The Economist on America’s Anti-Europeanism
by Richardson ~ May 3rd, 2007. Filed under: America, Anti-Americanism, Europe.Their subtitle for the article, “Anti-Europeanism is a bad response to anti-Americanism.” It presents an excellent example of them - Europeans - simply not getting it:
America’s anti-Europeans have three big complaints about the Old Continent. The first is that Europe is committing demographic and economic suicide. . The second is that, unlike America, Europe is a post-Christian society. . . The third complaint is that Muslims are filling Europe’s demographic and spiritual void.
[. . .]
Anti-Europeans think these kinds of arguments have big implications for American diplomacy. They suggest, at the very least, that Europe will never be a vigorous ally against Islamic extremism. It is too diffident about its own traditions, too over-burdened by welfare commitments, too frightened of its Muslim populations. And it might even suggest something more than that. Tony Blankley, a journalist who once worked for Newt Gingrich, has decided that “the threat of the radical Islamists taking over Europe is every bit as great to the United States as was the threat of the Nazis taking over Europe in the 1940s.”
The Economist answers with:
Europe-bashing is a passion of the right and the right is hardly in the political ascendant these days. The argument is based on a familiar sleight of hand: the bunching of worst-case scenarios. Do Europe’s empty churches really mean that Europeans have abandoned their faith? Three-quarters of Europeans still claim to be Christians, and European sociologists talk of “believing without belonging”. Are European Muslims really poised to take over Europe? They constitute only 4% of the population and come from very diverse backgrounds. Have European countries really lost the will to assimilate newcomers? Several countries have introduced citizenship tests and ceremonies that are modelled on the American variety.
[. . .]
And the current French election gives the lie to anti-Europeanism. France is the great Satan for American anti-Europeans—remember “freedom fries”?
While the charges of Europe committing demographic suicide and strapping itself down with worse than useless welfare programs has much more merit than the editors of the Economist want to admit, and their responses to those criticisms exceedingly weak, I have to say: so what?
None of that really matters, at least not to most Americans. Those just are not the primary reasons that many Americans find mention of, “cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” so humorous. Personally I prefer the joke about a French rifle for sale; never fired and only dropped once.
First consider what many (though not all) Europeans think of most Americans; and know that such smugness is actually very misplaced. This misplaced European notion of moral superiority extends beyond economics.
As the Economist noted, events leading up to the war in Iraq heighten anti-Europeanism in America. That might be more precisely defined as an anti-French sentiment, and rightly so; they undermined the U.S. both by weakening UN sanctions and attempting to prevent a U.S. invasion.
“Freedom Fries” was sophomoric, but France is treacherous and deceitful. Europe may or may not be committing demographic suicide, but many – particularly leadership – are a pretentious group of snobbish elitists. Americans value freedom and prosperity over the regulation and decay of socialism, and don’t appreciate being looked down upon as something akin to Neanderthals for rejecting such useless mechanisms.
For Europeans – the editors of the Economist, in this particular case – to speak of, “uprooting the anti-European weeds that have flourished in America in the past few years,” is the height of oblivious hypocrisy.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I must be really, really out of the loop, because reading that first list of how our society thinks about Europe didn’t ring any bells whatsoever in my head. It was pretty much the first time I can remember hearing things like that.
I’d think in general American society’s dislike of Europe would sound more like, “Why don’t you guys shut the f- up? Stop pretending you would do something different if you were the top power. Look what you did in the world. And stop blaming us for every pig that farts into the wind around the world….”
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
The fact that the term “social” in the US makes a lot of people scared, makes the US and the EU impossible to compare.
Social welfare-systems in the EU will continue in the the next 2 or 3 decades without big financial issues after small reforms. Saying that Europe is “strapping itself down with worse than useless welfare programs” is overrated and a common belief among Americans.
Seeing what happened to New Orleans in the US (and still is happening) after Katrina, while the US government is spending billions in Iraq, is enough for Europeans to know our so called smugness is indeed justified and the taxes we pay on social welfare are for the right cause.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Hi Sander,
I’m not “a lot of people,” and I know exactly what I’m speaking when I refer to European socialism, the crushing tax burden, etc. (the striking exception being Ireland).
Thanks - exactly what I was referring to; you can keep it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the US should adopt a similar system. The 2nd World War created an atmosphere in most Western-European countries that was ripe for a social welfare system while there was no need for that in the US (although you could argue about that as well).
Still, my opinion remains: you can’t compare the US and EU on just a number or facts and figures. Maybe 72.8% of all Americans owns a car, while the average number for Europe may be lower. Does that mean we’re poor? Neh, I can take public transportation for free (and it’s faster than a car anyways). It’s just a matter of choise.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Cars are more of a necessity in most of the U.S. due to the large distances between places.
Also, I wouldn’t say your public transportation is “free”; your taxes pay for.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
That’s exactly what I mean. Money that goes into the system doesn’t vanish, it’s just a matter of who spends what money. And here, the outcome of that is decided by a mixture of socialism and paternalism.
This’ll turn out in a slowchat where we both have a differnt opinion in anyway, so let’s get back to North Korea
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
But if you choose to drive, you stil have to pay for the public transport. When I take the subway/bus, I save on the costs of driving my own vehichle, but if I drive, I don’t still have to pay for the subway/bus; I don’t have to pay for both, only the one I choose to use.
I don’t hate Europe. In fact, I’ve been to the Netherlands three times and have always enjoyed it (the last time was May 2006), and been through Schiphol literally dozens of times (my favorite European airport). But I’d find living there even more oppressive than I find the DC area to be.
North Korea it is…
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I’ve met hundreds of Chinese nationals who want to live in the West. Overwhelmingly, their destinations of choices are (from top to bottom):
1) United States
2) Australia
3) Canada
4) United Kingdom
5) Rest of Europe (excluding UK)
I once met some Chinese nationals living in Italy. I asked them “WTF are you doing in Italy?” They responded in unison: “We’re trying to get to the United States, and Europe is halfway there!” Indeed.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:49 am
James,
I’m sure that irks many Europeans to no end.
It always irks me to see the U.S. slip closer and closer to the over-regulation of the EU…
May 4th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
The blog had a hiccup awhile ago and I lost a comment. Here is a rehash…(It wasn’t well written anyway…)
Economics are a weak point with me, but something the son of a Cuban immigrant and small business owner here in the US said to me has popped up in my mind in discussions like this the last 2 years or so —— he said — in Europe, the people have money don’t want others to get it. I think there is a lot of food for thought beneath that statement….
I’ll now call it the “Al Gore Syndrome” - but it has applied to my thinking on the Hollywood elite as well long before I heard this Cuban guy state it that way…
These guys aren’t aristocrats per se but the results might be similar.
Al Gore is the saint of global warming. He and crew want to go after big business and over consumption. Whether the core ideas are new or old, however, they are attacking the same thing that critics early in the industrial revolution used (as well as those who saw democractic reforms as “mob rule”…).
Gore wants to cripple industry and consumption, but of course, like the Hollywood elite, he rests tranquil in the assurance he will always have the big bucks and will continue to consumer large amounts of energy in his home and travels.
I heard a guy on PBS the other night talk about how American society is going to have to get use to switching (back) from global markets to local ones — that to tackle global warming, we are going to have to stop getting our winter strawberries from South America and learn to do with out and eat our summer berries from nearby farms.
This, of course, would cripple the shit out of South American economic growth and rise in living standards, but hey, the Ozone layer will be protected…..
And that is the idea to mull over……..Gore and many of the influencial intellectual elite will continue to jet set around the US and world. They will continue to enjoy the best fruits of money.
And they will not have to up their sun block each year, (if they are sucessful in their crusade)….
The point being — under a system where those in power enforce heavy taxation — all in the name of the good of the whole, don’t ya know — and heavy regulation……those with money still end up keeping enough of it to live high above everybody else - and have the freedom that comes with wealth….
….but for people like this Cuban small businessman — such taxation and regulation breaks him and those like him.
Maybe we could call it a middle class squeeze (which is what it was back in the early struggle against the industrial revolution…)…
Now, if the poor people in the US (you know, the ones in New Orleans and the like)….were living in dire poverty like the peasants of old, I’d say the taxation of wealth (including industry) to create a better welfare net was a good idea….
But, since I was borned and raised in the US, and from the lower end of the economic spectum, I not only prefer the US way, I’d actively advocate against moving toward the European social model.
I prefer to keep the opportunities of social mobility and the amount of saftey net we do have here in the States over a system set up by the elites to make the life of the non-elites “better” but controlled.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Well of course you do – you just don’t know any better. Neither do I. But people like Thomas Frank, author of “What’s the matter with Kansas?” are here to set us on the right path:
Basically he’s saying that morals are not a good reason to vote for someone, and that the only good vote is one that you think will get you something material. Oh, and the “liberal elite” is a myth (TIME’s top 100, anyone?).
Except he’s wrong about the effects of Republican policies:
But facts and reality should not get in the way of his crusade for socialistic policies.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I would very much like France after retirement. Gers or Pau would be very nice. High taxes are set off by a very high quality of life. Arts, fine wine and food, tennis, golf, mountaineering, and even cricket, and not far from the Basque coast! Madame Lirelou, however, prefers her native Vietnam and finds France a bit cold. Ah the lament of another Yank originally from the lower scales of the socio-economic ladder!
US in Korea. I believe the Europe the Cuban immigrant was referring to was Spain, which was not the model for the rest of Western Europe.