By common consent Europe is more liberal or progressive or left-wing than the United States. Europeans say it, Americans say it, and hardly anyone objects.
I object. By only the narrowest of criteria is Europe more liberal or progressive or left-wing than the United States. To my (future) sympathizers I present a defense of this position; may it serve you well in pub/bar/cafe debates with unconvinced Euro-philes. A disclaimer: I don’t mean to say the United States is more progressive or that it is “better” or that progressive is good. I merely suggest that we should not so blindly accept the argument that Europe is more progressive.
The most common “Europe is more progressive than America” argument goes something like this: “In Europe we have social welfare, secular government, gay marriage, and a humble foreign policy. In America you have guns, religion, capitalism, and imperialism. Thus we are more progressive.”
Why should we be suspicious of this argument? Consider these points/rhetorical questions:
[1] What does “progressive” or “liberal” or “left-wing” even mean? In the 1930s “progressive” in the United States meant prohibition (of alcohol), moralist legislation, and economic empowerment of the poor. Today it means something very different. “Liberal” implies free-market in Europe and the rest of the world but in the United States it refers to those of the tax and spend persuasion. And “left-wing” includes groups as diverse as social democrats, communists, and anarchists. Who knows what a “left-wing” policy agenda would look like? Thus our standard for evaluating this claim (of European progressiveness, or whatever) is already flawed. We hardly know what to evaluate.
[2] Europe isn’t Holland. Not every European is smoking marijuana during an interracial gay interfaith marriage at a vegan restaurant (nor are the Dutch, I suspect…). Italy has Silvio Berlusconi (who owns practically the entire Italian media), France has Nicolas Sarkozy, and Eastern Europe remains a bastion of social conservatism. Plus let’s not forget the rise of the far right in France (Jean Marie Le Pen), Austria (Jorg Haider), Belgium (Filip Dewinter), etc.
[3] The United States is remarkably liberal, even on domestic policies frequently ridiculed by Europeans. Consider gay marriage, which is legal in four European countries: Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, and Spain. Not a very impressive record for the supposedly more tolerant Europeans, especially given that gay marriage is legal in California and Massachusetts (and thus must be recognized in the other 48 states as required by the Constitution).
[4] Immigration. This is the big one, and Europe is miserably regressive on this issue. Consider the immigrant ghetto riots in Paris three years ago, or the burning of immigrant businesses and homes in El Ejido, Spain in 2000, or the total marginalization of Germany’s Turkish minority. Europeans love to joke about American rural rednecks who think Barack Obama is a Muslim or won’t vote for him because he’s black, but there’s absolutely zero chance of any European country electing the interracial son of a Kenyan immigrant to be President (or Prime Minister or Chancellor or whatever). Whereas the United States has made remarkable progress towards integrating its immigrant minorities (although terrible problems persist, such as the Minutemen or institutional racism or the North Carolina GOP), Europe has done pathetically little. Consider the racist chants during Spanish soccer games (Atlético Madrid, La Selección, etc.) compared against the non-issue of minority or immigrant athletes in the United States. The EU, celebrated as an example of transnational cooperation, appears more fortress than post-modern paradise when viewed from North Africa or the Middle East or elsewhere.
[5] Parts of neo-conservative foreign policy are actually quite liberal, progressive, and left-wing. Whereas Europeans celebrate very conservative notions of international governance (the inviolability of national sovereignty, for example), American neo-cons have (disastrously) embraced a more cosmopolitan perspective on international relations. Consider that in recent years Europeans have preferred a foreign policy of diplomacy and maintaining the balance of power (at least outside Europe) while Americans have preferred democratization and radical systemic change. Which seems more liberal/progressive/left-wing to you? Remember the Comintern as an example of aggressive left-wing foreign policy.
There’s undoubtedly more to say, but I’ll stop here. Please comment; this is such a popular and controversial topic of conversation and definitely merits a closer look.
Just two short weeks ago Sarah Palin was the darling of media and public alike. Commentators gushed about her common man appeal, right-wingers fainted over her abortion and gay marriage positions (not to mention her looks), and pollsters reported a meteoric rise for the McCain-Palin ticket. And the Democrats were confused, unsure whether to attack Palin on lack of experience (and risk highlighting Obama’s own short resume) or extremism (and risk alienating religious voters) or to just ignore her and focus on McCain (but miss the opportunity to attack a vulnerable candidate).
Fortunately for all of us, Palin’s resume (or pitiful lacks thereof) speaks for itself. Check out Palin’s one-on-one with Katie Couric from earlier this week:
The Palin “bounce”, once celebrated by the Republicans, has fallen back to earth. But the fall may not stop at the pre-Palin status quo of a slight Obama lead. Instead, Palin now threatens to drag down McCain even further than before. Consider a September 26 opinion from Kathleen Parker, a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, who decries the “Palin problem”, which could be roughly defined as an inability to say anything intelligent about any of the serious problems facing our nation.
To be honest, it was only a matter of time before conservatives soured on Palin. She’s totally out of her element, particularly in foreign and economic policy, and there’s nothing that conservatives hate more than a risky neophyte (consider their dislike for Obama). But Obama’s now surging in the polls, and at least in part because Sarah Palin’s been exposed.
In early August, Russian tanks rolled into Georgia and IR students the world over started celebrating the return of their field of study to mainstream relevance. Then, I thought for about two seconds and realized that was a very twisted version of wishful thinking. First of all, none of us should wish the return of the Cold War, it would be miserable (doing missle drills during the middle of your work day would be very annoying). Second and more importantly, it just is not realistic. Reason being–and I will use a quickly tiring cliche here–is that the world is too interconnected.
I cite as my principle evidence what has happened to the Russian economy post-Georgian invasion. In this recent article, FT reporters list a number of disheartening statistics if you are a Russian investor. The main statistic is that the Russian stock market has plunged 45% since May. While this slide predates the invasion of Georgia, its hard to say that the Russian economic slide and bellicose Russian behavior are not related. It may also be true that the correlation is the reverse of what you would expect, that the economic slide precipitated the Russian invasion because politicians wanted to show national strength amidst economic weakness. I highly doubt that to be the case, but if that was their strategy, then they only accomplished further weakening their economy and putting themselves further into a corner politically. Regardless of what they may have thought, sabre-rattling is not an effective course of action anymore.
The difference between now and the pre-1989 world is economic inter-connectedness. The USSR could behave the way it did because it actually had control of a sphere of influence both politically and economically. In those days, its satellite countries traded within the Soviet bloc and their currencies were not traded on open markets. Now, even the Ruble is traded on an open market and former Soviet countries of all shapes and sizes (Russia included) are joining the free trade regime. Ukraine and Georgia may not be members of NATO but they are members of the WTO. Then there are the EU members from the former Soviet bloc like Poland. Russian wealth is also largely dependent on Europe buying Russian oil. In short, these economic ties preclude any swift turn backwards in time or allegiance to the Cold War.
What does this have to do with the impending presidential election? Well, from the Republican side we have a man with a wealth of foreign policy knowledge and experience who professes to be an economic novice. On the Democratic side we have a very intelligent yet untested man who seems to understand the way the world works. Because of his inexperience (yes, I said it but I don’t mean it like that) it is hard to say if Mr. Obama would be capable of handling foreign policy’s complexities but he has given every indication that he is intelligent enough to understand it fully. However, I view Mr. McCain’s foreign policy record as detrimental. He has foreign policy experience but his views were cemented during a truly bygone era when communists were communists and foreign policy entailed blockades and nuclear buildups. Now, the so-called “communists” are better capitalists then we are and blockading just about anyone hurts someone’s pockets that we do not want it to. The fact is that economics is foreign policy and foreign policy determines the prevailing economics. Having a rudimentary understanding of either, or even claiming that the two are separate, is simply unacceptable.
Republicans have always laid claim to some sort of realism in foreign policy. Meet force with force, they say, because that’s the only way to deal with bullies. Usually Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler is mentioned, as well as John Kennedy’s disastrous meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev the year before the Cuban Missile Crisis. For reference take a look at John Bolton’s June 5 opinion in the LA Times.
The public has bought in to Republican “realism”. John McCain, for example, believes he would make a better commander in chief than Barack Obama and polls exist to show that the public agrees. Democrats, like Obama and John Kerry before him, are easily stereotyped by media pundits as wishy-washy pansies who think we can all just get along.
Nowhere has this depiction of Republicans and Democrats been made more clearly, or unfairly, than in John Bolton’s most recent opinion, again in the LA Times. Bolton not only claims that Barack Obama’s vision of the world is “radical”, “naive”, and “dangerous”, but also that Obama’s so far from the mainstream that he’s “on another planet”.
The crux of Bolton’s argument comes towards the middle of the article in a discussion of the Berlin Wall:
But beyond the incoherence [of Obama's foreign policy], there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.
The distinction Bolton seems to be making is between realism and idealism. But Bolton, perhaps unknowingly, aligns himself with the idealist position. How so? Realism holds that conflict in international relations is owed to either the quest for power or the quest for security. For a realist, then, the Berlin Wall was either the consequence of two states struggling for power (irrespective of ideology), or of a failure of communication that spiraled out of control into the infamous security dilemma (often recognizable as an arms race or, in this case, as the building and militarizing of the Berlin Wall). But Bolton is not a realist.
Bolton’s position is deceptively idealist. He sees the Berlin Wall, and no doubt the Cold War, as a confrontation between two ideologies: communism and liberalism (although Bolton prefers the term freedom, which isn’t associated with effete senators from Massachusetts). He even anthropomorphizes communism, assigning it qualities like “hostility” and perhaps ‘evil’. In Bolton’s vision of the world ideas drive interests, not the other way around.
That said, let’s drop the semantics game and address the more practical implications of Bolton’s so-called “realism”. Should we agree with him that conflict between countries is best described as a titanic collision of competing and intractable ideologies, or might it be more realistic to acknowledge that cooperation is possible on the basis of shared interests? Is the Homo sapiens species really so different in France or Germany or Iraq or Iran that there isn’t any profit in confronting some challenges together? Bolton facetiously claims that Obama’s from another planet, but I’m more inclined to believe that Bolton’s from another planet. His “realism” is a farce; it can’t be realism if it has little or no basis in reality.
First it was Democrat Joe Lieberman endorsing Republican John McCain for President. Then we found out that former GOP Secretary of State Colin Powell is considering voting for Obama in November. Finally, long time Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has even accompanied Obama on his week long campaign visit to the Middle East and Western Europe. Of course this sort of crossing the aisle is nothing new: everyone remembers Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s bizarre appearance as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Republican convention, for example. But what makes this year unique is the persistent speculation that Lieberman might join the McCain ticket or Hagel might join the Obama ticket. Does this make sense for either candidate?
Probably not for McCain. McCain does need a bold pick (Jindal or Palin would do), but picking Lieberman exposes one of his biggest weaknesses: the wavering support of the religious right. Aside from foreign policy, Lieberman’s relatively liberal. If McCain adds a pro-choice semi-Democrat to the ticket, the religious right might very well stay home. Plus Lieberman has alienated so many Democrats with his defeat of Ned Lamont in 2006 and his premature criticism of Obama that it remains to be seen just how many new votes he would carry as a vice-presidential candidate. McCain would probably do better to shore up his base with a more conservative pick, or broaden his appeal with a like-minded moderate Republican.
Hagel makes more sense for the Obama ticket than Lieberman does for the McCain ticket. If Obama picked the Nebraska Republican he might be able to reclaim some of his early bipartisan credentials that were overwhelmed by “most liberal senator in the Senate” accusations. Plus Hagel would add a strong military and foreign policy resume to a ticket mostly bereft of any international experience. And Hagel’s even more popular among Nebraska Democrats than Republicans, at least according to one poll.
Obama with Senator Hagel and General Petraeus in Iraq.
Still, Hagel’s right of center (although in a libertarian sort of way) and would no doubt ruffle a few feathers amongst Obama’s far left coterie (that’s already angry about shifts to the center on Iraq, campaign finance, and trade). My guess is that Hagel lands a Cabinet level position in the Obama administration, most likely Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. But he wouldn’t make a half-bad veep pick either. Obama clearly likes Hagel enough to invite him on his overseas trip and that’s critical in the selection process.
Will Democrats and Republicans share the White House next year? I doubt it, but an Obama-Hagel ticket might make sense. Thoughts?
