SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2576)10/14/2002 9:40:23 AM
From: Mr. Forthright  Respond to of 8683
 
?



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2576)10/14/2002 9:44:01 AM
From: Mr. Forthright  Respond to of 8683
 
<<Feb. 18, 2002 / 7 Adar, 5762
Barbara Amiel

America's war on terrorism is a fight for all democracies: What the European elite are clueless about

LONDON | IN this week's Spectator, Matthew Parris makes a distinction between the well-mannered Wasp patricians of America's eastern seaboard and the rest of America which in the future, he warns, "will be guided by individuals and ideas of a coarser sort."

Parris's distinction is accurate, but I think he is mistaken in his emphasis.

The world of Park Avenue has never set the tone of America. The polite society of the Rockefellers, the literary and political salons of the William F Buckleys, where one would find a languid John Kenneth Galbraith holding forth on yachting and geo-politics, were only the icing on American taste, not its flavor or content.

This is what lies behind the antipathy to America of a broad spectrum of the elites of our society, from Hampstead's salon socialists to High Tories, from Oxbridge to the unashamedly anti-American BBC. Their dislike emanates from a culture clash based on a different class and taste.

The entire tone of American society and culture has always been set, unlike ours, by what older European cultures view as the "lower classes." America is the one society in history that had a class revolution as its base and whose revolution actually produced freedom.

America has a great powerhouse of intellectuals, artists and elites, but it has always been the masses that shape the tone, voice and manners of the way all Americans dress, celebrate and work. This is not to our taste. To paraphrase Ortega y Gasset, when the masses revolt, they are pretty revolting.

One can see it in the manifestations of American patriotism, with flags prominently attached to the bonnets of cars or babies' buggies, and how everyone from president to pauper has hand ostentatiously on heart while the national anthem is bellowed. To us, this is gauche in the extreme.

Europe and Britain might have a greater proportion of "lower middle-class" people than America, but the tone of our culture and manners is still set by upper-class tastes and habits --- though only just.

I find it highly paradoxical, incidentally, that what rubs up our salon socialists the wrong way is the spectacle of a society in which "the people" truly set the standards. These cultural abrasions are one source of Europe's resentment against America. But when we say "Europe," we are talking about a string of social democratic governments.

Some of those members of the social democratic international (including critics at the Guardian and the Independent) hate America's use of the word "evil" for other reasons. They dismiss this word as "simplistic."

Their derision speaks to the illusions so many of the Left held about the empire that Ronald Reagan named as evil, as well as the myths the Left held about the so-called "colonial" movements that resulted in the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the Ba'athist regime of Iraq or the North Korean dictatorship.

The Left hates having its youthful illusions branded as "evil" and wants a word that pays more tribute to the complexity of its mistakes. Even if they now see their early values as flawed, they want them recognized as being morally complex. None of them, including pacifists and sentimentalists, wants former dreams or present misconceptions trampled by the unambiguous phrase "axis of evil."

Some critics argue that in carrying on military action against states that harbor terrorists, America is simply looking after its own national interests. Countries do naturally pursue their own national interests and any government that failed to do so would betray its own mandate.

But the national interests of America generally coincide with the interests of people everywhere that favor freedom, prosperity and democracy. There has not been a single example of the US supporting a tyrannical regime against a freedom-loving democratic regime.

It has supported repressive regimes friendly or neutral to the West, including the Greek junta, Pinochet in Chile, or South Vietnam after it was invaded by North Vietnam. These were geo-political decisions based on the need to counter the greater evil of the Soviet Union. Unless we define our own national interest as supporting repression, tyranny and terrorism, the West's agenda to date coincides exactly with that of the United States.

A lot of critics protest that anyone who criticizes America is labeled anti-American, just as anyone who criticizes Israel is labeled anti-Semitic. This is usually nonsense. The greatest supporters of the US have at times been scathing in their criticism of aspects of American domestic or foreign policy and no one mistakes them for being anti-American.

I have criticized aspects of US and Israeli foreign and domestic policy in unequivocal terms for nearly 30 years without such labels. One can tell a criticism that is directed from base dislike of a country, and it can be found in the Guardian's descriptions of a drive for world "hegemony" as the motive for America's foreign policy.

American triumphalism is admittedly irritating. It is disturbing to see the world's only superpower quite so sure of itself. Indeed, though I am entirely supportive of American action and believe that what they name as evil is evil, I understand the concern with this hyper-confidence. A country that is so all-powerful and imbued with such certainty of its cause can, in theory, become a very dangerous entity.

Unlike tyrannies, of course, democracies have to synchronize public sentiment with their policy intentions. But the necessary American rhetoric to rally public opinion is beginning to sound virtually oriental.

An American military broadcast to the Taliban was equally disturbing: "Attention Taliban! You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you supported took over our planes, you sentenced yourself to death. You have only one choice Surrender now and we will let you live." It could have been Lord Haw Haw or Tokyo Rose.

Reagan's naming of the evil empire was necessary. Bush's naming of the evil axis may have been necessary, but I take a dim view of barking dogs. Talking belligerently strikes me as the verbal equivalent of those cultures that rejoice in firing their guns excitedly into the air. A strong, silent America might be more reassuring.

The worrisome aspect of European and British criticism of America is the way it will be interpreted by the terrorists. Many of the actions of tyrannies over the years, from the Germans to the Soviets and now the Islamists, have been based on the misconception that the West was divided, not understanding that when the chips were down, it was not really as fractious as it seemed and that what the totalitarian mind saw as disunity was dissent and argument among democracies.

In this context, one cannot ignore the appalling words of the EU Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, in the Guardian last week. Mr Patten characterised September 11 as "the dark side of globalization" and saw its remedy as addressing "the root causes of terrorism and violence".

Patten's Shavian views are probably due to his combination of a Catholic notion that all people are good and a socialist view that all people are ultimately perfectable. For him, the authors of a ruthless murder of thousands of innocent people were motivated by legitimate grievances and the answer to their crimes is to address these grievances.

In his world view, when faced with evil, one must look for the "root causes" and ameliorate them, even if in practice it means rewarding them. Applied to crimes of this kind, this is a complete inversion of all logic. On this basis, once the Battle of Britain was over, we should have stopped fighting Hitler in order to find out what the "root causes" were of the grievance that made this man want to kill millions of innocent people.

Though America has 200,000 soldiers buried in Europe, Europe has a historic memory of war on its own soil. If you have had first-hand experience of war, national or personal, you probably emerge from it feeling that anything is better than that. C owardice may be elevated into wisdom.

But there are certain situations where temporizing, appeasement and running away aggravate a situation. America and its allies are on different paths at the moment, but the power and the moral right are with America. America will act unilaterally - a word the Europeans spit out as a term of abuse.

This time America has been the victim of an act of war and will refuse to act as Europe's happy St Bernard, ready to go wherever the Europeans point. This time it is the American bulldog that knows that standing up and fighting is the safest option in the long run. Patten quoted Churchill to bolster his views. The old half-American warrior would not be on his side. >>



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2576)10/14/2002 9:48:46 AM
From: Mr. Forthright  Respond to of 8683
 
<<May 1, 2002/19 Iyar, 5762
Mark Steyn

Slipping down the Eurinal of history: France, the joke is on you

Last Sunday, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the alleged extreme right-wing madman, managed to place second in the first round of the French Presidential election. Since then, many Europhile commentators in the English-speaking world have been attempting to reassure us that the significance of this event has been much overplayed -- Le Pen only got a little more than he usually gets, pure fluke he came second, nothing to see here, move along.

The best response to this line of thinking was by the shrewd Internet commentatrix Megan McArdle: "They're completely missing the point, which is that it's hilarious."

Absolutely. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be weeping with laughter at the scenes of France's snot-nosed political elite huffily denouncing the result as an insult to the honour of the Republic. I was in Paris a couple of weeks ago and I well remember the retired French diplomat who assured me that "a man like George W. Bush is simply not possible in our politics. For a creature of such crude, simplistic and extreme views to be one of the two principal candidates in a presidential election would be inconceivable here. Inconceivable!"

Please, no giggling. Somehow events have so arranged themselves that French electors now face a choice, as the papers see it, between "la droite" et "l'extrême droite." The French people have taken to the streets in angry protests against ... the French people! Which must be a relief to the operators of McDonald's franchises, British lorry drivers and other more traditional targets of their ire, but is still a little weird.

Meanwhile, the only thing that stands between M. Le Pen and the Elysée Palace, President Chirac, has declared himself the representative of "the soul of the Republic." In the sense that he's a shifty dissembler with a long history of financial scandal and no political principles, he may be on to something.

While M. Chirac has cast himself as the defender of France, M. Le Pen is apparently the defender of the Jews. While I was over there, he was the only candidate who was seriously affronted by the epidemic of anti-Jew assaults by French Muslims. The Eurosnots told me this was "cynical," given that M. Le Pen is notoriously anti-Jew and not above doing oven jokes in public. But that doesn't necessarily make him cynical. Maybe he just loathes Arabs even more than Jews (which, for linguistic pedants, would make him technically a perfect anti-Semite).



Maybe he just resents the Muslims muscling in on his turf: "We strongly object to the Arab attacks on the Jews. That's our job." But, given that Chirac and Jospin brushed off the Jew-bashing epidemic like a speck of dust on their elegant suits, Le Pen's ability to co-opt it into his general tough-on-crime/tough-on-immigrants approach showed at the least a certain political savvy.

Still, despite the racism and bigotry, I resent the characterization of M. Le Pen as "extreme right." I'm an extreme right-wing madman myself, and it takes one to know one. M. Le Pen is an economic protectionist in favour of the minimum wage, lavish subsidies for France's incompetent industries and inefficient agriculture; he's anti-American and fiercely opposed to globalization.

Even the antipathy toward Jews is more of a left-wing thing these days -- see the EU, UN, Svend and Mary Robinson, etc. Insofar as anyone speaks up for Jews in the West, it's only a few right-wing columnists, Newt Gingrich, Christian conservatives and Mrs. Thatcher -- or, as a reader e-mailed the other day, "all you Hebraic a--holes on the right." M. Le Pen is a nationalist and a socialist -- or, if you prefer, a nationalist socialist. Hmm. A bit long but, if you lost a syllable, you might be in business.

But terms like "left" and "right" are irrelevant in French politics. In an advanced technocratic state, where almost any issue worth talking about has been ruled beyond the scope of partisan politics, you might as well throw away the compass. The presidential election was meant to be a contest between the supposedly conservative Chirac and his supposedly socialist Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin. In practice, this boils down to a candidate who's left of right of left of centre, and a candidate who's right of left of right of left of centre. Chirac and Jospin ran on identical platforms -- they're both in favour of high taxes, high unemployment and high crime. So, with no significant policy differences between them, the two candidates were relying on their personal appeal, which, given that one's a fraud and the other's a dullard, was asking rather too much of French voters. Faced with a choice between Eurodee and Eurodum, you can't blame electors for choosing to make it a real race by voting for the one guy running on an openly stated, clearly defined manifesto.

M. Le Pen wants to restrict immigration; Chirac and Jospin think this subject is beneath discussion. Le Pen thinks the euro is a "currency of occupation"; Chospin and Jirac think this subject is beneath discussion. Le Pen wants to pull out of the EU; Chipin and Josrac think this subject is beneath discussion. Le Pen wants to get tough on crime; Chispac and Jorin think this, too, is beneath discussion, and that may have been their mistake. European Union and even immigration are lofty, philosophical issues. But crime is personal. The French are undergoing a terrible wave of criminality, in which thousands of cars are routinely torched for fun and more and more immigrant suburbs are no-go areas for the police. Chirac and Jospin's unwillingness even to address this issue only confirmed their image as the arrogant co-regents of a remote, insulated elite.

Europe's ruling class has effortlessly refined Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death my right not to have to listen to you say it. You might disapprove of what Le Pen says on immigration, but to declare that the subject cannot even be raised is profoundly unhealthy for a democracy. The problem with the old one-party states of Africa and Latin America was that they criminalized dissent: You could no longer criticize the President, you could only kill him. In the two-party one-party states of Europe, a similar process is under way: If the political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising certain topics, then the electorate will turn to unrespectable politicians -- as they're doing in France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere. Le Pen is not an aberration but the logical consequence.

The Eurosnots, of course, learn nothing. President Chirac, for his part, has announced that he will not deign to debate his opponent during the remaining two weeks of the campaign. M. Le Pen beat M. Chirac in nine of France's 22 districts. Unlovely he may be, but he is the legitimate standard-bearer for democratic opposition to Chirac. By refusing to engage, the President is doing a grave disservice to French democracy. Similarly, Gerhard Schroeder, facing difficult electoral prospects this fall, is now warning German conservatives that he will decline to participate in a "campaign of fear" -- i.e., on touchy issues. But the way you defeat poisonous ideas is to expose them to the bracing air of open debate. In Marseilles, they're burning synagogues. In Berlin, the police advise Jews not to leave their homes in skullcaps or other identifying marks of their faith. But Europe's political establishments insist that, on immigration and crime, there's nothing to talk about.

A century and a half ago, Tsar Nicholas I described Turkey as "the sick man of Europe." Today, the sick man of Europe is the European -- the urbane Continental princelings like Chirac and Michel, gliding from capital to capital building their Eutopia, oblivious to the popular will except on those rare occasions, such as Sunday, when the people do something so impertinent they finally catch the eye of their haughty maître d'.

I've said before that September 11th will prove to be like the Archduke's assassination in Sarajevo -- one of those events that shatters the known world. To the list of polities destined to slip down the Eurinal of history, we must add the European Union and France's Fifth Republic. The only question is how messy their disintegration will be. >>



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2576)10/14/2002 9:51:07 AM
From: Mr. Forthright  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
Raymond, mon copain, tu es tellement Europeen.....enfin tu sais....anti-Americain....