Closet Extremist

The "Europe" flap

After giving it a few days to die down, I finally decided to look into what Alex was complaining about. As I suspected, it was over this article.

I'm going to jump around this article to make my point here. Let's start with one of the most obvious arguments :

That 1776 declaration is worth rereading. Its very first sentence demands "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind": isn't that exactly what the world would like from America today? The document goes on to excoriate the distant emperor George for his recklessness, insisting that authority is only legitimate when it enjoys "the consent of the governed". As the world's sole superpower, the US now has global authority. But where is the consent?

By this logic, it is not a declaration of independence the world would be making. On the contrary, in seeking a say in US elections, the human race would be making a declaration of dependence - acknowledging that Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in our own capitals. In contrast with those founding Americans, the new declaration would argue that, in order to take charge of our destiny, we do not need to break free from the imperial power - we need to tame it.

In response to the "decent requests" aspect of the declaration, I need only point to the title above it. "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America". The key point here is the part that says "United States of America", not the "United States of The World". This was a declaration by Americans for Americans. Please don't forget that. Another thing to remember here is that this declaration was written 228 years ago. At that time there was no such thing as a "global authority" unless you mean the British Empire that we were fighting at the time. Seems a bit "Unilateral" to me for a single country to try to take over the globe. Back then, there was no such thing as the United Nations. There wasn't any kind of watchdog to go to to take care of the issue, so the people in the America's came up with the declaration to state their case against their oppressors. Instead of taking the problem to a commitee (that we knew would be inneffective), we took action, and formed a country that is based on that tradition.

It may sound wacky, but the idea could not be more American. After all, the country was founded on the notion that human beings must have a say in the decisions that govern their lives. The rebels' slogan of "No taxation without representation" endures two centuries later because it speaks about something larger than the narrow business of raising taxes. It says that those who pay for a government's actions must have a right to choose the government that takes them.

Today, people far from America's shores do indeed pay for the consequences of US actions. The citizens of Iraq are the obvious example, living in a land where a vile dictatorship was removed only for a military occupation and unspeakable violence to be unleashed in its place. The would-be voters of downtown Baghdad might like a say in whether their country would be better off with US forces gone. Perhaps John Kerry's Monday promise to start bringing the troops home, beginning next summer, would appeal to them. But they have no voice.

Mr. Freedland, I'd like to direct you to the statements of Mr. John F. Kerry during the Presidential debate (paraphrasing here) "The United States is paying 95% of the cost of the war". Whether it be in monetary value, or lives of our young people, it is inarguable that the US is paying the majority of the costs in our current conflict. The reason that the numbers stack up that way is due to the fact that the other countries that have a vested interest in this war, either have them on the other side of the conflict, or they don't have the resolve to get things done.

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America's allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington's disdain for Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside. As candidate Dole understood, only those with votes get a hearing.

I believe that those "multilateral arrangements" have indeed broken down, and for good reason. Sooner or later you have to actually do something as opposed to just talking about it. I've seen this happen more times than I care to think about when I worked a "White Collar" job. All the "Big Wheels" upstairs were having meeting after meeting, while the business was gradually slipping away. I saw the writing on the wall, and bugged out. two months afterward, the company was sold off to another company. I still talk to the people that I worked with over there, and I can tell it's still the same. Still losing clients, and the business is getting smaller and smaller. Essentially they've managed that company to death, instead of being proactive and actually fixing problems.

Looking at the examples that he's given above: "Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court" I'd like to hear a good explanation of why these treaties would be beneficial to the US. Kyoto is a nice "touchy-feely" type thing that actually winds up making it even more expensive for businesses to operate. That and the fact that the regulations it entails are based on junk science, and you can see why we would shoot it down. The test ban treaty is a way for other countries to ensure that one of the reasons that we are a military superpower (nukes) is eleminated. That's not gonna happen. The ICC is another nice way for others to try to take our sovereignty away from us. So you want to be able to try a few of our general's as war criminals whenever you want? I don't think so.

As I see it, there is a general malaise that is coming out of Europe these days. The countries aren't as powerful as they used to be, and they don't know how to fix it. So they all get together and talk and talk. Meanwhile they are getting weaker and weaker due to the fact that all they seem to be doing is bitching about how big and powerful America is, instead of actually doing something to try and compete. They tax the hell out of their citizenry to support their welfare states, and then wonder why there's no innovation coming from their people. You're stealing your citizens drive to compete, and to make something better for themselves. Even the ones that actually do manage to actually do something positive, wind up being regulated so much that they can't share what they've achieved.

I've got a few suggestions on how European countries can get back a position of power.

1. Deregulate, and drop your "Nanny-States" thereby letting your people sink or swim on their own. If there's no net down there to catch you, you'll find that you will concentrate extra hard on not falling off the wire.

2. Quit letting other European countries tell you how to govern your country. It's your country, and your system of government. What makes you think that those other countries know any better than you do. This will go towards instilling some national pride back in your people, and that can be one hell of a motivator.

3. If you insist on going the route of the European Union, then you've got to set up a better central system of government. You've got to get to something like the US has. I am an American first, and a citizen of the great state of Tennessee second. If you choose to not stand on your own as a country, then you've got to get rid of some of your national pride. Become a European first, then a citzen of whatever state (formerly country) you are a citizen of.

4. Here's my most radical idea for improving a European country: If you can't beat us, join us. If you really want to be able to vote for who gets to be the President of the US, then submit your country to be admitted as the 51st state in our union. Sure you'd lose your national identity, but look at the one you'd be getting in its stead. You'd get to vote too, but I'm betting that if you were a membr of this great union, you wouldn't be as willing to elect someone who would give your country's power and resolve away to other countries.

So my solution to Europe's problems is simply this: Shit or get off the pot. Get out there and actually do something, instead of sitting around second guessing the country that actually is doing something. If your leadership is incapable of getting it done, then get new leadership. If your system of government is stifling your ability to succeed, then install a new one. Quit sitting around in your meeting rooms talking about what's going wrong. Make up your mind, and take action.

The US is showing you how to do it. Get cracking.

Posted by Johnny - Oh at October 4, 2004 02:45 PM