Something has been bugging me for a while now, but I never really took the time to write my thoughts down about the subject that’s bugging me. Every day something comes up - news, controversies, etc. - which diverts the attention from the ‘bigger issues.’ Today, however, I decided to spend less time watching and reading the news and, instead, write down my thoughts on what I consider to be Europe’s irrationality.
With ‘Europe’s irrationality’ I mean the habit of Europeans to verbally attack, insult and work against our closest allies and friends. We say that we’re dedicated to democracy and equality, modernity and enlightenment, yet, when a non-European country basically adopts our views, we oppose it whenever we can.
Let me give you three examples of this awkward behavior:
* America: whenever something bad happens in Europe, Europeans comfort themselves by saying that although it’s bad, it’s not as bad as in America. When our economies are performing badly (read: shrinking), we quickly tell ourselves that although it’s bad that millions of individuals lose their job, we should be happy that we’re not living in America, for there people work, but are all incredibly poor nonetheless. Besides, we all know that the American capitalist system can never work.
The reality is, however, that the American system most certainly does work. Unemployment is always significantly higher in Europe than in America, which should tell us something. Besides that, for all the talk about the working poor in America, we seemingly forget that Americans on average have more to spend than we do, and that we have ‘non-working poor’ (as Revel calls it). I’m not sure how it is better to be non-working poor than working poor.
What’s more, America’s system actually allowed it to become the superpower it is today. Without America’s economical system, it wouldn’t be as powerful and as successful a country as it is. Some would most likely favor something that, but they forget that America hasn’t just used its wealth to its own advantage. After World War II, for instance, America used its wealth to help Western Europe rebuild and reinvent itself. Yet, when Europeans snear at Americans for being overly wealthy, they conveniently forget that America has actually always been Europe’s best friend and that without America we wouldn’t enjoy the freedom and wealth we enjoy today. Without America, most Western European countries would most likely have become communist ‘people republics’ meaning that we would have no basic rights and that we would all live in poverty.
The above should be clear to all those who aren’t completely idiotic. Yet, Europeans seldom seem to understand it.
What’s more, Europeans ofter say that America only uses its power to do ‘evil’ things and to establish an ‘empire.’ The funny thing is, of course, that the ones who truly created empires were European powers, not America. We were the ones who went out and colonized the entire world. We were the ones who plundered entire continents to become richer. America, on the other hand, has never (truly) been a colonial power. What’s more, when America invades a country, it only does so with the idea to stay in that country for a short time, after which it pulls out its troops (army bases aside) and doesn’t mingle in the domestic affairs of the ‘targeted’ country. Europeans, on the other hand, weren’t quite so benovolent. When we invaded countries we usually stayed there until we were kicked out, which sometimes meant hundreds of years, sometimes ‘merely’ decades. What’s more, we considered the countries to have become part of our ‘empire’ and decided to completely overthrow the political structures in those countries; we took over businesses, schools, and - yes - government. We brought our own people / experts to the region and ruled over the local population.
But still we talk about the American Empire, and forget that America usually stays only a couple of years in a country - until the war is won - and wants to give the targeted country its independence back ASAP. In other words: if there ever was country that fought wars in a ‘just’ way, it’s America. Yet, we act as if America is evil and intends to dominate the world.
* Israel: Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has adopted a true ‘Europen’ (modern) system. It’s a liberal democracy and a friend of the West. Yet, European newspapers and news networks go after the Jewish nation-state whenever they can. They blame it for the violence committed by Palestians and, basically, argue that if only Israel would be willing to step back and make peace, the Middle East would be a far more stable place.
This opposition to Israel is ironic, not just because Israel is the only true liberal democracy in the ME, it’s doubly ironic because the trouble in the Mideast is for a large part the result of European colonialism. Perhaps, if we wouldn’t have gone in there with our armies in an attempt to dominate the region, the region would be more stable and Islamism wouldn’t be on the rise.
There’s something interesting to say about Islamic extremism and Europe’s hypocrisy: we happily blame Israel (and the US) for the radicalization of many Muslim countries, but seem to forget that the ones who ignited this process is us. Muslims in the Mideast started radicalizing after Europe invaded and colonized their homelands. Suddenly, Muslims felts oppressed and, instead of doing what was in their own interest and the right thing (modernizing), they fell back on a fundamentalist version of their religion.
Yet, we blame Israel.
Furthermore, when we blame Israel for the instability in the Middle East, perhaps we should remember that if it wasn’t for our murderous behavior towards Jews, they wouldn’t have felt the need to create a nation-state of their own. Jews have been persecuted throughout Europe for ages (ironically, Jews were saver and more welcome in the Ottoman Empire than in Europe). In the end, European anti-Semitism resulted in the holocaust. Now, before people say that solely the Nazis were to blame for the holocaust, I’d like to point out that anti-Semitism was alive and well in Europe before the Nazis did anything. In the Netherlands, for instance, Jews were highly unpopular. They were even hated by many. Same goes for France, and Poland. When the Nazis occupied Poland and started killing the Jewish population, they were celebrated for their ‘work’ by Christian (Catholic) Poles.
Without Europe’s hatred towards Jews, chances are that Jews wouldn’t have considered it necessary to create a state of their own. For them, it was a choice between life and death.
But… Europe conveniently ignores all the above and happily supports regimes that are the opposite of what we say we support and think is right.
*Turkey: Turkey is the only stable liberal Democratic, and secular (and not mentioned above because it’s not really a middle eastern country as such; it’s partially European, partially Asian) Muslim country that supports Israel and looks at Europe for inspiration. Yet, when Turkey wanted to join the EU, Europe only offered a ‘well… we’ll see about that’ and tried to make it as difficult as possible for Turkey to join and treated this ally in a tremendously disrespectful manner.
Europe could actually positively influence Muslim countries if we would work together with Turkey. Yet, we have decided to oppose it whenever we can, and provide shelter for PKK supporters and terrorists. What’s more, whenever Turkey implements a new reform - as we demand of her - we don’t say ‘well done,’ we only says ‘well, you’re still not good enough.’
At the same time, however, we seldom to never complain about rogue regimes like the ones in Iran and Saudi Arabia. We do, however, insult the only Muslim country that wants to work together with us and that wants to become more like us.
And that… that sums up the irrationality of Europe. Instead of working with countries that are our friends and that want to work with us, we choose to attack them, insult them and, instead, choose to talk friendly to countries that are the opposite of them. We blame our allies for everything wrong in the world, but forget that many of the problems of today, aren’t caused by them but by us. Furthermore, we turn our friends into enemies, only because we believe that they’re not perfect (which is handy, since talking about the errors of other countries allows us to ignore our own sins and weaknesses), where we completely forget that, although they’re not perfect, they are ‘good.’ With our enemies, we do the opposite.
It’s time for a radical change in Europe’s culture and foreign policy. We must get our priorities right.
More at Jules Crittenden’s place.
Mark Steyn… sometimes hits the nail on the head, sometimes he just doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about. For instance about Europe’s military power. He does know, I hope, that the Dutch army is adapting to the changing circumstances and even to lead large-scale missions, no?



I don’t know if it’s “irrationality” as much as simple liberalism…people who are more liberal tend to be less pro-American and pro-Israel, and more pro-Palestinian and anti-war.
American did engage in some empire building back around the turn of the century in places like the Philippines, though not as much as the Europeans.
Thank you, Michael for the good words.
Now when Bush regime will end and thankfully the democrats will be elected back to power( not the Benito authoritarian double Bush in the warmongering department-Giuliani)), your and my great idea of America will return.
Great essay, Michael. It’s a mystery, for sure. Somehow, the most ardently nonjudgmental democrat (small D) ends up embracing authoritarian, fundamentlist regimes and criticizing his allies. There’s a pretzel logic there that’s always escaped me- it’s a strange amalgamation of relativism, multiculturalism, and identification with the little guy with the corresponding hatred of the big guy.
Tom- I’m unsure it can be chalked up to liberalism. For example, the major Dem candidates strongly support Israel, and often criticize Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and Iran. That being said, however, this isn’t a new phenomena- far leftists (and some liberals) in the US and Europe have harbored fond feelings for authoritarian regimes such as the USSR and Cuba. It puzzled me in the early 70s- and it still does.
BTW, I like the excursion away from daily news stories, toward a more general philosophical topic. Do you believe, as a practical matter, that the aforementioned European attitudes will change much? Or is it just a fond, unattainable wish?
kreiz, let me throw in a couple of provocative thoughts:
1. is it possible that there could be just the usual human fallacy:
The envy and resentment towards more powerful , more rich?-USA
2. can the latent anti-semitism of many Europeans play a big role in attitudes towards Israel ?
Two questions I think are quite spot-on Sashal. Also, socialism as an ideology plays a role.
Kreiz: the situation can definitely improve, but it’ll never become as you and I both hope it will.
And thanks for the compliment: it really wasn’t an essay, however, I wrote it in quite a rambling way. More ‘writing my thoughts down’ than ‘writing an essay.’
#1 is certainly possible, though I suspect that the typical European leftist doesn’t spend much time resenting or envying us. I do think that many on the far left have a personal anti-authoritarian impulse that translates itself to hating certain powerful things (the US, Halliburton, etc) but not others (the USSR, for example). If one’s moral yardstick is always “rooting for the little guy”, logical fallacies will almost certianly ensue.
#2- I haven’t a clue.
It felt more like an essay than a post- maybe because it doesn’t chase down a daily news item. Whatever label is appropriate, it’s very solid work.
The Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq… and what about the dictators we’ve propped up in South America?
I blame it for the violence commited by the Israelis. But I suppose the Palestinians deserved the bulldozers and tanks bearing down on them?
Funny then that the U.S. and European powers did not give them land in Europe or the U.S. Oh well, that would have been to logical.
I don’t really feel strongly about this issue one way or the other, but it seems to me that Turkey can be more European without joining the EU, if that’s what it really wants. It’s almost like you’re creating this false dichotomy where either Turkey joins the EU or it becomes like Saudi Arabia…
As for your point about needing a shift in priorities, you’re right, but I doubt we’d agree on where they need to be shifted
Thank you Michael.
Well, yes, it will turn more towards the Middle East then towards Europe - obviously. Besides, it’s also about how you treat allied nations.
As for the rest of your comment… lets just say that I consider it to be a good example of my post - it aren’t just Europeans who think like I described in my post
Kreiz: again thank you, Interested… glad you enjoyed reading it.
kreiz.
i grew up in Eastern Europe.
I certainly can attest that the people you call “far-left”, or I would call socialists and communists can not fulfill their dream without authoritarian regime in power. History can attest to it. Nowhere the true full blown socialism functions in the open democratic societies . It only was possible when all the democratic institution were reduced to non-entity.
As far as a “rooting for a little guy”- I always do, but only in sports and only if it is not my own team-huge Red Sox and NE Patriots fan, though I will admit as a teenager I was fascinated by the USA hockey team win against mighty USSR in the Olympics.
Oh, and I know a lot about anti-semitism. Paradox there lies in my opinion with consideration of how many Jews were early Bolsheviks and the anti-semitism of a matured Communist government.
Is this just a very common feature of many Europeans regardless of philosophy, or the communism carries the hints of anti-semitism on by itself. I can not tell for sure.
You’ve got that right.
Go Patriots!
Edited by MvdG: I already fixed it. I think that if you register at this site, you’re able to edit your own comments. Perhaps a thought for you and our other regular commenters.
You can register here? Oh. My bad.
The socialist impulse makes some sense- especially in the Cold War period- but it hardly explains socialist identification with ME nations.
Yes, way down. Scroll completely down.
You have to create a free wordpress account. When you do, you can ‘log-in.’ When you log in, you can leave comments and edit them (I think).
Can someone try it to be sure?
I see it. WordPress doesn’t like me- never has. But I’ll try.
I’m like logged in and stuff. Heh heh.
Does it work Chris?
Excellent piece here Michael, I enjoyed reading it very much.
You are spot on with your analysis and your observations. Irrationality is hard to explain because it is often based in hatred and anger which clouds rationality, therefore the opinions become those of “I feel” instead of “I think”.
When one cannot rationally think then those opinions become no more than hot air.
Thanks for showing me this.
I don’t see the ability to edit your own comment.
Susan: glad you enjoyed it.
Exactly. And its time for Europeans to realize this, for if we don’t we might lose most of our friends.
yeah, I’ve been registered - but you do not get an option to edit comments. It’s probably some plugin but I have not explored it at all.
Test
Nope, no editing option. I guess now I’ll finally have to find a decent picture of myself to post.
Michael, I loved the essay. But I think “irrational” may be the wrong word here. Consider that it is safest (and therefore rational) to only criticize those that are your friends and supporters. Especially if they are basically sensible people like yourselves. After all, if you criticize others (Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) they might cut off your oil and gas supplies, launch terrorist attacks, and otherwise make your lives worse. Criticize America or Israel, or even Turkey, and they will likely do no more than make rude remarks.
So the actions of Europeans may be called a number of things, including cowardly and morally lacking, not to mention inaccurate on the substance of the criticism. But “irrational”? Not so much.
No, it’s irrational because:
- the arguments they use to criticize their allies are contradictory
- they only criticize those who actually do good, not those who do bad
- they alienate strategiclly important allies
That’s irrational alright.
The very premise on which it’s all based is irrational.
Truly; try to argue with these people. They’ll say stuff like: “America is trying to police the world. That’s evil, they should deal with their own domestic problems first.”
Then, when America does that they’ll say: “America is isolationist and forsaking its duty! Egotistical bastards!”
OK, their arguments may be irrational. But my point was that Europeans are not actually being irrational when they criticize America, Israel, and Turkey (whether accurately or not), rather than criticizing countries which would actually be likely to do them harm in response to criticism. After all, neither America nor Israel nor Turkey are likely to launch economic attacks, or send assassins or other covert physical attackers, against Europe. No matter how obnoxious Europe is.
You may not like it. I don’t much like it either. But to behave in the interests of ones own security cannot really be called “irrational.”
I liked the post as well, but I’d like to offer an observation from the perspective of an ex-patriot American in Europe: The wealth of America came from a ’system’ that doesn’t really exist today. The post war (II) economy that defined much of the latter 20th century has mutated into something else altogether. I certainly hope Europe avoids rather emulates the direction of American progress. Further, I think Europe’s wealth is different than American wealth, and not just in comparing euros to dollars. I’ll need to give this more thought, but I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to merely compare GDPs. America and Europe both evolved from the same roots in many respects, but they truely are very different in subtle ways.
And thanks for the good word regarding Israel. They’re a long way from faultless, but I can’t imagine having their neighbors. I would have given up long ago.
Resisting the urge for empire is hard. Countries want to be ‘great’, and America is not faultless although its colonialism tends to be more economic and less political. How many dozens of interventions has America promulgated in the caribean?
I wonder if it’s possible to be help in the world without interferring in the world.
WJ: the problem is that they’re turning allies into enemies, or at least into something that means they’re not our allies anymore.
That’ll hurt.
Tremendously.
You can only insult the one giving you money and help for so long.
Of course it’s not and thanks for your thoughts. They’re valuable.
Strawman much?
It’s hardly a strawman, Chris.
Let us take three recent examples. America was accused of unilateralism when it came to Iraq (the multinational Coalition being ignored, of course). Yet when the US insisted on six-nation talks with North Korea, it was criticized for not negotiating wit North Korea all by itself. And when the US left the negotiations with Iran to the EU-3, it was accused of being neglectful and uninvolved.
That there scarecrow is breathing, my man.
Michael, I think your essay is well-done. For what it’s worth, it seems that the underlying factor behind all of these reactions (or at least an important underlying factor) is guilt.
I think you’re wrong… And I think most missed it. The reason is: socialism.
Bravo!
If the US fully embraced socialism, most of Europe would embrace the US- is that right? Same with Israel. Sounds extraordinarily simple. Would it happen that way?
I think so, yes.
Really? I’ll have to give the socialism angle more thought. How about extending the thought a little bit more? It’s an interesting concept.
It seems to me that much of Europe has sort of a bred-in guilt that prevents it from moving past its sins of the past and encourages it to overreact in order to feel morally stable. It’s a guilt that freezes it in place and keeps it from actually taking real and beneficial action lest it make some misstep that, no matter how well-intentioned, would drive those guilt feeling back the surface again. It seems that the entire continent is unable to say, “Yes, we have messed up quite a bit, but we’re earnestly trying to get it right and we’d like to help”. Instead, there is a sort of petulant defensiveness, as if America were scolding Europe with its actions. In truth, America doesn’t care very much at all for what Europe has done but for what it can do in the future.
I disagree. We don’t even talk about our errors. We talk about America’s. We don’t try to do ‘good’ to correct our mistakes, we try to do ‘good’ because America sucks.
Seriously: it’s not about feeling guilty because of our past sins. Our own sins don’t necessarily have anything to do with it. It’s socialism: the idea that America is evil because it represents liberalism and capitalism.
admin: Personal attacks are not welcome. You even got the STTNG reference wrong too.
Michael, you’re right that socialism is a big part of the reason for European antipathy towards the US, but it runs far deeper than that. They resented the US back before socialism was invented. Indeed, its invention was a response to long held anti-US/anti-capitalist sentiment in Europe.
I think Europe just suffers from a bad case of penis envy. They’re the guy in the shower bothered by the the new guy next to them who’s far better equipped. It’s doubly difficult for Europe because they used to be the big guy and no longer are.
America started out rejecting much of what Europe and England stood for. Hundreds of years ago they were belittled as an experiment that would fail. That they still are today, despite all evidence to the contrary, points to European insecurity problems that run so deep they can’t face reality.
Add to that the ultimate indignation, that the US and allies had to slap Europe back to common sense a couple of times in the 20th century, then sit on them like a teacher in the playground looking after a bunch of unruly kids, and we have the final humiliation.
There is something deeply sick at the root of European thinking that has been there for a very long time. Is collectivism just tribalism by another name? It certainly seems like petty tribal jealousy is a constant theme through their history. The Jews were marked for the crime of being successful. The US is disliked for precisely the same thing. In that sense, socialism is a symptom not the cause.
Chris;
1/ The Americans liberated the Philippines and stayed there as a forward operating base to ensure no further Japanese aggression, much to the delight of the Philippines, then ultimately left when asked. They poured billions into the place that left more than a few of them feeling sorry to see them go. Try to find an anti-American older generation Phillipino. They’re a rare bird.
2/ You say, “Funny then that the U.S. and European powers did not give them” (Jews) “land in Europe or the U.S. Oh well, that would have been to logical.” Read some European history my good man. Start with the Inquisition and Russian pograms. That’ll keep you busy for a while. Logical to give the Jews a chunk of Europe? You can’t be serious!
Good essay. Thanks. Europeans need more than a bucket of cold water dumped on their collective heads to divert attention from their Gauloise and absinthe and America-bashing. I suspect one of Iran’s first nukes will not hit the USA, but western Europe, because they have no fortitude of giving a proportional response
LOVE your banner!
Good for you
Bravo on calling it as it is!
Thank you Doug and Darvish.
Is their irrationality a result of their socialism? Socialism punishes success and rewards failure, the US is very successful while the third world certainly isn’t.
I’m sure that jealousy and stupidity are also a big part of it.
Jealousy: in France, at least, it is. In the Netherlands less. Stupidity: if that were only so. The most fervent anti-Americans are… members of the (academical) elite.
In reality, Jews weren’t any more successful than Christian Europeans. So that isn’t a strong argument.
Jealousy: not as such. If America would’ve been socialist, and this successful, it wouldn’t have been a problem.
I also wonder if their fear of the US is because they project their own values and tendencies onto the Americans.
Every time the Europeans had a chance to colonise other countries they did so, so they expect the US to do the same despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I worked overseas in the CIS with Canadians, American and Eurpoeans from several countries, the Americans and Canadians treated the locals much more like equals than the Euros.
Many of the North Americans would not eat a steak in the kitchen because the European cooks insisted on cooking the steaks individually for the westerners while giving the locals one out of a tub of them that had been sitting there and could be anything from medium rare to well done.
There was no comparison on how the Euros saw the class difference.
So perhaps the Euros simply project their predjudices and anti-Semetism and imperialism onto the Americans.
The Russians also treated the locals like shit, it was the North Americans and not the Europeans who kept telling the local guys to fight back because they were as good as anyone.
Europe does not like to address its own sins head-on, but most of the things that it accuses America of (imperialism, colonialism etc) are things that they themselves did in the past, often in the post brutal manner imaginable (I’m thinking of the Belgians in the Congo, the French in Algeria and the Portugese everywhere except Macao, among others). Clearly America was played the colonial game, at least a bit, but America was already preparing its few colonial possessions for independence prior to WW II, unlike the Europeans who only gave up their colonies due to the loss of power and prestige flowing from WWII (and even then, usually with a bloody and futile struggle).
Where’s the contradiction, Tom?
A lot of the other commenters nailed it: envy, and disguised guilt. Michael, I think you’re missing the point about guilt. Psychologically, if one is guilty but can’t own up to it, one buries those feelings but projects them onto others. So it’s not about Europeans ever talking about feeling guilty over their past-their guilty feelings are projected onto America.
wj: Right, I wouldn’t call that part of it ‘irrational’. Appeasement would be a good term though. Come to think of it though, that’s irrational too (see Churchill’s quote about the crocodile)
Hmm, I find it interesting to see that y’all think it’s guilt. I guess that’s logical from an American perspective, but from my European perspective I have to say that I truly never - and I mean never - get the impression that it’s about guilt. Europeans freely admit that their countries did some horrible things in the past actually.
No, I truly think it’s about socialism (not liberalism people). Notice that it’s especially the elite that hates America, not the average man in the street as such. The elite is greatly influenced by socialists ideals.
In fact, I’d say that they blame ‘liberalism’ (true liberalism Tom, not what americans mean with it, which should be called ‘progressivism’ not liberalism) for the past mistakes. In other words, they’d say that we ‘broke’ with our horrendous past of uberliberalism, but that Americans continue on this path of death and destruction caused by liberalism and capitalism.
Couldn’t the embrace of socialism also be about guilt?
LOL what’s it with you guys and guilt?
No, not as such. Simply ideology.
I’m pretty sure Tom was referring to American liberalism. And that shares certain things with socialism even if it’s not as extreme; for one thing, the ‘rooting for the little guy’, which seems to spill forth into global politics and foreign policy when people criticize emergent liberal democracies more than they criticize dictatorships. They seem to reflexively assign ‘big guy’ status to not only the US, but anyone that would be in our sphere.
I’ve been thinking about this recently (came up in a recent thread about Israel)- it seems to me that American liberals and the European left wing have this tendency to think it’s logical to hold certain countries to higher standards because they are the ‘big guys’. That might be, as wj suggests, because they’re more worried about the reaction of the ‘little guys’ (I think that’s part of it) but also, there seems to be almost an indulgent parent aspect to it. If you use the analogy of parents not expecting much of their unruly little kids, it becomes apparent why this approach is faulty because the kids will never ‘learn’ if you don’t hold them to certain standards of behavior.
And all of that leaves aside your other point which is apt, Michael- the way they’re treating their friends and allies is insulting and can have consequences for those relationships too.
Michael: socialism is an ideology which celebrates the little guy; capitalism and conservatism celebrate the ability for the little guy to become a big guy. When capitalism is completely unfettered from other principles, it leads to excess of ‘big guys’ exerting power and influence over ‘little guys’. So, having realized the excesses of their imperialism, you don’t think that Europes turn toward socialism might be a reaction to guilt? Really, you don’t see that?
I understand why you think that Christine, and why it sounds logical to you, but I don’t think it’s correct. I think that we’ve turned to socialism because the academical elite (note that I don’t mean entrepreneurs, etc. - they don’t share these socialist ideas) believes that they have every right to reshape society as they see fit and because the ‘little guy’ was envious of the ‘big guy’ for having - in his eyes - too much.
The ‘big guys’ don’t feel guilty in general.
’standing up for the little guy’: I’m 100% sure that’s not it. It’s simply that their main enemy isn’t Islamic radicalism, it’s true liberalism.
I encourage you to read Revel’s “Anti-Americanism.” Very convincing although… for me, it simply connected the dodds.
Let me add this: I think that guilt may play a role, but that you’re exaggerating its influence.
When one reads the opinions of Americans, they often blame guilt and jealousy. Although both play a role (jealousy doesn’t in the Netherlands, nor in Belgium, but it does in France) there’s more to it than that.
The ‘more’ is ideology. They consider America to be the ‘real’ enemy, because America is truly liberal.
Hmmm…
Isn’t it true though, since the academic elites are the ones who’ve pushed socialism, that the ‘big guys’ are the ones who are pushing the ideology which seeks to prevent the ‘big guy’ from becoming too powerful- that this would indicate some guilt over how their group had misused the power when they’ve had it?
I agree that the ‘little guys’ in society who embrace socialism are not acting out of guilt- they’re just buying into the idea that wealthy powerful elites are to blame for their condition and so they respond to the socialist ideology as one which would better their condition. But for those at the top of the heap who have thrust this ideology onto the scene, I’d say that guilt is definitely a motivator. They wish to be powerful but pretend their doing it in a more wholesome way. They still get to project their power but they can pretend their doing it in a way that benefits people rather than enslaving them (even though that is of course untrue, as those beholden to socialist governments are actually more enslaved than those who are in poor conditions in more capitalist countries).
But Christine: they’re intelligent people. They’re proven time and again that they’re not right. That it doesn’t help.
And no, the academical elite aren’t the big guys. They know they’re not. The big guys are the ones with big money.
If you act out of guilt you say, ahwell, doesn’t work, lets try something else to ‘make up.’ But that’s not what they do.
Anti-Americanism has become an ideology.
I wonder why it is that Americans have a tendency to explain it like they do. Makes me wonder whether it’s simply hard for them to grasp that elite Europeans - who are so similar to them - simply truly despise everything America stands for.
“Guilt” and “jealousy” means that you can act like “we understand why you do like that, but we don’t think you’re right. But we understand. Your heart is in the right place.”
The problem is: their heart is not in the right place.
They don’t actually care about the poor. Nor about poor countries. When confronted with evidence that globalization helps those countries, they still oppose it. Why, because today’s globalization is liberal globalization. They want it to be socialist globalization.
But Europe used to be truly liberal and was also imperialistic. When they saw the negative results of that, they then ‘threw out baby with bathwater’- attributing the evils of imperialism to liberalism itself instead of to the excesses that it wrought. So now, America does liberalism more correctly and Europe projects its guilty feelings about how they misused their power onto America (seeing every instance of America’s power as an excess just like theirs were a century or two ago). There seems to be a fear that if Europeans could see America acting powerfully but responsibly, then Europeans would also want to return to its liberal roots and those that chose to turn 180 degrees toward socialism can’t have that.
Well, no you get a bit closer to the truth, but still you refuse to get at the heart of it. It’s not that ‘America proves that liberalism works.’ They’re determined to believe that America proves that it does not work.
Don’t you understand? To them, American liberalism is a failure. No matter what Americans say about it.
Stop the projection-charge Christine. They’re not ‘projecting’ anything.
Yes, I agree, they’re determined to prove that America’s liberalism doesn’t work, and to keep blinders on to the failings of their own systems.
If you think I’m wrong, I guess I’d have to hear arguments about what else is the motivation here. I assume that the anti-Americanism is in large part scapegoatism too- but it only makes sense that that part came later. What was the initial impetus to turn toward socialism, if not a retreat from Europe’s past?
And of course I know that academic elites are not the same as moneyed elites. However, the academic elites are still a power structure, as they influence thought of students and society. For reasons I admit I don’t completely understand, it seems that European corporations and other wealth bases are more aligned with the academic elites in ideology. My guess is that it’s what is currently starting to happen here: the corporations have power, but they also have to follow where the ideology of the people goes (the corporate world increasingly supporting the Democratic party as they see the inevitable shift here would be an example of that trend- and I assume that happened decades ago in Europe and hasn’t reversed to date).
Pff Christine, that question requires an answer the length of an essay. To keep it short: we would have to look at the history and development of socialism. For some guilt played a part, but for most it was simply an opportunity to recreate the world - utopia. Also: many were poor people, who didn’t feel guilt, but were jealous.
Let me get back to guilt:
- If guilt was the predominant motivator, European elites would support Israel unconditionally. Whatever it is we did to the Arabs is nothing compared to what we allowed to happen to the Jews. Yet, they hate Israel.
- If guilt was the motivator, we would support Turkey and welcome it with open arms into the EU. The academical elite know that we badly mistreated Turkey, going back to the 1800s, in which we talked among ourselves about how we could divide the Ottoman Empire. And then we acted. Which resulted in massive wars, which cost millions of Turks their lives. In the end, they only barely were capable of holding on to the center of their lands.
OK, I see where you’re coming from with the selectivity of the guilt. Obviously you’re correct- there isn’t evidence of a desire for reparation for the guilt if it does exist.
But I guess what I’m referring to (and I still maintain that projection is part of this) is that there’s guilt that is unresolved. Sorry for the two bit psychoanalysis, but this is how I see it: the Europeans who hold the potential power reins appear fearful that they can’t handle power in a responsible way. They ceded their international security to the US and NATO, they conduct their internal affairs in such a way as to keep power more dispersed (or at least to appear that way, even though in reality it never works that way).
What I mean by projection is that any and all displays of American power are seen as brutal, thuggish behavior. What is that if not projecting the guilt of past European behavior?
The problem is: they actually believe that if only they could set the agenda, the world would have peace. It’s the liberal solutions American propagates they oppose.
But why is that?
Because liberalism is per definition bad, even when it’s not.
And especially when it’s executed by Americans, who only care about money, even when they don’t.
Don’t you see? It’s irrational. Guilt has something rational to it; at least, you’ll follow a rational type of thinking / arguments. They don’t.
That’s why they’re irrational. That’s also why ‘guilt’ and ‘jealousy’ doesn’t explain it all.
Both have something to do with it, but it’s more than that.
Damn, I wish you’d visit Europe and talk to Europeans. Seriously; I think you would learn a lot about it / us.
Guilt has less to do with it than ideology.
I just don’t get why you consider guilt to be so rational. It has rational components, but it’s mainly emotional (and tends to be most irrational when its unresolved)- and all I’m really saying is that I think for some Europeans, it explains WHY they accept the premise that classic liberalism is bad by definition.
You may be right that I lack your European perspective, but my opinion is partly formed by my observation of American liberals (who, as you and I know but some readers may not- are the counterparts to the European left, not to European classical liberals or liberal conservatives like yourself). I see this phenomenon of guilt in the American leftist elite too- they’re known as the limousine liberals. They seem to need to assuage guilt over their own success by making a public show of embracing distributive economic policies. I guess I’m just assuming that the same dynamic tends to run through most people who embrace socialistic or left leaning ideology.
I sent you an e-mail
OK, got it and responded (should I have read it with the punctuation filter? LOL)
One more thing- you seem concerned that a belief that anti-Americanism is motivated by guilt and jealousy would lead us to miss the more insidious motivations for it. Is that it? If so, I feel perfectly capable of seeing all of the reasons- including that for some Europeans, scapegoating America is convenient for those in power to avoid scrutiny of their own failings, and including that for the masses, it’s like an opiate. I guess that seems more of Europe’s problem than ours though- they’ll either wake up and realize it or not and it doesn’t much matter whether Americans are forgiving of it or not.
Hmmm so many points and so little time…I would tend to agree incidentally that its not so much a European as a liberal attitude that is portrayed…however there are quite a few sweeping generalisations here…
1) The American system works, an assertion which all depends on which end of the social scale you sit on…if you cant even get medicare yet are ill who in their right mind would say America’s system is better than the social state model of Europe
2) Israel is far from a perfectly formed liberal democracy with Arab-Israelis being effective second-class citizens…neither is it particularly well secularised with ultra-orthodox Jewish parties playing an intergral role in the political process…saying well if we hadnt murdered the Jews then maybe Israel wouldnt be like this is a guilt-trip in the form of political argument, as is the point about European empires
3) Turkey, much like this other bloggers dubious friend, is also far from how it is portrayed, apart from dubious treatment meated out to national minorities it is far from the liberal democratic ideal (woe betide a Turkish historian who tries to get to grips with Armeanian genocide).
In other words, maybe Europe isnt perfect or entirely rational, but it is more rational than a country which declares war on terrorism and then blunders around the world inflaming passions and feeding terrorist ideals with every mistaken foreign policy step it takes….
Oef.
“dubious friends.” Have you ever been to Turkey?
Thought so.
What does it matter if ive been to Turkey or not?? Have you ever been a Turkish historian trying to speak out about less than honourable moments in your countries history only to find yourself clapped in irons??
Thought not.
Even the US Congress cant speak out without Turkey’s government mooching and threatening dire consequences…At least most of known Europe, including Germany, ackowledges and is allowed to ackowledge the Holocaust happened…
Ow God there we go “the holocaust.”
Yeah, save for that Jews didn’t kill tens of thousands of innocent Christian Germans in, say, 1925 because they wanted to create a Jewish Nation-state in the east of Germany.
And, of course, save for the orders given by the ottoman leaders not to kill the relocated Armenians. Even warning people that they will be punished if they harm them.
And yes, many of those responsible were punished by the Ottomans themselves.
Dear God, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Anyway - this thread isn’t going to drift off topic. Leave another comment like that and it will be deleted.
Sashal (November 16, 2007 at 6:07 pm) wrote “…Paradox there lies in my opinion with consideration of how many Jews were early Bolsheviks…”
Of course, they were all secular Jews, yes? Atheists and agnostics? I have noticed the same thing with secularists of Christian background–and for those who retain some semblance of Christian belief it tends to manifest itself as The First Church of Jesus Christ Commissar.
Mr. van der Galiën: There have been some interesting books analyzing European anti-Americanism. Just a few titles I’ve run across recently (haven’t read all of them): Anti-Americanism by Jean-Francois Revel, Understanding Anti-Americanism by Paul Hollander, The French War Against America, by Harlow Giles Unger, Our Oldest Enemy, by John Miller and Mark Molesky, The French Betrayal of America by Kenneth R. Timmerman.
“They resented the US back before socialism was invented.”
Yes, funny how they went from reactionary pre-democratic fear and hatred of freedom to reactionary socialist fear and hatred of freedom.
LOL, quite right.
Thanks. I’ve read Revel’s work, I’ll also look up the other ones you mentioned.
It is not ‘off topic’ because the point at issue is whether the attitude of European Union to Turkey is justified and it is my contention that it is….and that far from being irrational it is in fact rational and right…Turkey as a nation state is a fundemental abuser of human rights, how else can you explain that basic rights of freedom of speech are denied to any Turkish historian who chronicle the Aremeanian events, which ‘liberal and democratic state’ do you know that deines the right to free speech amoung other things? (incidentally I noticed you havent answered this point yet).
In any case I penned a more detailed reply…http://swampland.wordpress.com/
Actually, Turkey isn’t such a fundamental abuser of human rights at all. It has many problems, for sure, but it’s doing something about that. Many reforms have passed under Erdogan’s leadership. Turkey is making a lot of progress. In that region of the world, she’s our biggest ally and the only one that truly takes human rights seriously.
As with regards to the so-called genocide: Turkey is right to say that what happened isn’t genocide. And if you’re referring to Akcam: he’s not a historian. In fact he was a communist reactionary.
Having said that, even idiots should be allowed to give their opinions, no matter how historically incorrect those views may be.
Sadly, Europe has quite a bit to learn in this regard as well. After all, Europe itself limits the freedom of speech considerably.
Whatever your personal view of the man that doesnt detract from the fact that he is allowed his point of view and that it is neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘democratic’ for him to be taken to court for holding a point of view….as you acknowledge. Also, the strides taken by Turkey are not to be overempahsised since it has done little to address the Kurdish question, for example
Yes there are limitations in place in Europe on freedom of speech and here I suspect there would be some commen ground having said that I dont think Europe is exactly alone in having foreign policy double standards, i think its a problem that bedevills the west in general, especially America and Britain which fete Saudi autocrats but codemn others…i dont think this makes a foreign policy irrational
Whatever your personal view of the man that doesnt detract from the fact that he is allowed his point of view and that it is neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘democratic’ for him to be taken to court for holding a point of view….as you acknowledge. Also, the strides taken by Turkey are not to be overempahsised since it has done little to address the Kurdish question, for example…thats why its right to keep turkey out until its achived something approaching what would be considered a norm for European countries…nobody ever said Turkey would be kept out indefinatly
Yes there are limitations in place in Europe on freedom of speech and here I suspect there would be some commen ground having said that I dont think Europe is exactly alone in having foreign policy double standards, i think its a problem that bedevills the west in general, especially America and Britain which fete Saudi autocrats but codemn others…i dont think this makes a foreign policy irrational
That’s not true. Gül and Erdogan are actually talking about the Kurdish question quite openly, for Turkish standards at least. Both are greatly liked by many Turks.
That doesn’t mean that they’re not any problems left - there are - but Turkey is addressing those issues increasingly more. Bitching for not doing it exactly like we want her to do isn’t helpful. Instead of complaining about what she still does wrong, perhaps we should reward her for doing things right. At least every now and then.
With regards to that, the EU issued a report recently indeed praising Turkey for its reforms / changes.
There’s nothing foreign policy about limiting the freedom of speech. That’s not foreign but domestic
Help me out with that bit of history plz.
Check some of our earlier posts on it, in2.
Start here and here.
[...] you for the recognition (however undeserved this recognition may be). The post of ours that won is The Irrationality of Europe. I’d encourage those who find this blog because of the Watcher’s Council’s [...]
[...] winning non-Council post was The Van Der Galiën Gazette’s “The Irrationality of Europe”. Second place honors went to Cracked.com’s “The Ultimate [...]
[...] the non-Council side, first place went to The Van Der Galiën Gazette for its post, The Irrationality of Europe, which examines how so many of the overarching political positions in Europe are at odds with the [...]
[...] nominations process. Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the [...]
[...] “The Irrationality of Europe” by The Van Der Galiën Gazette 2. “The Ultimate War Simulation Game” by Cracked.com 3. “Al Dura Affair: France [...]
“the problem is that they’re turning allies into enemies, or at least into something that means they’re not our allies anymore”
I have to agree. The vitriol coming out of Europe aimed at the US has reshaped my opinion. I’m a former US Marine. I would not enlist to save Europe from being consumed [well. maybe Britain]
And I think its past time Europe shouldered the burden for their own self-defense.