| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| What Europe Really Needs |
| 2005-06-17 |
| by Paul Johnson, Wall Street Journal EFL. Yoiu really should read it all. That Europe as an entity is sick and the European Union as an institution is in disorder cannot be denied. But no remedies currently being discussed can possibly remedy matters. What ought to depress partisans of European unity in the aftermath of the rejection of its proposed constitution by France and the Netherlands is not so much the foundering of this ridiculous document as the response of the leadership to the crisis, especially in France and Germany. Jacques Chirac reacted by appointing as prime minister Dominque de Villepin, a frivolous playboy who has never been elected to anything and is best known for his view that Napoleon should have won the Battle of Waterloo and continued to rule Europe. Gerhard Schröder of Germany simply stepped up his anti-American rhetoric. What is notoriously evident among the EU elite is not just a lack of intellectual power but an obstinacy and blindness bordering on imbecility. As the great pan-European poet Schiller put it: "There is a kind of stupidity with which even the Gods struggle in vain." The fundamental weaknesses of the EU that must be remedied if it is to survive are threefold. First, it has tried to do too much, too quickly and in too much detail. . . . Long, but very good, discussion on economic policy snipped. . . . There is another still more fundamental factor in the EU malaise. Europe has turned its back not only on the U.S. and the future of capitalism, but also on its own historic past. Europe was essentially a creation of the marriage between Greco-Roman culture and Christianity. Brussels has, in effect, repudiated both. There was no mention of Europe's Christian origins in the ill-fated Constitution, and Europe's Strasbourg Parliament has insisted that a practicing Catholic cannot hold office as the EU Justice Commissioner. Equally, what strikes the observer about the actual workings of Brussels is the stifling, insufferable materialism of their outlook. The last Continental statesman who grasped the historical and cultural context of European unity was Charles de Gaulle. He wanted "the Europe of the Fatherlands (L'Europe des patries)" and at one of his press conferences I recall him referring to "L'Europe de Dante, de Goethe et de Chateaubriand." I interrupted: "Et de Shakespeare, mon General?" He agreed: "Oui! Shakespeare aussi!" No leading member of the EU elite would use such language today. The EU has no intellectual content. Great writers have no role to play in it, even indirectly, nor have great thinkers or scientists. It is not the Europe of Aquinas, Luther or Calvin--or the Europe of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Half a century ago, Robert Schumann, first of the founding fathers, often referred in his speeches to Kant and St. Thomas More, Dante and the poet Paul Valery. To him--he said explicitly--building Europe was a "great moral issue." He spoke of "the Soul of Europe." Such thoughts and expressions strike no chord in Brussels today. In short, the EU is not a living body, with a mind and spirit and animating soul. And unless it finds such nonmaterial but essential dimensions, it will soon be a dead body, the symbolic corpse of a dying continent. Comments from our European contingent? Over to you, JFM, TGA, Howard, et al. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #16 Yo! Zwei grosse Pils, bitte. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-06-17 21:21 |
| #15 I'm taking my Europe free day today. So all I say is: Europe needs more Freibier! |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-06-17 20:10 |
| #14 Mountain Man: A point of semantics, here. I am very careful to use the word idealism only in contrast to realism. Idealism, by itself covers much of what you said and more; for example, religious idealism, atheist idealism, even such beliefs as environmental idealism. But often these forms of idealism are diametrically opposed to each other in their own right. But realism stands apart from idealism as a whole. Take your MLK example. While he preached idealism in civil rights, he was clearly focused on the reality before him. As such, he did not advocate equality in all things at a racial-personal level; he advocated things like equality of opportunity and success based on character. So, while people embraced his idealism, they still understood his realistic goals. (And, noteworthy, the idealists who took over from him have long since abandoned his practical goals, and replaced them with pragmatic, greedy and short-sighted ideals.) So, was MLK really an idealist? It toto, yes; but compared with realism, no. He was a realist who spoke in terms of idealism. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-06-17 20:10 |
| #13 Europe is getting that it needs, and deserves. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2005-06-17 19:48 |
| #12 Compare the viewpoint of American idealists, that rich people have somehow "won life's lottery" Actually, the "if he's rich, he must've gotten it through nefarious means" attitude came over with the Irish. They got it through bitter experience, and the attitude spread here, especially in the New England factory towns where I grew up (two guesses what Party ran things?). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-06-17 19:00 |
| #11 Mike, Its called the Emigrant Phenomena. Emigrants as a group, self-select for the qualities required for success. As someone remarked (it might have been me) - Those with get-up-and-go tend to get up and go. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-17 17:59 |
| #10 Moose, who's pessimistic here...Jesus. Even fatalistic. Let's for a second assume that idealism represents no specific ideals, just the drive, the faith that makes men do great things. Indeed your methods, not your intentions determine your outcome. Your explanation of idealism was far too absolutist in its focus, and don't provide for the inherent inventiveness of people, especially Americans. Were our founding fathers not idealist, I argue that they were. While I'm sure that many others had the same idea of a free and equal society that they had, those others were too lazy or stupid or too French to build a solid democratic republic that would last. Your "only the Republicans" mantra may fly by Fox News logic standards, but let's not stereotype idealists as commie pinkos here. Idealists just need a work ethic to bring their ideas to fruition. Jesus, Napoleon, the Wright Brothers, Rockefeller, MLK, Bill Gates, all idealistic about their ability to make it, they backed their idealism up and what did they do? My Point... idealism and success can be compatible and perhaps they are inseparable. |
| Posted by: Mountain Man 2005-06-17 16:06 |
| #9 'Moose: good point, and good catch on the correction. I misread what you wrote as I was typing. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-06-17 15:31 |
| #8 Mike: self-selected for optimism, certainly, but not for idealism. For realism. The two biggest draws for immigrants to the US are economic improvement and educational opportunity. Immigrants know, or at least are under few illusions, that the US is perfect, or is anywhere near perfect--but it is a place that, with hard work, comes success. It is not seen like Sweden, the land of the hand out--perfect for an idealist wanting rewards for the sweetness of his smile--but as a place where government will get out of your way and let you succeed. Compare the viewpoint of American idealists, that rich people have somehow "won life's lottery", versus the reality, that most of the new millionaires in the US live in middle-class suburbs and work 12-14 hour days at their small business, take fewer vacations, and spend a lot of time caring for their financial well-being. An idealist loathes earning his keep that way. Almost by definition, an idealist believes themselves to somehow be "elite", that is, elite enough to imagine the ideals that they love. And the elite shouldn't have to work hard doing dull things to make their living. They should produce art and music, and be fawned over and rewarded for their brilliance and talent by lesser men. For this reason, they bitterly resent the burgeoisie, the grubby little people who work hard and have all the money. If there was justice in the world, I (the idealist) would have the money, and they (the realistic burgeoisie) would do the dull work that they are so good at. Both of these types exist in the US, with the red states filled with happy, optimistic, realistic people; and the blue states having concentrations of miserable, pessimistic, idealistic people. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-06-17 14:36 |
| #7 ..as prime minister Dominque de Villepin, a frivolous playboy.. Haaahahahahaaaa...... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-17 14:33 |
| #6 Yep Mike, arrival of the fittest. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-17 14:26 |
| #5 Mike - Dead on. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-06-17 14:21 |
| #4 Jacques Chirac personally sold Saddam a nuclear reactor though he KNEW it was not for energy but to build a bomb. He didn't care. I'd like to see that man dangle on the end of a rope. |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-06-17 11:42 |
| #3 'Moose: Interesting theory. Might I throw in an observation that may add something to it? Europe always has had an elite ruling class and a mass of not-so-elites who are expected to shut up and go along with the program. The Euro-elite generally did not move to the New World because they were already sitting pretty where they were. The New World was therefore mostly settled by the not-so-elites of Europe. To be more precise, the more talented, risk-taking subset of the not-so-elites who believed they could improve things by hard work. Those of the not-so-elite who lack optimism and idealism stayed at home and resigned themselves to their fate. We see this same pattern in more recent emigration as well: e.g., the socialist elite of India stays in New Delhi and lords over the fatalistic lower caste, while the motivated not-so-elite goes to medical school at Ohio State and ends up with new $1M houses in Delaware County. Americans are, therefore, to a great extent, self-selected for optimism and idealism--and became so by draining the idealistic optimists from the rest of the world. Either that, or I'm all wet. Comments? |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-06-17 11:39 |
| #2 I suggest that there are only four main variants to western philosophy, in practice. They consist of optimism and pessimism, realism and idealism. America thrives because it is mostly OR, that is, optimistic and realistic. You see it in our founding documents, and in our culture and society. It is the "red state" opinion. However, in the US, there is also the "blue state" opinion; diametrically opposed to both optimism and realism. It is the IP, idealism and pessimism of the neo-Calvinist old world. Picture Howard Dean: "Everything is horrible, but only we can make it perfect! (Yaargh)." From a realistic and optimistic viewpoint, it looks insane, totalitarian and repulsive. Europe, however, is PR, pessimistic and realistic. Over 2000 years of bitter war and failed promises, the idealism has been burned out of them, and so their attitude is "Things will go on cruddily like this for years and then get worse." This combination philosophy is best expressed in French movies that Americans would rate second choice after a root canal. Miserable people being bored and miserable, then descending into even worse misery. Ironically, despite their strong penchant for the morbid, Russians are OI, that is, optimistic and idealistic. For this reason, they actually get along better with Americans than they do with Europeans. The shared sense of optimism stimulates realistic Americans to be more idealistic, and makes Russians more practical. So what does Europe (and, for that part, the blue states) need? That is a very good question: how does one resurrect optimism in people who abhor it as "naive" or downright "stupid", when they see it in others (especially republican presidents)? Are they damned as a people? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-06-17 11:08 |
| #1 C'mon guys - you have a French Socialist in charge of writing the document and then you're surprised that it's an unabridged dictionary-sized mass of boilerplate feel-good twaddle mixed with paleo-commie horseshit? Get a freakin' clue, why don't ya? |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-06-17 10:14 |