Paul Kennedy warned the US of "imperial overstretch." But the danger right now is of imperial understretch – of a hyperpower reluctant to sell its self-evidently successful inheritance to the rest of the world. Platitudes about "common values" are all well and good, but in determining the shape of the century ahead it's the differences that will prove decisive.
The writer is senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc.
FMCDH(BITS)
De nada.
:looks down guiltily at sunscreen and towel.:
Nonetheless, that's one reason why they're relatively relaxed about Iraq. If the Iraqis want a free society badly enough, they'll stick with it; if they don't and they take the easy option of falling for some benign strongman, that's their problem, not America's.
Kind of my feeling.
While this might be philosophically admirable, the practical drawback is that power abhors a vacuum. If America won't export its values – self-reliance, decentralization – others will export theirs.
The problem is how to export it. The British "exported" if you will, their ideas by taking over and forcing them on everybody. Except in a few very select cases when the British pulled out their systems quickly were abandon. Same with the USSR. A system was imposed by force and fell apart once the force was removed.
FMCDH(BITS)
In some places, yes. In others, no. For many people Communism was very attractive. Still is.
Tyrants and Eurocrats hate American freedom...so what else is noew?
Tyrants and Eurocrats hate American freedom...so what else is new?
Love Steyn, but it IS America's problem, look at Saddam, Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, Khameini of Iran.
Not really true. Look at the three biggest: India, Canada, Australia.
On ex-colonies -
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria are bigger than Canada and Australia - population-wise anyway.
It would be quite ironic if Ireland considered Americans to be beyond the pale.
That Ireland seems to favor Clinton over Bush says much about its national character. Perhaps, as some in my family insist, the best of the Irish really did emigrate to the U.S a long time ago.
People are stupid. Can't deny that.
But in most cases if not every case the enforced system has been tossed.
Yes, you definitely have a point. The other side of the coin is FORCING another country to be a democracy. The only way I can see for that truly to be done, is import a bunch of Americans to BE their democracy and kill/imprison anyone who could lead a rebellion.
There are a lot of things I think the American people would go along with, if it were explained to them in a simple, straightforward way. THIS is not one of them. We won't become imperialists, even if it is to our detriment. The American people won't believe that doing the "good" thing (not being imperial) is bad for us.
You missed the word "benign". No one would call those three benign. Well, maybe Moore would but he doesn't count. Let me rephrase that, No sane person would call those three benign.
But a strongman running things can be a not bad way to go and was the way most of the world has been run through out history. I hate to put it this way but you have to grow to the place where you understand power and what it should and should not be used for before you are ready for true self rule or liberty.
If you have a feudal mindset it will not work. Which is the problem with most of South America and Africa and Asia and to an extent with Europe.
Can Iraq do it? Maybe, they have a better chance then most but if they choose otherwise, to return to a monarchy or some other form of government as long as it is benign it would not necessarily be a bad thing.
Now you're stretching -- they were similar to what preceded the US, and G. Washington et al sure thought of them as 'colonies'.
You are right, I did miss 'benign'. Perhaps it's partly because I'm very cynical about the concept of a benign dictator. What's that old quote (Lord Macauley, I think): "Power corrupts, and absolute power......"
I'm not worried about exporting our values. We lead by example, and if the rest of the world didn't like how we live, they wouldn't be trying to immigrate here.
This may be the first time in over a year where I've had a different take on the situation than Steyn.
Like in San Francisco?
There is a federal death penalty, and that's why Timothy McVeigh was executed. But I think he's the first person in about 25 years to be executed by the Feds. Most of those executed are indeed executed by the states.
As much as I hate to disagree with George the US was more settled then colonized, at least according to the modern usage of the term. Which means I likely don't disagree with him after all.
They used the term "settlers" and "colonist" pretty much interchangeably then.
A couple of years ago, on a flight back from London, I got into a conversation with a man from the Netherlands who was criticizing the US for our consumption and penchant for large houses. I asked him why he was visiting the US,if he disliked us so much. He just shrugged and said, well I'm going to Alaska, that's different. No matter that he had already toured the rest of the US.
They rail against the things they love and do themselves. It's utterly bizarre.
But you are right to be cynical, sort of. Like I said it is a feudal way of looking at things. But the power does not only flow one way in that system, it really does flow both ways with rights and responsibilities on both sides.
The "peasants" are looked after by the "lord" in return for part of their labor. A monarchy usually works better then a true dictatorship.
But he has been disappointed; America has no taste for imperial adventures.
To Pokey:
Oh look! A Steyn!
Thanks for Mark!
Thank you for posting the REST of the story.
Why don't you do FR two favors by ceasing to post Steyn excerpted?
1. Stop wasting bandwidth by a partial post that is added to by another poster with the whole article, then added to many times over by the comments of people who are so grateful when the whole thing is posted on your partial thread
2. Stop aggravating the clientele by a partial post when a full post is allowed
Well, what say you?? Can you either post the whole nine yards, or leave it alone?
Why don't you go boil your head?
Gretchen, Gretchen, Gretchen!
You must be new here. Quidnunc does this precisely so he can annoy decent people, like yourself.
This is a crucial component of his pitiful life - mining the Web for the finest articles, then chopping them into pieces so he can then lecture the Proletariat about his posting righteousness!
Not new here, signed on in 1998, but I felt obliged to put the question to the quid.
It's so indecorous and such a waste of everyone's time, energy, and money.
Why people want to get such negative attention is beyond me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.