Posted on 04/05/2008 4:32:30 AM PDT by lowbuck
Is the European Union the new Soviet Union?
I ought to be the happiest man in the universe today after in 1991 my lifelong enemy the Soviet Union collapsed and disappeared. . . snip. . .
Corruption today in Russia is something out of another world. It's not corruption anymore, but a system where the KGB have become something like a crime syndicate not unlike the famous Spectre of the James Bond films. . .
How was the Soviet Union governed? It was governed by fifteen unelected people who appointed each other and who were not accountable to anyone. How is the European Union governed? By two dozen people who appoint each other and are not accountable to anyone, and whom we cannot sack.
(Excerpt) Read more at free-europe.org ...
Much of it is relevant today.
Your thoughts?
Article from Brussels Journal (long)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
Listen to full transcript of speech this year.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/system/files?file=bukovsky-speech.mp3
Read his story, “To build a castle, my life as a dissenter.”
The EU is more dangerous to Freedom than the Soviet Union ever was. Soviet citizens had the good sense to know they were being oppressed, Europeons are so indoctrinated that they really do beleive what they are told.
It is time we began treating it as such, and its member nations. We need to cut off all military ties and shutdown NATO ASAP.
Globalism ping:
“We all know that the absorption of immigrants from the Third World is a painful process. Why do they do it? First they will create an electorate for the Social Democratic parties by redistributing wealth and assistance. Second we will all be made to appear guilty. Anyone who says anything about this problem will instantly become a pariah: very convenient for repressive measures to silence opposition. The ultimate goal of these Utopians is to have one big state out of the whole world.”
“We all know that the absorption of immigrants from the Third World is a painful process. Why do they do it? First they will create an electorate for the Social Democratic parties by redistributing wealth and assistance. Second we will all be made to appear guilty. Anyone who says anything about this problem will instantly become a pariah: very convenient for repressive measures to silence opposition”
Written about the European Union in 2002, could just as well have been written last month about the USA by John McCain, Barry, or Hillary
Living in the EU, but coming from America (see my tag), I have never understood how the people could essentially give up their rights to their political masters.
For example, I tell my German friends that if the US government passed a law that I disagreed with I could contact each of my Senators and also my Representative. Each had an interest in hearing my view as they could be voted out by a mad public. Then I ask my friends, say the EU passes a law you disagree with who do you write to? Then the silence begins!!
Straight out of the communist manifesto - it is indeed happening just that way.
The parallels are obvious, and there for anyone who wants to see into our future.
If Hillary or Obama is elected, the US will the the new Soviet Union.
The main element of the soviet union has been in operation for decades in the US. The federal bureaucracy writes law, enforces that law, judges the law and cannot be voted out of office.
The only check we have against this totalitarian monster is the courts, and the Marxists in black robes have little interest in individual freedom or the constitution.
That’s how soviets operated in communist Russia.
Bookmarked
This is The Leftist Dream: a brutal, tyrranical oligarchy (composed of themselves, of course), not accountable to anyone.
They love brutality (they call it "laws with teeeth in them").
Leftists love tyrrany (note their determination to crush ideas they oppose, to crush dissention, and especially to crush those who dissent and whose ideas they oppose).
Leftists routinely make extravant claims of anger at injustice--of resolve to protect the vulnerable, the unfortunate, the poor, the disenfranchised, the down trodden, the huddled masses yearning the breathe free-- But note that behind such claims of altruism and unselfishness and self-sacrifice lies a cynical, self-serving grasp for power, power for its own sake, power ultimately used to serve themselves.
Note also that a characteristic of the sociopathic personality is a talent for disguising selfish and self-serving actions behind professions of altruism, unselfishness, self-sacrifice, of caring for the unfortunate, of devotion to the service of others. Sociopaths are typically drawn to altruistic causes. In times of social and political unrest, sociopaths typically rise to power as "patriots", "altruistic leaders", "champions of justice and the unfortunate".
The Left, with its phoney claims altruism, is a magnet for sociopaths.
The Soviet Union is an excellent example--fertile ground for malignant sociopath Joseph Stalin.
Post-World-War-I Germany is another example--fertile ground for malignant sociopath Adolf Hitler and his brutal henchmen of the Nazi Party.
This is why sociopaths LOVE Marxism. It requires a brutal oligarchy or dictatorship for its establishment and implementation. And remember: not only was Stalin's Soviet Union Marxist, but so was Hitler's National Socialism.
In the United States today, circumstances are not conducive to seizure of that kind of power by sociopaths, but make no mistake: they are prepared to seize whatever power they can--and under the same guise of "unselfish devotion to others" or to "justice" or to "making a better world" or to "giving back" or to "caring" or whatever you can imagine--and, if they could, they would readily seize power and establish a brutal oligarchy with themselves as brutal, tyrranical rulers of the masses.
(Culturally)
Socialism and Europe has a long tradition and while we are a European based and Judea Christian society in the US, when socialism exploded in Europe we were isolationist, fighting a civil war, and largely separated from this event.
Socialism took off in the mid-late 1800s and Europe wide it influenced the political and even cultural landscape. While Europe was engulfed with the ideas of Marx we were in post Civil War reconstruction and fighting Indians in the West. The point is that the socialist movement never hit us like it did Europe and much of this thinking we have today is imported.
In Europe the basic tenets of socialism have become so ingrained into society that it’s part of their culture. Many Europeans see socialism as part of their national and even personal identity, despite the fact that this value system stands in direct contradiction to their religious traditions and values. One can say that for many Europeans, socialism has replaced religion, and indeed socialism has many of the characteristics of a religion.
Much of the “anti-Americanism” seen in Europe is for various reasons, but the cultural gap in our general unfavorable view of socialism is definitely part of the equation. We are within the West the antithesis of socialist and those in Europe (and there are many) who define themselves as socialist see us in ideological opposition. We are a mix of European cultures in our language, traditions, values, culinary arts, social taboos, and religious practices etc., but the one significant break with Europe is that we are not at all socialist, and they are. Even the “so-called” conservative in Europe is essentially a socialist. He tends to be more traditional in views of religion, abortion, crime and punishment, family, and usually has a nationalist flavor, but his views on state run social services and economics is largely defined through this collective and government side thinking.
Europe is a danger to us in so far that they are one of the primary exporters of this “thinking.” The immigrants we get from Europe post WWII especially look for opportunity and are not fleeing oppression as in the past. In the US they generally find better paying jobs, a greater degree of personal liberties, but they often hold onto their old paradigms rooted in socialism. So while they take a job in NY or Houston making more and living better than they ever would be able to from where they came, they proselytize the greatness of national health care, champion social security and an expansion of this as well as other state administered and essentially failed programs.
(Security)
Our and Europe’s national interests are tied together. While they practice a form of social market economy with a high degree of state run enterprises, large share of GDP that is somehow state controlled, etc., they do understand the basic concepts of economics and business and even the far left like Schroeder initiated reforms that went completely contrary to his speeches and parties platform because they “do” know better. Europe trades with us more than no one else, we are culturally tied, we share mutual threats, and most important in the macro we share the same basic interests when it comes to the basic world order as it stands today. They want and in fact need open water ways, access to strategic resources, intellectual property protection, regional stability, open and airways, the freedom of movement for people and information. A society like Germany’s will grind to a halt quickly without cesium, gold, silver, oil, lumber; without the ability to ship their number one industry, the car, all over the world; without being able to transfer money electronically etc; without the ability to protect and make money off an idea developed and paid for. So where is the real security danger? The danger with Europe is that they play games with collective security interests. It’s not that they are a threat directed towards us, we are allies; but many within Europe do as little as possible dealing with the real threats and at times some even work against our own collective interests because they “personally” have some political advantage in doing so.
Examples of such behavior can be witnessed now in the NATO talks where those who mooch are doing all they can to prevent any reform that would ultimately no longer allow the status quo. You can see it in Austria selling arms to Iran that ended up in Iraq, a small provincial politician in Austria tearing his mouth open and inventing a scandal about a F117 flying into Austrian air-space. Bad Ailbling, our OGA logistics flights that use to go through Germany are other great examples. The danger isn’t that they are the enemy; it’s that they sit in the boat with us but don’t want to pull on the ores. There are many examples of this behavior and what it really boils down too is that only a hand full within Europe are trustworthy allies, the rest are strap hangers just reaping the benefits and sitting in the boat but not wanting to expend resources keeping things going. Libya fired missiles at Italy years ago, and the Italians are very appeasement oriented with Kadafi. After Madrid, the Spaniards quit in Iraq and even tried to cover up the fact that this was an Islamist attack. Schroeder in 2000 – 2001 (pre 911) attacked Bush for his stance on missile defense which was a very popularist move considering the Germans. Germany today is very reluctant herself to take any further economic action on Iran because they are a major trading partner. France sabotages NATO from within because they see NATO in direct opposition to an expansion of their influence through security matters in Europe. France went anti-war on Iraq because they have vested economic interests in Iraq, but also because of a population which today is between 8.5 – 10% Muslim. Think of the riots they had just because of head scarves and other issues. Everyone knows that Europe has more Muslims, that the threat level in Europe is actually higher, but some of their politicians played on this and stirred up the masses when we invoked more restrictive screening measures for trans-Atlantic flights post 911. Those are the sort of things that make Europe troublesome in security matters. In the macro they share our interests; but some are willing to play games and many do as little as possible.
bump
“One can say that for many Europeans, socialism has replaced religion, and indeed socialism has many of the characteristics of a religion.”
True, but this is even more true when it comes to the environment. The churches are ‘tourist destinations’ and the people worship at the feet of ‘Mother Earth’ (and we all know that the USA loves to rape Mother Earth!)
AND we will get there with MacNutJob, also. It'll take just a little longer.
Well,
That’s a two fold issue. Environmentalism is a business but also the political facade through which the state has amassed a large degree of power and money. A perfect example is Germany and their fuel prices.
However, it is also an “excuse.” Most Europeans can’t afford the standard of living in the US. Even among the larger and more affluent nations like France and Germany you have a net per capita income that is 20% or so LESS than in the US. The average German who might work as an electrician, drives a smart car (not because it’s a novelty, but because that’s all he can afford). With an apartment that’s roughly 800 square feet, not able to eat out all the time, not owning a quad runner, jet ski, or with a pool in his back yard he runs to the topic of “ecology” when rationalizing his lack of material wealth. If given the chance, most Germans would buy a big SUV and indeed those with money are now doing just that. It’s the latest and greatest fashion, but the have not’s justify their misery by shaking the finger at those who do have wealth and claim their is some moral purpose behind their misery.
Much of the “Wasteful Americans” argument heard in Europe is justifying economic failure, a system that across Europe has never run full employment and averages in places like Germany between 7-12% unemployment with 4/5ths of the real comparative wealth even when compared across various occupations. Our worst (post WWII), such as in 1991 during the recession (Which went pretty deep that time), is literally as good as it gets for them (We had about 7.2% unemployed, which is what they had in about 1986 when their economy was booming). The environmental angle for many is simply a form of rationalization. It’s the moral justification for why it’s OK to have a system with greater unemployed, lower wages, etc.
The arguments make perfect sense to the government which is responsible for $8+ per gallon gasoline in Germany. It makes perfect sense to those selling Carbon offsets like Gore who’s movie was a big hit in Europe as well. It also makes sense to the average Schmitd, living in an efficiency apartment, owning his new version of the Trabant, and without an air conditioner in the summer or turning the heat to 68F in the winter to save on power which he can barely afford. It makes perfect sense to everyone involved, except you, because you’re the heretic that doesn’t worship mother earth or believe in global warming. But there are many in corporate America and in government diligently at work trying to fix people like you. Governments like the idea of a modern version of a feudal system, and ecology helps to achieve this end.
“The EU is more dangerous to Freedom than the Soviet Union ever was.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!!! Bwhahahahahahahahaha!!!
I’m fairly sure our nukes aren’t pointing in your direction.
Methinks you have an Ax to grind, Mr Rose.
“Even the “so-called” conservative in Europe is essentially a socialist.”
I bow down to your seemingly prescient knowledge of things to come, and the omnipresent vastness that is your intellect.
Yawn...
Is this is the anti-Europe thread?
I want to call Europeans names and make myself feel better about the world i live in. Can I do that here?
Europe is full of bad people. They do bad things. They are all communists. They eat their own children. They have all married Islam. USAUSAUSAUSA!
Look at the German CDU/FDP, the French conservatives..... Yes, in an economic sense they still are about big government, massive social programs, and state run enterprises like EADS etc...... Kohl wasn’t Mr. privatization and in fact the tax burden as well as social breadth expanded (Example: Pflegeversicherung/Solidaritaetszuschlag etc.), The European conservative is not like his US counterpart who is embodied best by Ronald Reagan or a present day Newt Gingrich.
The Euro conservative generally is more Judea-Christian value oriented. He is more national thinking and hard nosed on issues of national security, but he's economically still a socialist. Even the German conservative thinks in terms of an “ordentliche Sozialpolitik,” Thatcher and Berlusconi are in Europe the exception, not the rule.
—
You make a lot of good points in your post, thanks for the insight. LOL
I wasn’t trying to make any good points, but believe me I could have. I was simply expressing my, disgust, that Europe is viewed with outright hostility by you Yanks.
You might not like social programs, but those in the US that fall foul of fiscal (thats good alliteration) downturns, such as the credit crunch (not so good), find that they have absolutely nowhere to turn to. They are out of money, and consequently of no use to the system, which ditches them and digs its nails in when asked to pay out food stamps! Food stamps for gods sake, in the US! Thats the kind of stuff that goes on in Africa (believe me, I know).
So say you are out of work in a number of European countries. There is a system in place that tries to ensure that the victim isn’t washed to the gutter, and that in time, he/she may regain financial independence and once more benefit the state.
EADS Astrium is a market leader, whatever the makeup of it. And I want it to stay in EU hands, because its not beyond the realms of possibility that a foreign enterprise takes it over to harm the economy of Europe.
I would be distressed if the European conservative was a replica of a US one. I dont want Kristol’s, Fukuyama’s, Libby’s, or any of their ilk anywhere near me. We in Europe are proud that despite the dominance of market capitalism in the West (which, on the whole, is a good thing), there are still a few ideas that aren’t just for the benefit of the corporations, or the wealthy. You call us ‘economically socialist’. Well, Keynesian economics formed that model for most economies after the Bretton Woods conference, certainly in Europe. It works to prevent the boom to bust cyclical system of free market economics, but also, can hinder growth and encourage protectionism. To be honest, if that protectionism ensures my money is safe, at the cost of others, I’m happy with that.
I cannot believe you left out the modern day Labour government from the economic conservatives of American mould. Even Thatcher, who you espouse (and, did wonders for the British economy, smashing the Unions and modernising the industry), kept a system that made the government influence the Bank of England when it came to interest rates and the like. Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair, ensured that the very first piece of legislation passed in the Parliament in ‘97 was that the Bank of England should become an independent monetary body, outside the influence of the government and state protectionism of economics.
I thought you well read sir...
It’s nice when you declare yourself as an example of what I’m talking about.
My make my point easy to make?
Im happy to help out mate. I take it we cant be FRiends then?
Got nothing to say about Brown and Blair? Nothing to add? Not even a ‘oh, yeah, thats a good point. I will amend my viewpoints’. Boom to Bust economics? Free market vs Protectionism? I gave you a number of points of entry into an interesting debate on economics, but you chose to spurn them all. I will assume its because my mind is greater than yours, and you have morphed into an ostrich.
See, I knew it was a wasted effort. Even when I make valid points (every now and then), you pretend it didn’t happen. It seems all FR is good for are vitriolic attacks, hyperbole and rumour. I have not had a decent debate on these threads for years. Literally.
You make my point and then expand on it by rationalizing state mandated stupidity (AKA Socialism) in typical fashion by using an appeal to emotion; “save the children.”
Resources are limited, that is a reality. Health care is a perfect example. In a private and capitalist system, you the individual have the right to choose and you make choices over life and death, you are truly the master of your own destiny. The weak minded who stand in awe, to scared to make hard choices, the moochers that leech on systems and see a free meal ticket, those are the types that prefer a system where some nameless state official makes these choices for them. In a private system I am a consumer. As with most cases, he who controls the purse has the power; and in a capitalist and private system, “I” have control over “my” money and have choices.
In a private system you have competition and innovation and there is a constant pressure to do things cheaper, faster, and better. The politics of race, sex, environmentalism and other activist trash take second seat to consumerism, i.e. voting with money. It is not without reason that Canadians come to the US for treatments they can not get in their socialist health care system; that when you look at patents on pharma, the US leads the world by a huge margin; that everything from Lasik eye surgery to lap band, or Viagra is US based. When you cap profits you also cap investment essentially. What governmental price controls do to pharma is what mandated rent control did in the housing markets, kill investment. While people like you babble your utopian socialist economic model, reality is that all systems ration off care, just how this is done is the question. There is a reason why in many European states there is such horrible dental care since as in Germany where I grew up and was covered by this “fantastic free and unlimited health care” for many years, they just don’t cover a lot of the preventative, cosmetic, or basic dental care that was common place in the US already in the 70s. When I went to a German hospital they would use the older Cat Scan or MRI machines and even in 2005 in a university hospital (Frankfurt a.M.) when visiting a friend, they used glass IV bottles and stuffed six sick men in one single room, in a hospital that obviously saw its last renovation more than a decade ago.
In socialist systems ulterior motives and political pandering, not consumerism drives how a service or product is modeled. For example, in the US VA health care system, a socialist system, you have special services and committees for blacks, sexual trauma for women etc etc etc. It’s mostly nonsense, but since these were hot topics politically it funneled its way into the system and millions are expended on something that is trash and no one would pay for, that is if it were not mandated. Charles Rangle of NY panders to his black constituents in Harlem by beating the age old race drum and leaving his mark in the VA, which amounted to a huge waste of resources that was politically motivated. With a private system, “I” choose not only what care I get, but collectively “we” as consumers create what the entire system looks like. You choose with your money, and while these decisions are hard and reality is brutal and serious as death, socialism does not change that either. Socialism asks people to surrender their freedom for a bit of security, and in the end you have neither. Socialism sells a lie, a lie that says it’s free, or that suddenly everyone will have limitless care. It’s more “feel” good nonsense that in the macro, global and historical context, can hardly claim that it has any basis for why people should believe in it.
Go on telling stories of the uninsured, which includes every service member who technically has no insurance (Yes, they’re rolled up in the US figures even though they have health care through the DoD), those covered by the VA, illegal aliens (12 million of them), etc.; anything to inflate the statistic, since the intent is to portray reality, right? Never mind that many of the uninsured simply are self employed and “opt” to not have insurance because their net worth is great enough to more or less pay for their expected health care, and they make a calculated financial move, assuming a tolerable risk to them. I am one of those who lived on both sides of the fence in Europe (Germany), within the DoD and now VA access (Which are socialist healthcare systems) and in the US as a private insured individual, and I would prefer this hard cold system in the US any day! I don’t mind paying for my insurance because I realize that when the state takes 14.7% (example: Germany - extrapolated to the US that would be $6,909 per employed person per annum of “free” health care) of my money in the form of a tax, “national-universal-SOCIAL” healthcare is not free. I don’t like the idea of my insurance paying for every Pakistani that manages to squirm across some boarder, or that the government more or less makes decides to deny older people (so called low risk), dialysis patients care and condemns them to death; but in a compassionate and humane way of course as in nations with great free universal unlimited health care for all. I do like the fact that I have choices, something that obviously bothers you, the socialist thinker. I’m treated like a customer another aspect that seems somehow wrong to the socialist (consumerism). I like having access to the most modern and best procedural, pharmacological, medically qualified personnel and technology in hardware available, that’s the sort of feel good stuff that gives me a warm a fuzzy feeling, not your “think anout the children” or “save the planet” trash mixed with some pseudo science or pseudo economics which no rational person believes true. Even McDonalds offers health care to their employees, and those without care, the sob stories you and the likes in your media love to focus on, are the statistical exception to the rule. The opinions you express, based on cliché, and the system you advocate in pursuit of some utopian dream, is baseless (historically and in economic concepts). The policies of socialism are based on feel good arguments, and those who preach it are liars, the rest are the sheep that swallow the lie and pay for it.
Don’t presume to know anything about me sunshine, cos you dont. Dont try to pigeon-hole me in a category that you think would make your argument sound better.
People like you make me sick, enough to want to use my ‘socialist medicine’, no doubt our hospitals are turning us all communist, and we walk out of the treatment room with a hammer and sickle in tow. You are as scared of differing ideas today as you were back in the McCarthy era. How can you reconcile the fact that you fornicate over the Liberal Market philosophy while professing to be a conservative? Does this mean you’re a democrat in the making?
I’m not impressed by how you attacked me in a personal manner Red6, and so I dont have any desire to continue this boring, and borish, discussion.
“While people like you babble your utopian socialist economic model”...
I dont believe I babbled at any point. Perhaps its the voices in your head that are getting the better of you, too much of the mary jane pal.
As for BigPharma, well enjoy. I could get involved in an argument that goes something along the lines of the damage its doing to all the peoples of the world that dont have the money to buy the drugs. Namely, Africans, something very close to my heart. But I have a much easier retort pal, and more fun too...
You keep your Viagra grandpops, I can say I’ve never had a need for it. Perhaps its all that stressing about the communist evil over the ocean, or the evil foreigners and their unholy social order (remind you of an enemy ‘we’ are fighting?), that has necessitated your use of, ahem, compounds to assist your personal life?
Bottom line, you are never going to listen to my argument, and even distorted it to suit your own agenda. Its obvious that your never had any intention of engaging in a serious effort to discuss the benefits, or not, of each system.
“Socialism sells a lie, a lie that says it’s free, or that suddenly everyone will have limitless care.”
No it doesn’t. Only in your textbook does it say that, and I should know, having been at University in the US. I have been through your economics classes and seen the propaganda, and found you people singularly xenophobic and scared of a system that isn’t outright capitalism. You fool.
Check the history of my posts and threads, comments and the like. You’ll see that I’m far form socialist (at least, in terms of your facile interpretation of it).
The common denominator during all my time on FR are tightly wound Yanks like yourself hating the rest of the world and relishing the isolationism you put yourself in. When a country turns itself so insular as to reject the world around it, facism is a likely result. Just a FRiendly warning for yourself.
And again you validate what I claim. The European conservative holds to socialist economic theory and he generally sees fascism as somehow different trying to clearly delineate this difference which always boils down to semantics.
Fascism was borne from the communist and socialist movements; you might want to read up on your history a little. In fact, in the nation where I grew up, and where I really was brainwashed with their propaganda for 24 years of the “ordentliche Sozialstaat” (Which I still haven’t seen), they make a concerted effort to deny the links between socialism and fascism. Do you know who started the concept of “Kindergeld,” which persists today and is championed by the socialists? But the real irony of all, is that a free society that fought fascism is labeled as “fascist” by those advocating socialism, may that be in Germany, France, Spain, Italy…..
You asked for a debate and for facts, and when I give them, you shift the debate to yourself and me. That’s indicative of someone without any substance and unsure about their position. Socialism fails because it’s from an economic standpoint not viable and goes against human nature. One only has to look at Cuba, the former Soviet Union, DDR………. Humans are greedy and selfish and capitalism uses this basic nature of man to a positive end; to maximize ingenuity, productivity, and quality. If told by your employer to work for half your pay, for the greater good; you’d probably tell your employer to go get bent. Yet those advocating socialism expect others to do just that, to work for free. Somehow people think that when they take out the profit motive, eliminate culpability, and create a system of committees that make decisions and by decree decide what care one receives; that this will somehow improve things. There is a reason people want to become plastic surgeons, why pharma companies invest millions in research. There is a reason why someone goes to school for four years to become an RN. There is a reason why the breast augmentation procedure and hardware was developed in the US, and why today this same procedure can be bought for as little as $2,900. Lasik eye surgery is possible for as little as $499 an eye; many years past it was unaffordable for most. The free market works, and it even works in the other examples you attempted to mock in my last post. Today you have generics for Viagra and Levetra, and Cialis on the market as well. All drugs developed in the US, and with prices that are near 1/10 (inflation adjusted) what they were when new on the market a decade ago. These are examples of something that is “systemic” in US health care, innovation and competition. Of course I can look overseas with a somewhat more critical eye than our liberal media and mention those over 70 who are more or less pushed into accepting no dialysis, or people suffering from suspected cancers that waste away precious time in line for months until the imagry asset become available to them. Those are also “systemic” realities in places often used as examples to emulate by our media.
You are right; I don’t know who you are. But I don’t care either. What I do know is that you defend a socialist economic model, or do I need to quote your own words?
While I like Euro conservatives much more than their communist counterparts, even the “so called” conservatives in the Euro world are in an economic sense socialists and defenders thereof. They can’t really defend it well; no one can, because it basically doesn’t make sense outside the realm of academia and theory. But they just know they have to defend it, because as I stated in my first post, if you ever bothered reading it, socialist values and many of the ideas have become part of the cultural fabric itself. People define themselves by it, the word “Socialist” itself has a positive connotation in most parts or Europe to a broad audience. There is a tradition that goes back 160 years and spans every last enclave of Europe. Much of the literature and philosophers of past devoted or were married to this idea. It was blasted on the radio for years (Radio Moscow), you had vast areas of the occupied East that were virtually re-socialized, it came in different forms with different names but still had the same basic tenets such as under Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler with their national-socialism (NationalSOZIALISTISCHE Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Europe is in love with socialism. Even the conservative while generally more traditional in religion, family, crime and punishment, more national thinking and solid on defense, with a more positive opinion of the US are still infatuated with the idea. But you’re probably right, I’m just brainwashed. It’s hard to break ones cultural shackles. The chains in people’s minds are less obvious and far more difficult to break than those around a wrist or ankle. You see this every day in the US. There are thousands, and I have run into many who came to the US, found prosperity, enjoy their liberties, but still advocate socialism. Do they know why they left their native lands in the first place?
You still have no retort for the fact that Blair and Brown, two socialist according to you, but in my educated view, Centrists, played the most important move that capitalism has had in the UK. And yet you cried out for a Thatcher who had no intention of doing just that. Well Thatcher was a conservative, so it goes to figure she would have separated the executive from the financial right?
So leaving out the fact of independence for the Bank of England was only achieved when a ‘socialist’ (aka Centrist) government came to power in 97 as, what, a conspiracy, like the moon landings or gravity?
Your omission of this very basic fact devalues your later comments about fiscal affairs and your opposition to Blair and Brown even though we have sent thousands of soldiers into your warzones and taken hundreds of casualties. Hardly the world of communism is it?
You mark my words, in none too many decades from now, your country will be markedly different in political make-up. My guess is that Senator Britney Spears will just have been elected as your first female Pres.
Hahahhaaaaa...ahhhhh....fun.
Things are always changing, that’s the only constant in life. Using that as the basis of an argument is what the “climate change” morons do.
You can take Ronald Reagan and try to twist him into a big government spender too, since under his administration total government outlays increases. However, in reality he was a minimalist and true conservative, likewise Thatcher. Outside defense, where the spending over 4 years nearly increased as part of the GDP by 40%, under the Reagan years you saw a net decline in government, sweeping deregulation of major industries, a floating currency, etc.
You’re right, Mr. National minimum wage and lots of little tax hikes (But not the income tax) is the same, a true economic conservative./sarc In typical British fashion, Blair is reserved, more national thinking and still has a concept of sovereignty. Yes, he’s in economic terms a “socialist.” Someone who’s about centralization, who amasses power to the state, who thinks the climate change bill is revolutionary, someone who signed off on major subsidies, someone who sees nothing wrong with major state run conglomerates.........
Blair is typical of the UK where even among the liberals you still have a sense of sovereignty and to whom national security plays a higher role, but nonetheless his economic positions are in line with a liberal socialist who sees the government as the be all answer to ever problem from medicine, to state run aerospace conglomerates or to curing social ills with some minimum wage.
Conservatism in the US as morphed and changed over the years too, but the constant ring you hear already in the speeches of Goldwater is for less government, less regulation, less taxes........ Under Ronald Reagan you actually saw a decrease in total size of the government (outside of defense), a decrease in tax burden and a decrease in regulations such as on banking, airlines etc., which had all been highly regulated up to that point.
It’s a matter of fact that Europe was swept away during the age of socialism, national-socialism, and then the Cold War. The ideology, the values of this thinking are powerful mainstream forces in the average European psyche and shape the policies heavily. Compare the percentage of GDP our government controls vs. that in most European nations. It’s a sliding rule and your argument is basically since we have some social aspects or because we have some socialists in government we are on equal footing with most European states. This is nonsense. If you so much as use the word “socialist” you will politically self destruct in the US. Those who advocate socialism in the US do so with euphemistical language, i.e. national health care, or universal health care……. The average American, within American academia, and within US politics and policies in economic terms are far more laissez faire or today supply side thinking than anything you see in Europe. You might want to check some writings coauthored by none less than Benjamin Franklin on trade, “Principals of Trade.” Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, the Chicago school of economics etc., probably don’t ring a bell with you, but within the US you have a long standing tradition of “hands off, free market” and “less rule is better” thinking in economic terms; it literally spans all the way back to the origin of our nation with some of the founding fathers making statements to the spirit of this concept.
While undoubtedly the US too has moved left socially and even in economic policy over the decades, we are still as compared to Europe far more conservative in this aspect, and if we were to get back to the original discussion, it is the new immigrants post WWII who are largely importing this socialist ideology to the US.
So, tell me, what national conservative UK politician is running on the platform of privatization of EADS and cutting their subsidies, cutting taxes and rolling back the nanny state, private retirement accounts, and vouchers for private schools……? Give me a name of a UK politician; one who’s on a national level and failry consistently supports deregulation, more hands off, the deconstruction of the nanny state, free trade, privatization, lowering and cutting of subsidies......? Your politicians are economically seen not much different than the German or French so called “conservatives.” In the US we have them with Goldwater, Reagan, Bush etc. In this election cycle Romney, Hunter, Tancreedo, Thompson, all openly advocated exactly that; get the picture? Probably not.
“It’s a sliding rule and your argument is basically since we have some social aspects or because we have some socialists in government we are on equal footing with most European states.”
I dont think I ever made such a statement did I? Thats putting some interesting spin on a statement, but whatever you need to suit your argument...
Yet still you dont tackle how you can categorise Blair et al as economic socialists after cutting the rungs of government interference on the Bank of England, as well as following a practice of economic liberal capitalism, arguing for unregulated privatisation of corporations that otherwise were state run. See the UK rail service since 97, look at the massive changes to the system since they came to power.
As for the EADS concept, well as a European aerospace company they will have prime contracts with a number of European states, providing R&D, manufacture and other services. If it were private then essentially you are open to offers from around the world, and with that comes the risk of a hostile takeover from a rival country. There is nothing to say that said foreign investor wont destroy the European rival to gain a greater market share of the industry, or otherwise divert the aims of EADS as protecting European interests.
PS: I dont think I said anything of the sort about Reagan Perhaps you are using Thatcher as a common link, but try not to summarise my argument when you have very little idea about it.
“Yet still you dont tackle how you can categorise Blair et al as economic socialists after cutting the rungs of government interference on the Bank of England, as well as following a practice of economic liberal capitalism, arguing for unregulated privatisation of corporations that otherwise were state run. See the UK rail service since 97, look at the massive changes to the system since they came to power.”
All your European rail systems went private, as did the telecommunications and it’s ultimately part of the harmonization within the EU that mandates this. Many European countries also dropped their trade restrictions and on grey imports not because they liked the idea or because they are huge advocates of free trade, but because this was dictated by the harmonization within the EU. As I mentioned, under Blair you saw no end with EADS or many other subsidized industries (example: Livestock/Dairy), the tax burden went up, he supported cutting green house gasses and the legislation behind it, you had a national minimum wage pass....... Blair was a great guy for us nonetheless.
The best comparison to Blair is a German called Helmut Schmidt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schmidt ) who within the SPD was a moderate voice and was a solid ally to us, taking the hard but correct position when supporting the stationing of the Pershing, later the GLCM and other very unpopular things in Germany that were necessary. Blair was a socialist in economics, but he was a pragmatic one who didn’t play silly games with missile defense as Schroeder did, nor did he backpedal in Afghanistan like Schroeder, nor did he fall in our back on Iraq........
The cultural, economic, and institutional ties between the US and UK are obvious. The UK is not without reason the primary alternate site to land a B2 in an emergency. When the F117 flew, UK pilots actually had the opportunity to fly them. You’ve had U-2s operated by your pilots; you’re not only a member in NATO but even within the Echelon system of the NSA. As a nation the UK is second to none as an ally to us in Europe. They tend to be very sovereign in thinking, as with the refusal to go with the Euro, the disputes with the French over those trying to cross into the UK from there etc. However, even though the UK is a more level headed nation and our closest ally within Europe, their leadership on the conservative side is still very heavily influenced with socialist dogma, often beating the drum of social programs, big subsidies, etc. as their own in elections. That is a difference between their US counterparts who generally define conservatism in an economic sense as well. Giuliani was largely crushed as a conservative Presidential hopeful BECAUSE he’s the big government, big tax, big spender, which didn’t go over well with the base.
What would happen to me if I were to run for some office in the UK and I advocated vouchers for schools, cutting subsidies on coal, agriculture, public broadcasting, the privatization of health care, the privatization of retirements, the farming out of major public services to private contractors, the stopping of subsidies to EADS/Airbus…..? How would that ring to the average resident of Liverpool?
The European conservative is still a socialist in an economic sense. While there are exceptions, as a rule may it be Germany with the CDU, France, the UK or the Netherlands, the “trend” is true from our perspective.
Cheers.
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.