The Times of London’s U.S. editor, Gerard Baker, examines the “European Question” in his “Bush’s European Itinerary,” (the Weekly Standard, November 29):
Though public reaction in Europe to President Bush’s reelection this month was predictably outraged, grief-stricken, and generally dumbfounded, it wasn’t hard to detect behind the mask of uncomprehending disapproval a smug half-smile of self-satisfaction. Deep down, European political and media elites must have been delighted that their instinctual prejudices about the world had been confirmed in such spectacular fashion.
The ignorant voters of America had, by a decisive majority, chosen to reject the enlightened entreaties of the sophisticated leaders of Europe and reelect that halfwit cowboy bent on wiping out humanity in pursuit of American power and Middle Eastern oil.
What more proof did clever, rationalist Europeans need of the effortless superiority of their culture, political institutions, and way of life over a nation of Bible-reading, foreigner-hating, fundamentalist rednecks than this stunning election result?
[...] Colin Powell’s announced departure from the State Department merely confirmed the master European narrative. The last urbane, multilateralist man of peace in the Bush administration had been cast aside to better ensure that the bigoted, war-loving instincts of the American people could now be given free, full-throated expression.
The left and right in much of Europe agreed. America could no longer be seen as a civilized country: It had become an alien, medieval
sort of place. Europe should put even more effort now into building its own secularist, enlightened nirvana as a beacon of hope to the world.President Jacques Chirac of France, on a state visit to London last week, seized on President Bush’s reelection to return to his theme of the need for Europe to unite around a vision (his vision) of an alternative to American power and influence in the world.
This followed his decision to snub Ayad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, at a European summit meeting last month where he chose instead to caucus with the German and Spanish leaders in an effort to begin building the European alternative to the United States.
It is a shame that Europeans were paying so much attention to interpreting developments on this side of the Atlantic because they seem to have missed a remarkable series of potentially more significant events in their own backyard, events that say much more about the real divergence between Europe and America, events that point in a disturbing, dark direction for the peoples of the old continent.
Precisely. And I’d add that the sight of enlightened, secular, “progressive” protesters in irridescent face paint picketing a McDonald’s in Lyon for “crimes against culturally-authentic cuisine” would be laughable if it didn’t serve to throw into stark relief what European protesters are not railing against—namely, the stifling of speech, the demise of representative democracy, the resurgence of overt, “academic” anti-semitism, and the rising threat of Islamic extremism exascerbated by insane immigration policies, and by a culture of political correctness so nurtured by unelected bureaucrats that were George Orwell still alive, he’d surely kill himself in protest.
Read the rest of Baker’s article here.
Comment by noisy ghost on 12/1 @ 1:01 am #
I’m so tired of arguing with these intellectually superior elites.
Fine. I’m a war mongering bigot. I wish we could bomb more people.
Ahhhh, that feels much better.
Comment by McGehee on 12/1 @ 1:15 am #
So many targets, so few bombs.
Comment by Ignatius Byrd on 12/1 @ 1:22 am #
At least our liberals have the decency to make themselves irrelevant without doing too much damage to the country.
What will it take for Europe to get a worldview that in some way reflects the actual world?
The best hope, of course, is EU expansion–the more Eastern European nations get brought into the fold the more irrelevant France and Germany become.
Old Europe indeed.
Comment by Silicon Valley Jim on 12/1 @ 1:39 am #
What will it take for Europe to get a worldview that in some way reflects the actual world?
It took two airplanes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field in Pennsylvania to keep it from hitting a major government building in Washington (I think) to wake us up. I’d say that that’s about right for the Euros. Something like five thousand dead in one incident. I’m not advocating it, just saying that that’s probably what it would take.
Paradoxically, the better we are at exterminating terrorists, the less likely we are to get support from the Euros, because it’s less likely that they’ll suffer such an incident.
Comment by David Andersen on 12/1 @ 5:27 am #
To me, this says everything about what Chirac and other like-minded foo-foos don’t understand about America. We aren’t united around some cockeyed vision of power and influence in the world. Sure, it’s nice to be powerful and influential, but only in order to secure what most of us really care about – being free. Furthermore, we are powerful and influential precisely because we care about being free. If the rest of the world was as enamored with freedom, we wouldn’t need to be so powerful and we’d save a hell of a lot of money. Ingrates.
Chirac sounds just like the Democrats in the last campaign cycle: “We don’t know what we stand for, we just stand against Bush(America).â€Â
Hey Jacques, send us all a postcard from Irrelevance when you get a chance.
Comment by McGehee on 12/1 @ 5:40 am #
Hey Jacques, send us all a postcard from Irrelevance when you get a chance.
Jeff, I tell you, your commenters come up with some of the greatest turns of phrase. Wish I was one of them.
Well, I’m one of the commenters, but you know what I mean.
Comment by Tim Worstall on 12/1 @ 1:03 pm #
One of those Ceterum censeo moments I think. Time to dig out that old graphic Jeff.
Comment by Percy Dovetonsils on 12/1 @ 3:50 pm #
We aren’t united around some cockeyed vision of power and influence in the world. Sure, it’s nice to be powerful and influential, but only in order to secure what most of us really care about – being free.
Bingo. We really don’t give a flying fig about what happens to Europe, except for Britain (and that’s probbly because the Guardian isn’t well-known over here). If it wasn’t for 9/11, we’d be ignoring Europe other than as a possible vacation site.
Plus, wasn’t the big bitch about Bush before 9/11 was that he wasn’t interested in anything beyond the U.S. borders? And now he’s Emperor Maximus Texanicus, intent on ruling the world? C’mon, Euroweenies, make up your mind – he’s one or the other.
Comment by BLT in CO on 12/1 @ 5:38 pm #
What a great thread. Especially liked Silicon Valley Jim’s point about the US exterminating terrorists.
In the past we stepped in and protected Europe from military aggression not once, but twice in the past century. We (more or less) singlehandedly won the Cold War – no more ‘duck and cover’ lessons for grade schoolers like I had to endure as a child. We (more or less) singlehandedly defeated polio, smallpox, and have our sights set on several other communicable diseases. We (more or less) singlehandedly spread enough democracy and free trade across the planet that everyone from Timbuktu to Times Square has materially benefited.
And how much credit do we get from the world for these startling and sometimes selfless acts? Acts in which everyone on the planet is better off for?
Now we’re fighting (more or less) singlehandedly to rid the world of a mindset that glorifies death and revels in the lack of human freedom.
If we’re unsuccessful, we’ll be pilloried for the remainder of history. If we succeed, and we will, it’ll be forgotten by most of the rest of humanity, just like everything else we’ve done. But no matter – we’re not in it for thanks or goodwill. We’re in it because it’s the right thing to do, for us and for the world. Your welcome, world.
Comment by Rob on 12/2 @ 3:29 pm #
About as much as the British Empire got – not much at all.
I guess I typify the kind of ambivalence Europe has towards America – respect and admiration for the commitment to freedom, reservations about the means used to achieve it, perhaps borne from Britain’s own experience of trying to model the rest of the world in our own image.
Most people in Europe would be much happier with American power if we could only see some kind of consistent rationale for its use. If America says “we reserve the right to invade whoever we choose, whenever we choose, on whatever grounds we deem applicable” then the rest of the world can only see that as a potential threat, because it’s so open-ended. If America says “this is the deal: military action will occur if and only if certain circumstances are met” then, being able to predict American actions, we’d be much more comfortable with them.
The problem with Bush is the perception in Europe of a trigger-happy individual, doubtless a “good” man in a moral sense, but lacking in his abilities to explain his actions consistently – if, indeed, there is a genuine consistent plan. Rather, Bush seems to prefer arbitrary decisions, with no accepted method for deciding when military action is the answer or not. I think this is what Kerry was trying to talk about with his silly “global test” phrase, a very poor representation of the argument for international rule of law.
Europeans believe that, in keeping with the way things have generally been done since WWII, international problems should be resolved in accordance with set laws. It doesn’t really matter what the laws are, just that everyone can see them and thus make accurate predictions about future events. Bush, with his unilateralist and arbitrary foreign policy, upsets that idea. If he had no choice in doing so, this would be more understandable. What I can’t understand is why he hasn’t pushed for UN reform, including a clear statement on terrorism, signing everyone up to the war on terror. He could have had the whole of Europe on his side if he had wanted it, but he didn’t and now Europe doesn’t want anything to do with him. From a position sat between the two extremes, it’s all rather sad and pathetic tbh.
Comment by McGehee on 12/2 @ 4:35 pm #
The problem with Bush is the perception in Europe of a trigger-happy individual…
We here in America tend to regard perceptions as being more likely a problem for the perceptor, not necessarily the perceptee.
Comment by Rob on 12/3 @ 4:45 am #
Not if those perceptions are justified by actions.
As I said, I’m ambivalent on the issue, and see both sides as wrong, for differing reasons and to differing extents.
I think Bush could have played his hand far better – and it was a very strong hand, after 9/11. Europe was ready to express solidarity with the US, and a common cause for the defence of Western democracy could have been made, but it would have required spelling out a much clearer definition of the war on terror and defining the limits of the war as a means of justifying military action. By opting for an unlimited war, Bush has made it very difficult for Europeans to gauge what the US might do next, something that causes considerable worries.
The split in Europe is between those who want to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and those who don’t. Whether it’s Bush’s fault for not eliminating the uncertainty, or Europe’s fault for not trusting him, is a matter I’m not really able to judge.
Comment by BLT in CO on 12/3 @ 6:58 pm #
Rob, to address what I see as your overall point, I agree that Bush should have done a better job of making the case for war. Personally I support the war, mainly because I see the need to establish some sort of working democracy and freedom in that region so that it ceases being a breeding ground for extremist thought via oppression and hopelessness. (“draining the swamp” metaphores come to mind.)
I also agree with your assertion about what the British Empire brought to the world historically and how that too has been forgotten. I was a little uncomfortable with my rabid US-centric statements above, but wanted to make a point, so left them alone.
But back to the main point, while I wish there was more Bush could have done more to retain the fleeting “goodwill” of the world, post 9/11, I’m also cognizant that other factors and analysis which we’re not privy to may have argued against delay. Everyone from Vladimir Putin to Bill Clinton was assured that Saddam had WMDs which threatened peace in the M.E. So whether these WMDs never really existed, were moved to Syria, or remain hidden, maybe Bush was advised that waiting was worth the price of being seen as a “unilateralist”.
In any case, thanks for the well-reasoned and thoughtful response.