The West?

[JongWK]

BBC article

So, do you agree with the guy?

[Marius]

I think he's on the right track, for sure.

He forgets that "the West" had as much meaning leading up to WWII as it did for the decades after - it just started a little farther west than later on. (Rather, I think his grandfather spoke mostly of "the Empire" and not "the West" because Hitler wasn't totally wrong about the British - they were vainly obsessed about their own importance, and Britain's belief about how useful Britain was on the world stage was very exaggerated. This may not be totally different from America, now.)

There are also a couple of things about his characterization that I don't quite agree with. First, I think he overestimates the number of people in America who are closer to the social democratic European view. These people gather in media, in journalism, in politics, and in education. They're visible, but then, they're not as numerous as they seem.

I don't think Europe's secularism is a big factor in its image here. In fact, I don't think we really think of Europeans as secular. I think most Americans more or less assume Europe is just as religious as America, only a little more priveate and reserved about it. That might not be correct, but I think religion isn't a big rift from the American side.

[Serious Paul]

Nobody should want possessions.

:shock: : :

Whatever.

It's no wonder to me there's no truely Socialist country in this world. Or that none of them will ever really be in charge of anything.

Whatever their faults, Lenin and Stalin never had any money.

:

Crackhead. If he'd have just said Lenin I might have bought this line of shat.

America's lack of sympathy towards the imperial problems of its allies has been swept under the carpet as if everybody is somewhat ashamed of the subject. But it's extremely important.

Well I agree with that last line pretty heartily.

"I don't ever again expect to see the French or the Germans pointing their guns in the same direction we're pointing ours. They're petty, they're envious and in their guts they hate us."

I agree, and I've been saying this for years now. Ask Toryu. although I'd never say never-sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows.

Europe is secular and lacking in Christian religious faith compared to the American heartlands.

I agree with marius here. Most Americans, I believe, think of Europe as very religous. After all the Pope is there, and a lot of churches older than my constitution right?

with most of the dirty jobs being done by vigorous Islamic immigrants, who despise their hosts as much as their hosts secretly fear them.

I know some people who do believe this though. Given some of the media attention on Islam in that part of the world, I guess I see why.

I don't believe "the West" of the Cold War can be reconstituted. Too much has changed. So I can see that some loosening of the more irksome ties, for instance within NATO, between America and what Mr Rumsfeld calls "old" Europe might be in the best interests of both.

Hear hear. I agree very much. Admittedly economics will likely keep us all connected for some time, and cultural ties of course. But politically we're heading in different directions.

It's harder to see the logic of an open breach.

So say's you!

In the first place, there are many Americans closer to the social democratic European view than that of their own government.

I think marius hit this hea on the nail. I'd take it a step further-a lot more of these people, the so called social democratic left in the article, maybe what our good friend MooCow would call "them damn Liberals" are more common on the two Coasts and in cities.

A lot of people like to tout this past election as really representative of the American polotical spectrum. I question that assertion. 50 percent of registered voters who actualy chose to vote, voted for one party or the other.

What actual fragment of the American people is that?

As a political idea "the West" is obsolete. But there's a reason for avoiding a quarrel. We've all got enough on our plate. We have the debt burden, the effects of globalisation and our intellectual uncertainty about what to do for the best. It's not a good time to pick a fight.

Say's you.

I say that's protectionist thinking, isolationist thinking and crap thinking. It's avoiding the real problem.

[BlackJack]

It seems to me that the powers that be in Europe want to use the US as a rally cry to unite a new European state. While I don't agree with everything the government does, I am getting tired of constantly being "wrong". No matter what we do, we're wrong. Going into Iraq was wrong, not going into Rwanda was wrong. When we choose to act we are berated as acting as the world police, and we we decline to act we are decried as uncaring isolationists.

If the new EU wants to be a major power then they need to start acting like one. How long did it take for the EU to act in the Balkans? If the problem in Rwanda is so important to the EU, why don't they do something about it?

[lorg]

It seems to me that the powers that be in Europe want to use the US as a rally cry to unite a new European state. While I don't agree with everything the government does, I am getting tired of constantly being "wrong". No matter what we do, we're wrong. Going into Iraq was wrong, not going into Rwanda was wrong. When we choose to act we are berated as acting as the world police, and we we decline to act we are decried as uncaring isolationists.

Looks like "super europe" just took a severe hit yesterday and tomorrow it might take another one. Lets see if the politicians can take a fuckin' hint.

If the new EU wants to be a major power then they need to start acting like one. How long did it take for the EU to act in the Balkans? If the problem in Rwanda is so important to the EU, why don't they do something about it?

Why fight ourselves when we can get you to fight for us? Easier to blame you when things fuck up then to take some own responsibility.

I agree with marius here. Most Americans, I believe, think of Europe as very religous. After all the Pope is there, and a lot of churches older than my constitution right?

It might be true for parts of Europe but up here the chuches are older then your country but they are rarely even half full when it comes to attendence. A few religious holidays might be the exception but a normal sunday isn't exactly a crowd magnet.

[JongWK]

Western Europe is strongly secular, barring a few exceptions (like Italy, but you can imagine why).

Take Spain. It has a monarchy, population is mostly Catholic and loved Pope JP2, yet they've recently legalized gay marriage without problems (except for the RCC's angry rant). Abortion is also perfectly legal, IIRC.

What's the difference? Most politicians won't push their religious belief into politics, like in the USA.


Now, as to why America gets flamed every time it does something, I remember the words of Felipe Gonzalez, a former Spanish Prime Minister: "America is the only Empire that wants to be loved."

[Marius]

So, Dutch friends, have we voted?

[Marius]

Bloody, what dp?

[DV8]

Yes, "we" have. And the first polls suggest the Dutch have rejected the constitution in its current inception. Most of the "nay" voters were either disillusioned about the recession that went hand in hand with the introduction of the Euro, disillusioned with the current government, afraid of losing cultural identity in "One Europe" or badly informed, because most people really didn't understand what the hell was going on, understandably. I read large parts of the constitution, and it was so incredibly open to different interpretations, that it was very hard to make sense out of it.

I voted for the "constitution."

[Marius]

You voted /for/ a legal document designed to supercede your nation's sovereignty that you found highly ambiguous and unclear?

[Johnny the Bull]

You voted /for/ a legal document designed to supercede your nation's sovereignty that you found highly ambiguous and unclear?

Depends how much you value a European superstate.

[Anguirel]

First, I think he overestimates the number of people in America who are closer to the social democratic European view.

Many is a vague term. If he'd said majority, or even plurality or significant minority, I'd agree, but I'd say a good eighth of the population in the US would rather have something closer to the European model than our own (especially the current version which is much tighter on freedoms, more militaristic, big business friendly, and religious). Not all the way there, mind you, but if you were to meld them, somehow, they'd like the melded version to be at least 51% Social Democrat (and I hope I have the right party for this -- they're the ones who do all the work for socialized healthcare, secularization, worker protection, and... uh... that other not-really-capitalist stuff, right? Maybe I should go look it up sometime...). Just 20 million and that's still "many Americans".

[Toryu]

You voted /for/ a legal document designed to supercede your nation's sovereignty that you found highly ambiguous and unclear?

Nigga what?! Supercede sovereignty? Please elaborate on that one.

[Toryu]

"I don't ever again expect to see the French or the Germans pointing their guns in the same direction we're pointing ours. They're petty, they're envious and in their guts they hate us."

I agree, and I've been saying this for years now. Ask Toryu. although I'd never say never-sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows.

Hey, are you saying I'm petty, envious, and in my guts hate you?

[DV8]

You voted /for/ a legal document designed to supercede your nation's sovereignty that you found highly ambiguous and unclear?

No, I voted for the reorganisation of the European Union and restating old treaties in what is known now as the "Constitutional Treaty." See, the "constitution" isn't really a constitution, but one politician jokingly referred to it, and before everyone knew it, that's what it was called. The document as it exists today is not the subject of the referendum.

[Serious Paul]

Hey, are you saying I'm petty, envious, and in my guts hate you?

:

[Marius]

Nigga what?! Supercede sovereignty? Please elaborate on that one.

Or so the AFP tells me, yeah. (And now the actual document too, yeah.) Union laws have primacy over national laws. That's pretty much it. Then, in a few narrow spheres of international action, member states are now prohibited from forming independent laws or policies. In many more, much broader areas of internal and international policy, member states are permitted to exercise sovereignty only to the extent that the Union hasn't done so yet.

No, I voted for the reorganisation of the European Union and restating old treaties in what is known now as the "Constitutional Treaty." See, the "constitution" isn't really a constitution, but one politician jokingly referred to it, and before everyone knew it, that's what it was called.

That's also what it says on its title page and what it calls itself throughout the document. But no, I guess you could be right, it might be a treaty with a severe dissociative disorder. In that case, you voted /for/ a totally insane treaty?

The document as it exists today is not the subject of the referendum.

Well bloody hell, then what is the subject of the referendum? Was it voting on a treaty that doesn't exist today?

[DV8]

The document as it exists today is not the subject of the referendum.

Well bloody hell, then what is the subject of the referendum? Was it voting on a treaty that doesn't exist today?

The referendum pertained to whether or not we want a treaty of this magnitude. The document that exists is an early draft.

[Marius]

The document as it exists today is not the subject of the referendum.

Well bloody hell, then what is the subject of the referendum? Was it voting on a treaty that doesn't exist today?

The referendum pertained to whether or not we want a treaty of this magnitude. The document that exists is an early draft.

If by "draft" you mean final completed and signed treaty, awaiting only ratification putting it into effect, then, uh, ok.

[DV8]

Well bloody hell, then what is the subject of the referendum? Was it voting on a treaty that doesn't exist today?

The referendum pertained to whether or not we want a treaty of this magnitude. The document that exists is an early draft.

If by "draft" you mean final completed and signed treaty, awaiting only ratification putting it into effect, then, uh, ok.

The French vote made it a draft.

[Marius]

Yes, I suppose it did.

[3278]

Just to belabor the pointlessness, does the French vote make it "an early draft?"

[Marius]

I'd think so, yes. They won't even begin talking about rescueing or revising the thing until Nov. 2006.

Is it noteworthy that of the countries that have ratified it, only one had a popular referendum (with only 42% turnout)? Or that of the countries that had popular referenda, now 2/3 have soundly rejected?

[3278]

Oh, I believe it's very noteworthy.

Personally, I think Europe simply isn't ready for the sort of super-national confederation that I suspect will likely become the future of governmental systems. It might seem as if the socialist mindset - which places responsibilities at the level most far removed from the individual - would lend itself to support of a super-national government, and I would agree that's likely true. However, Europe has not shed enough of her old nationalism to allow a move which would, inevitably, lesson the division of cultures in the region. Not every nation is as vehement about it as France, but the sentiment exists widely, despite a reasonable and understandable rejection or caution of nationalism mostly caused by the events of the past half-century.

Of course, individuals have many other reasons, but I'm not speaking of individuals, but rather of trends and patterns on a historical and global scale, and Europe simply isn't far enough along that scale to be capable of universally embracing something which runs so counter to the influences of the past. They are, however, further along the scale than anyone else at the moment, they shouldn't feel too bad. That's providing, naturally, that the future of government is in the collective, and not the individual, mode of responsibility distribution; I might very well be wrong about that. It's not very likely, though; I'm seldom wrong about anything.

[DV8]

While I think you're very often wrong about a whole lot of things, your comments do mirror the popular sentiment here in Europe.