Running Out of Options, Portugal Turns Right
In Portugal, this year’s elections mark the beleaguered country’s most significant turn to the right since the seventies. Of course, the right is not exactly the same as the right in the U.S., but it is the rightward-most option available. In some respects, the Partido Social Democrata can sound almost libertarian.
Their work is cut out for them. In Portugal, a different understanding of the state and its relationship with the people prevails than that enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In Portugal, the idea that the government is at the mercy of the governed is, if not heresy, occasion for the open-mouthed incomprehension usually reserved for the remarks of an eccentric aunt or grandmother.
Yet, Portugal is in a predicament similar to America’s. Both countries have too many commitments and not enough money to cover them.
This is not new in Portugal — a country that started out profoundly indebted, having promised the pope some fantastical amount of gold in exchange for the recognition of its independence from one of the lands that eventually united to become Spain.
Portugal has played the game of going heavily into debt only to inflate it away by running the printing presses day and night. This was both permissible and negligible: permissible because its currency was its own to do with as it pleased, and negligible because it was a very small country to whom other, bigger countries, could repeatedly lend (relatively) great amounts of money — and because most people didn’t have their wealth in any form but in inherited land or gold.
Because the debts Portugal inflated away were small by international standards, they were roughly the equivalent of foreigners such as Americans “supporting” a child in a third world country at $20 a month. It is no great amount to us, and it makes a huge difference to the child.
But then Portugal became one of the European Union countries.
While giving all your power to unelected and unaccountable leaders is one of those ideas so profoundly stupid that only the very well educated and conventionally intelligent could believe in it, many accepted the root idea that all which stood between Portugal and competitiveness was its lack of size. If Portugal joined with the other countries of Europe, all of Europe would show America a thing or two.
Somehow this has failed to materialize, and no one mentions it anymore — speaking wistfully instead of the day when China will replace the U.S. (as if the Chinese would indulge Europe as the Americans have done!). And Portugal is torn between breaking away from the EU to fall into its old but comfortable habits and reckoning with the possibility that the rest of the world might opt against keeping the loans coming.
There have been several showdowns. A steadfast refusal to pass a bloated budget finally led to the fall of government. Teachers have had to take a cut in benefits despite their strenuous protests, and yet social security payments have gone up. Voters must choose either bread and circus or austerity.
Fascinating read. Thanks!
BTW: I love that PJM publishes articles on other nations from a more libertarian standpoint.
Can Western civilization save itself from its own success? Have we become too spoiled, lazy, soft, weak, and dependent to survive much longer?
At the root of the world’s troubles is the willingness to believe that one can get something for nothing. This belief has never proved out in practice; it’s crashed more economies than I can count; and yet it seems invincible in the minds of the Utopia-minded.
If Europe does crash and burn, wishful thinking will be the root cause.
Who knew that most of the members of the EU were probably better off on their own, rather than being united? I guess Portugal is finding that out right now. Well, I don’t think they will have much longer to wait before things get “back to normal” in Portugal, where they can have their old currency back and then can get their own, usual, loans to keep them afloat. Problem is, their socialist nanny-state simply does not work and they’re out of money. I also don’t see who will loan it to them anymore. Gone are the fat days of the 1970s to the 1990s, when they could promise their people the moon regarding social-welfare benefits and pay for it on borrowed money. The bill has come due and Portugal, along with most of Europe, just does not have the cash anymore.
The only thing that might (MIGHT) save Portugal from economic and societal collapse is the only thing that might save the U.S.: a drastic turn towards a very free society, in which the gov’t has a say in very little. Eliminate vast swathes of regulatory agencies and laws. In the case of the U.S., actually consider following the Constitution (shocking thought, I know), which would end EPA/OSHA/Dept of Labor/SocSec/Medicare/Obamacare/SEC/FDA and a host of other unConstitutional Fed bureaucracies. Watch business boom, wealth spread, freedom reign. In the case of Portugal, were a case of mass sanity (versus the mass insanity they now labor under) to spring up, and they were to pass and follow a U.S.-style Constitution, while they might recover economically in the short and medium term, it is unclear if they would be able to recover from their baby deficit. Businesses can spring up overnight, but in 20 years they will only have the same number of young adults as they have babies now, and I’m given to understand that that’s a number well less than 2 per adult woman. AFAIK no culture has recovered from that kind of death spiral.
But if we give up the valued and irreplaceable leadership of Obama, Hillary, Reid, Frank, Pelosi and McCain, what oh what shall we ever do? After all, don’t we NEED these oracles to tell us what kind of light bulbs are best for us?, and how many sheets of toilet paper we are permitted to use? Surely you don’t expect Americans to wipe their butts without Government regulations and guidelines do you?? Oh yes, Government ONLY can save us now! (sarc off).
In the good old days of the cold war, Portugal could probably get money from uncle Sam in exchange for not going communist.
I think the core problem of Portugal and the rest of Europe is their intrinsically elitist view of society.
In most of Europe, ordinary people are usually a problem and always dangerous. Undoubtably, this has roots going all the way back to Europe’s aristocratic past but the experiences of two hundred years of ethnic conflict certainly did not help. They never really shook it off, they just replaced hereditary warriors with a system of somewhat-merit selected mandarins akin to that used in ancient China. However, the idea that power needs to be far removed from the hands of ordinary people remains a constant. Perversely, everyone believes this from the most poor and powerless to the most wealthy and powerful. In their bones, Europeans believe that globally superior human beings actually exist and that they need to be in charge.
Political differences in Europe aren’t discussions about whether elites should run society but rather are discussions about which particular elites will run society. Nothing terrifies them more than the thought of ordinary people going about their business without the supervision of their “betters”.
America grew in a historically unprecedented vacuum of state power. We just kind of all wandered west without supervision making things up as we went. Europe never had that experience and neither has the rest of humanity.
The Portuguese probably can’t escape their state-centric trap because they’ve never had experience with any other type of system.
Who gives a f**k about saving Portugal? They massacred many of their Jews 500 years ago and forced the rest to convert at the sword, they kept Jews out for 450 years, were run by pro-Nazi Fascists until the 1970s, have been run mostly by Marxists since then, and no matter who leads the country, they want Israel and Jews wiped off the map.
What can you boycott from them anyway? Cork and port wine?
“The word “compromise” was used so much in the victory speech by the party leader that I was sure the speaker must be a McCain on his mother’s side. ”
OMG, that cost me a mouthful of coffee and a few paper towels. That is so perfectly McCain it is almost Romney-esk.
Well we have yet to find an intergovernmental organization that actually works. The UN has always been worthless and filled with scum, NATO hasn’t been relevant since the Berlin Wall fell (and even during the Cold War the US basically paid for all of Europe’s defense, allowing them to create their nanny states in the first place), and now the EU is dependent upon how long Germany, Britain and France wish to continue to carry the PIIGS.
Judging by the resurgence in the last couple years of nationalist parties in Germany, France, Britain and Scandinavia, as well as the citizens of the PIIGS probably willing to go through short-term default pain rather than long-term austerity measures being forced on them by bankers in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, the end of the EU as it is currently constituted is probably only a few years away.
However I always take a cynical look of Europe. What happens to the EU in the next twenty to forty years doesn’t matter. Europeans aren’t having kids; they have given up on a well-meaning traditional life and exchanged it for atheism and physical and mental pleasures and instead of controlling their own lives they have let their governments control them in exchange for “economic security”. It is no coincidence that the decline in religiosity occured during the forceful takeover by government of health care, education, and other parts of society that was the responsibility of the Church and private associations.
Europe is lost because the majority of the population is completely dependent on government and therefore the required systemic destruction that the welfare state brings and a godless society brings cannot be reversed.
The US can still be saved though, so long as Obama does not succeed in his mission: to make the majority of Americans dependent on government and therefore make the population unwilling to turn back to faith and community. It’s a shame none of the Republican Presidential contenders can even say Obama’s clear goal out loud.
The problem with Portugal, as it is with so many countries, is that the government makes people just comfortable enough in their chains.
People settle for less, just as long as they do not have to work. Give them the basics, and all their time free, and many folks will be okay with being poor, especially since everyone else around them is poor, too. It is the difference in wealth between people which makes folks uncomfortable being poor.
This system of governmental power works with just two requirements:
1) Lots of folks who do not like to work, who do not know the rewards of work;
2) Enough people who work to sustain those people who do not like to work.
Soon or late, such a system fails, because of group 2.
“Give them the basics, and all their time free, and many folks will be okay with being poor, especially since everyone else around them is poor, too.”
Great comment and absolutely true. I work with the poor and needy every day city and country folk alike. The vast majortiy of their poverty and neediness are self inflicted. I think they would be less insecure about their situation if they didn’t see the wealth of other people.
And so our administration is trying to resolve this insecurity by bringing us all down to the level of being needy and poor. Then we can all get along and treat each other as equals.
I’m just not sure how #2, who are supposed to pay for this initiative, fits into this brilliant idea or maybe we don’t need them in this new Portugeselike fantasyland that the left would put upon us.
Just a guess without any research, but it seems that socialism can remain at least minimally viable for long periods of time in countries with good weather. Having just your basic needs accommodated and a lot of time with nothing to do works great on a sandy beach in the Caribbean – but not so well in a dark and dingy apartment in Vladivostok. I think this explains Cuba – and maybe California.
Excellent understanding of Portugal’s failed democracy project.
John Patterson
Algarve, Portugal
Bottom line: Whatever it is the Europeans can’t do it without U.S. support.
“While giving all your power to unelected and unaccountable leaders is one of those ideas so profoundly stupid that only the very well educated and conventionally intelligent could believe in it….”
WOW what a wonderful statement. This should be hammered into the entrance to the U.S. Capital and emblazoned across every ballot we vote on in bold type and stenciled onto the windows of the Oval Office.
The people of these socialist basket-case countries are like skid-row bums. Hitting bottom doesn’t faze them. Since they are happy to live like pigs, and refuse to help themselves, why should anyone else care? All they ever do is riot in protest against the cruel fate that they have so blindly brought upon themselves — how droll. Good riddance to them all.
Good riddance to them all? This is what our Democratic Party has in store for us!
(And I’m a Democrat! I want to change my party, and I am probably the only one who does at the moment.)
My work has taken me to Europe for about a quarter of a year every year for the past almost ten years now. Spain is the country that I know well and in the circles of friends I have there (a modest number), at least one person who is perfectly willing to work is on lifelong disability pay, a third of the younger ones are unemployed, another third are in school with dim employment possibilities, all are struggling in their jobs and businesses with their noses just above water. One exception: a lawyer who specializes in bankruptcy is doing spectacularly.
From what I see here, the Indignados of Spain have the same beef as does our Tea Party: that the government is incapacitated by
crony capitalismcollusion at the highest levels of government and business. They differ with their solution: Normative Europeans opt to try to make their governments work as they designed it (ignore for the moment that their design is over-optimized for the underclass to the point of debilitating the productive sector, enterprise business); while our Tea Party accepts that all systems get gamed and people can dial down the damage inflicted by this inevitable tendency by making the government smaller.(As a Democrat, how do I square the circle? I argue that we should steer away from Utopia, recognize that social reconstructive projects depend on a vibrant marketplace and discriminate between those who truly need help from those who are wont to game the system.)
I need a reality check. Does this formulation make any sense to this Pajama Media audience?
As a long time PJ reader (but more libertarian than conservative) I applaud any Democrat who could come to these realizations. But if you think it through to another level, it becomes obvious that you cannot make large government “work” under any circumstsances for a number of reasons (not a complete list).
1) There are insufficient checks and balances to the ambitions of ideologues.
2) In government departments and programs it is not necessary to please your “customers”, there is no need to provide services at a reasonable cost and it is too easy to hide abysmal performance in fraudulent and self-congratulatory reports.
3) This opens the door for inefficiency, fraud and waste. Take a look – it is everywhere in big government.
4) Eventually almost everyone in a position of power is compromised by interest groups – whether they espouse social principles or pursue private profits.
5) All government agencies have the same prime directives: Use your entire budget. Get a bigger budget next year. Keep raising salaries and benefits. Keep expanding. Without the need to convince anyone that you deserve to grow (see #4) , this is all too easy.
What we need is small government dedicated to protecting our personal safety, our freedoms and our property rights, combined with true monopoly prevention and some attention to externalities (preventing my freedoms from encroaching on yours). The result would be amazing. Yes some would do better than others but the average standard of living would have no upper limit.
Mike G……that’s as good an explication of the reality of bureaucracy, especially government bureaucracy as I’ve ever seen.
“(As a Democrat, how do I square the circle? I argue that we should steer away from Utopia, recognize that social reconstructive projects depend on a vibrant marketplace and discriminate between those who truly need help from those who are wont to game the system.)”
Government may not discriminate. Bureaucrats must operate within the law. If someone qualifies for help, they get the help, whether they deserve it or not, whether they cause their own problems or not. They get to “demand their rights”.
Individuals may discriminate. If it is your own money, you get to decide whether someone is gaming you or not. Folks have to humbly ask for your help. If they are undeserving, they have to be penitent and vow to change in order to get your help. Your help is not a blank check.
If the government does charity, it is no longer charity, but entitlements. Charity is the province of people. Lust is not love. Fear is not respect. Entitlement is not charity.
So, here’s the real core of the problem, my dear Democrat, will all these people die in the streets if the government stops “helping” them? Were they dying in the streets before? How ever did folks manage before government provided a safety net?
You like the idea of a safety net. I get it. But doesn’t that safety net do more harm than good? The cost of it drains the wallets of folks who are making their own way in life, thus making it harder for them to make their own way. If you bust your behind while young, while others slack off, should you be required to support those same slackers?
But, how does one discriminate the truly misfortunate from the slackers. I don’t know about you, but generally I know them on sight. The truly misfortunate are generally very polite, upright folks. Slackers always look and act like slackers.
You want to do good. I get it. You are a decent person, Dennis. But, stop trying to do good with other people’s money, unless you are working for a charity. You’ll do more harm than good.
Here is how you’ll know I speak the truth. Go work in a soup kitchen or some other charity. Go work at a food bank. Go down to where the poor are. Watch their behavior. And you’ll KNOW.
Then write to me at marc_malone@comcast.net and we’ll talk. I have cookies and some Dark Side coffee.
Thanks to Mike G. and Mr. Malone, your thoughts are much appreciated. I agree about the dangers of the safety net in that it can easily become a hammock. Private initiative in terms of charity is the best expression of altruism and government action in this regard is rife with problems… but I don’t think that Democrats will ever be able to be rid of this plank in their/our worldview, so central it is that it probably is rather a keel than a plank. My response is to look for ways to temper it, much as in the spirit of our Founding Fathers in that they very cleverly conceived of the design of our system as if it were an engineering design problem, with self limiting, reinforcing and mutually checking mechanisms.
You might be right that there is no way for government to discriminate between the truly needy and the gamers and if so, then it would be impossible and irresponsible for a Democratic Party as such to exist at all. But exist we do, and will, I don’t think that a philosophical point of view as is yours, that depends on the non-existence of altruistically bent Democrats will work, do you? Better that we try to figure out how to work it out, to be authentically altruistic at the level of our nation state and not wreck the system along the way.
It cannot be done, Dennis. This is enforced charity and is an oxymoron. Government is force. Never forget that.
When you tax people, the laws are backed by men with guns who will jail you or kill you. To tax for essential services like military, roads, and emergency services, this a proper thing, and is not immoral. When you tax to take money from one group and give it to another group, it is armed robbery and is immoral. You cannot do good, when you begin from an immoral premise.
Are you right? Is this a fundamental premise of being a Democrat? Yes. And the fundament is flawed. It has never worked, because it never CAN work. You say we just need to figure out how. No. This is the very flawed thinking of people who refuse to see that they are wrong. “This time we’ll get it right.”
Education – We just need to spend even more money.
Stimulus – It wasn’t big enough. We just need to spend even more money.
Entitlements – We just need to make it so people cannot game the system. Really? Do you hear yourself?
The results you see are a direct expression of the fundamental flaw in your fundamental belief. The failures grow out of that flaw. They do not come from outside forces. The belief itself is invalid.
If you plant wheat, you do not get corn. You get wheat. You reap what you sow. These results are exactly what you planted. You think you plant safety nets. No, you plant hammocks. Those are hammock seeds. There are no safety net seeds. No such thing.
Mr. Malone:
“When you tax people, the laws are backed by men with guns who will jail you or kill you. To tax for essential services like military, roads, and emergency services, this a proper thing, and is not immoral. When you tax to take money from one group and give it to another group, it is armed robbery and is immoral. You cannot do good, when you begin from an immoral premise.”
I agree by and large… but then there’s a camel’s nose that lifts the edge of the tent. Between your well delineated extents lies a huge grey zone: FEMA, education, emergency aid to disaster areas all across the world, the Marshall Plan (all this off the top of my head, probably not the best sharpened for this argument so far)… hell, even a significant number of Republicans actually concede in the validity of global warming! Bush did rack up the national debt and no one in the Republican Party disagreed with the initial bank bailout and not enough critiqued the second Obama one.
I’m willing to consider that you are right in that the fundamental premise of all Democrats are flawed. I’m looking for a solution. Without it, there will be nothing to stop the inevitable slide into extreme Marxist cant. Help me out here, if there are no safety net seeds, shouldn’t we bio-engineer some? If only for the sole reason of reseating the philosophical foundations of the American Left?
(Whoops, #19 is my post.)
Wow, incredible blog layout! How lengthy have you been blogging for? you made running a blog glance easy. The full look of your web site is fantastic, let alone the content!