Shh – Don’t Tell France
Are Europe’s states to become the new “laboratories of democracy?” That’s exactly what Timothy Garton Ash advocates in today’s Guardian:
Yet in socio-economic reform, as in culture, the strength of Europe is precisely its diversity. There is no single, universal solution, whether it be labelled “social” or “liberal”. Some countries, like Sweden, do well with a high tax burden and public spending; others do badly. Some, like Estonia, flourish with flat taxes and “liberal” (ie neo-liberal) economic policies; that doesn’t mean they’d be good for everyone. What matters is what works for you.
Europe should be like a great experimental laboratory, with countries constantly looking over each other’s shoulders and stealing each other’s best ideas. That’s how Europe became the economic powerhouse of the world in the first place, and that’s the only way we will regain our dynamism. In the jargon of contemporary business, this is called “benchmarking”. We agree on the goals: higher growth and productivity, more innovation, less unemployment, reduced poverty. We don’t all need to get there by the same route.
Sacre bleu! All this time I thought the EU was supposed to be the anti-America.
Sounds to me like they’re trying to imitate America by encouraging everyone to find a DIFFERENT way to do it so they don’t have to admit they did it the American way….
“That’s how Europe became the economic powerhouse of the world in the first place”
No. Europe became such by invading and brutally subjugating entire populations and then raping the environment for all it was worth.
They certainly didn’t do it by being liberal democracies, or even representative republics. Perhaps they will in the future, but I hardly think Europe’s past is the place to look for shining examples of freedom and democracy.
I was surfing around yesterday and read that Chiraq said the anglo-saxon capitalist way is the new communism.
I think he said that in summer.
There was a time when I deeply respected Timothy Garton Ash; fifteen years ago, to be more precise. Back then, he was an opponent of statism and a fearless advocate of freedom (really; the guy went undercover to report on the Stasi and Polish Communist security forces).
How sad to see him now, as a vigorous proponent of the EU super-bureaucracy (even if he does favor a slightly watered-down version), and snarky opponent of liberating people who don’t happen to live in Europe, especially when Americans are involved in the liberation.
I’ve long thought that both Communism and Naziism were direct responses to America’s success– both were idealistic movements spearheaded by nationalistic elitists who thought it was sacrilegious that America, the mongrel nation, should have the audacity to become a superpower.
If America did it, then an Aryan Germany should be able to do it even better, thought Hitler.
If America succeeded with the technocratic human invention of democracy instead of the time-honored mythology of monarchy, then the technocratic human invention of communal economics should succeed even better, thought Lenin and Stalin.
Now Europe is doing the same thing: if America can do it despite being an artless young upstart of a country with idealistic simpletons running it, starting wars of arrogance and creating a corporate nightmare dystopia domestically, why, the multicultural socialist utopia of Europe, where all the smart people live, ought to be able to do way better.
The last thing anyone seems to want to do is admit America has more to convey as a positive example than as a cautionary tale.
>>>
Mmmmm….not quite. Both were in responses to social and economic conditions of thier respective countries and not so much of America’s successes. Soviet communism came in 1917, hardly a time of American military or economnic superiority. France and Britain were far more advanced politically and militarily then we were. In 1939 we had the 17th largest army in the world and a 2nd rate power politically and economically. The US only really attained superpower status after the end of the war so.
This is not to say that America wasn’t being successful but I doubt it raised any jealous eyebrows across the Atlantic.
Billy, read “The American Enemy” by Philippe Roger.
Started about 1750 by our “dear friends and historic allies.”
1st ignorance then jealous. Continuation of the anglo-frog wars.
I think I’m with Billy in that Brian’s view is a little too “it’s all about me” – perhaps it is in the sense that America is the best example of a successful capitalist and democratic state – and the appeal of Nazism to the masses depended in large part on dissatisfaction with Weimar Germany’s attempt at democratic capitalism, so in that case it was more about a system that happens to work really well in America than about the country itself. Communism, on the other hand, was conceived as a reaction to capitalism but not really democracy, in that the Germany of Marx was not particularly democratic.
Thanks to the Raich decision, the US is becoming less like the great experimental lab its founders intended.
“It