hzl2

Posts Tagged ‘united states’

The fallacy of a more liberal (or progressive or left-wing) Europe

In International on October 18, 2008 at 12:45 pm

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.

China’s gold medal diplomacy

In Politics on July 21, 2008 at 1:42 am

Apparently China thinks that the gold medal tally at next month’s Beijing Olympics is more than a commentary on athletic prowess. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Chinese are not only optimistic about winning more gold medals than the United States, but also that they see the tally as a reflection of China’s growing economy and a potential boon to its international prestige.

To this end, China has poured money into its Olympic development programs. Its not-so-secret plans include a strong emphasis on rowing events, which could yield as many as fourteen gold medals in Beijing. Last month’s New York Times profiled former Soviet rowing coach Igor Grinko, who has taken over China’s rowing team with disciplinary zeal.

What are we to make of this Chinese quest for gold? Mark Leonard at the European Council on Foreign Relations has come out with a new book, What Does China Think?, which details a Chinese obsession with what he calls “comprehensive national power” (or CNP). Included in the CNP formula are traditional measures of power such as GDP or military expenditure, but also soft/cultural power (or in Chinese ruan quanli). Viewed from this perspective, China’s gold medal tally is as much a matter of good diplomacy as it is a subject of national pride. If China sits atop the medal chart come August 24, its particular way of doing things may inch closer to a broad-based international appeal. China may increasingly be able to get other to want what it wants.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. China’s certainly not guaranteed to win the most gold medals despite home field advantage, nor are the games likely to go off without a hitch or three (pollution and human rights concerns abound). And gold medals alone aren’t that significant. But this conversation is only indicative of a broader trend: the popularization of the “China dream” as a consequence of China’s incredibly successful economic development.

Thoughts?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine