Hanson-Europeans Butting In

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
OPINIONJOURNAL

CAMPAIGN 2004

Europe's Choice
Why the American election is seen as a referendum on the continent's future.


BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Sunday, August 8, 2004 12:01 a.m.

"Kerry must win, you see, so we can be friends again." You hear things like this these days in Europe. George Bush's campaign staffers may tease about John Kerry's French connections, his Europhile mannerisms, and his unguarded boasts that the Continent is pulling for him, but such caricatures are closer to the truth than even the Republican operatives suspect.

Europeans casually talk of the Kerry rapprochement to come, as if in their magnanimity they have given us one last chance to return to sobriety. They exude a bold confidence, even to strangers, that the brightened prospects of the Democratic challenger are proof that America has seen the European light and therefore, of course, Mr. Kerry must win. Never has Europe been so emotionally involved in an American election--and never to their peril have they read us so wrong.

Michael Moore is offered up as proof of grassroots American unhappiness with the president. Was he not perched in an exalted seat at the Democratic convention? Completely lost on Europeans is that Mr. Moore, for all his notoriety, is still a cult figure. An icon among the Moveon.org crowd, and when used gingerly a good weapon of the Democratic Party, he is still otherwise a polarizing figure disliked by the majority of America that votes. As the list of cinematic distortions in his recent film grows, "Fahrenheit 9/11" increasingly will be relegated to the genre of crass propaganda once mastered by the far more gifted Leni Riefenstahl in her similarly slanted "political documentary," "Triumph of Will."

More serious Europeans point out that the anger of our seasoned ex-diplomats and retired generals is further evidence that Americans are tired of Mr. Bush's unilateralism. Of course, out-of-work diplomats are keen to find fault with their successors. And few American administrations have proved as controversial in refashioning American foreign policy as have the blunt-speaking George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. All are fat targets after radically altering America's prior relationships with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Libya, dividing Europe into Old and New, questioning the role of American troops in NATO and in South Korea, and parting with Yasser Arafat. Yet all these sensationalized developments were long overdue, and precisely for that reason they may well become institutionalized, so much so that even a Kerry victory can do little to overturn them.

Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry is a big hit in Europe, as if a native of colonial Mozambique has unique insight into the pathologies of the American experience. But as the summer wears on, fairly or unfairly, this force-multiplier of her husband's Europeanism is beginning to grate like some character out of a Henry James novel--reflecting our own unease with the predictable mixture of acquired fortune, haute culture and aristocratic disdain. The private luxury jet and save-the-planet environmentalism go down in Fresno about as well as "Shove it" buttresses her sermon on the need for a new "civility." Ms. Kerry's gratuitous use of "un-American," both on "60 Minutes" and again to a persistent journalist, reflects a complete ignorance of the considerable baggage that such a cheap epithet carries in the collective American memory.

Despite the lectures, Americans find Europe itself a vast sea of contradictions. The French write and talk obsessively about Anglo-American adventurism in Iraq. Yet with an easy two-day drive an American can visit more than 50,000 British and American dead soldiers, resting at places like Hamm, St. Avold, Epinal, Omaha Beach, Ranville and Bayeux. The irony seems lost that the recently much-maligned Anglo-Saxon muscularity that ended Baathist Iraq is the logical successor to the same unapologetic partnership of Churchill and Roosevelt that once interfered in continental Europe to save it from its own indigenous fascism.

In this regard, blinkered European Union utopianism is thematic in its post-1960s World War II museums. Guides, videos and brochures remonstrate, often in self-righteous indignation, about the follies of war, violence and racism. Only at American and British cemeteries, in contrast, does one receive a different view of what the SS Panzers were really up to--and how they were stopped. Words like courage, sacrifice and duty are chiseled on the architraves of granite pavilions. Like mute stone totems, they look out over thousands of white crosses. In this context, the well-meaning, but entirely impotent European efforts at curbing genocide in the Sudan or the nuclearization of Iran make one doubt the vaunted new efficacy of "soft power"--triangulation always predicated on the threat of real American hard force in the shadows.

Europeans talk of the Kerrys' environmentalism in tired references to the American reluctance to sign the Kyoto accords, a flawed treaty that no Democratic president could defend and few Democratic senators would ratify. In the meantime, one sees an occasional train rush alongside the Rhine spewing from its lavatories raw human waste onto the tracks. Mammoth nuclear plants dot the French countryside. Restaurants are so smoke-filled that the pâté takes on the flavor of Gauloise, and tipsy afternoon drivers emerge from upscale restaurants with three or four glasses of wine under their belts to swerve on antiquated roads. Tourists take cheap shots that they fear being cooked alive in an August Paris flat or being buried in rubble at de Gaulle airport.

McDonald's is prominent among the stylish cafés of Luxembourg. Dubbed-in "Friends" and "Jerry Springer" blare from hotel televisions. Bare navels, Ray-Bans, pierced everything, and baggy jeans suggest a studied effort to emulate the look of Venice Beach. For a bewildered American, the key in squaring the anti-American rhetoric with the Valley Girl reality is simply to understand Western Europeans as elite Americans. Their upscale leisured culture is not much different from Malibu, Austin and Dupont Circle, that likewise excuse their crass submission to popular American tastes through the de rigueur slurs about the "corporations," "Bush-Cheney," and "Halliburton." Perhaps this notion that Europe itself has become a cultural appendage of the U.S. explains why it views our upcoming election as a referendum on its own future as well.

None of these paradoxes is new. Yet the European meddling in this particular presidential election is. Less talked about is that the image of an allied Europe has been shattered here at home. And all the retired NATO brass and Council on Foreign Relations grandees are finding it hard to put the pieces back together again. The American public now wants to be told exactly why thousands in their undermanned military are stationed in a continent larger and richer than our own without conventional enemies on its borders. If Europeans think it is nonsensical to connect Iraq with our own post 9/11 security, then Americans believe it is far more absurd to envision an American-led NATO patrolling their skies and roads 15 years after a nearby hostile empire collapsed--especially when NATO turns out to be as isolationist as America is expected to be engaged abroad.

The election of John Kerry would probably not reverse either the current policy in Iraq or the ongoing reappraisal of our foreign relations. The European fixation with the upcoming election and rabid hatred of George Bush instead may backfire here at home; indeed, even now European animus acerbates our own growing unease with what we read and see abroad. As never before the Europeans have unabashedly called for the defeat of an incumbent American president in the next election.

They better hope that George Bush loses.


Mr. Hanson, a military historian, is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Pretty much the situation as she sits. I don't believe I've ever read a more lucid appraisal of the driving forces behind the American left, or of the "Euro-view" of that which is uniquely American. It makes me damned proud to be a conservative. Fantastic post, Kathianne!
 
musicman said:
Pretty much the situation as she sits. I don't believe I've ever read a more lucid appraisal of the driving forces behind the American left, or of the "Euro-view" of that which is uniquely American. It makes me damned proud to be a conservative. Fantastic post, Kathianne!

Thanks! It's Hanson though who is fantastic. A true classical scholar.
 
gop_jeff said:
What ever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? Someone should tell Europe to go :finger: off!

I love when you get mad! :laugh:
 
gop_jeff said:
What ever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? Someone should tell Europe to go :finger: off!

The monroe doctrine might be respected if we had not decided to get involved in their hemisphere so much.
 
tpahl said:
The monroe doctrine might be respected if we had not decided to get involved in their hemisphere so much.

I agree. We should have stayed out of WWII and the post WWII efforts to rebuild Europe. (Note: just a bit sarcastic here).

Seems to me that the US has failed to enforce the Monroe Doctrine many times when it COULD have, therefore, it doesn't get much respect at all.
 
CSM said:
I agree. We should have stayed out of WWII and the post WWII efforts to rebuild Europe. (Note: just a bit sarcastic here).

Seems to me that the US has failed to enforce the Monroe Doctrine many times when it COULD have, therefore, it doesn't get much respect at all.

We got involved in Europes affairs before WWII. and we were done rebuilding decades ago. yet how many troops do we have in how many nations in europe? I remember just in this last decade we were over there fighting to change the internal structure of a few countries that had NOTHING to do with us.

travis
 
CSM said:
Yes we were. However, I dont think the Monroe Doctrine was/is a basis for isolationism.

You'll find that Badnarik via tpahl finds every excuse for isolationism.
 
CSM said:
Yes we were. However, I dont think the Monroe Doctrine was/is a basis for isolationism.

It was not a basis for it because in fact it actually advocated US intervention in the western hemisphere. But at the time the reasoning for it was that the western hemisphere should try to isolate itself from the old ways of europe where countries were continually being drawn into wars with each other through entangling alliances. Washington had already made clear that we should stay out of europe. Monroe was making the second point that was not already as understood by the rest of the US and more importantly europe which was that europe better stay out of our affairs as well.

Although the connection between us staying out of europes affairs and europe staying out of our affairs was not made explicitly, it is a fairly easy one to draw. In fact children are taught a variant of this simple concept at young age. 'don't bother the bees and they will not bother you' 'don't bother the dog and the dog will not bite you' 'don't hit your freind and he will not hit you.'

So when the US gets heavily involved in europes affairs, it makes it very difficult to try and keep europe out of ours.

Travis
 
CSM said:
Actually, the Monroe Doctrine did state that the US would stay out of European affairs:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm

As to whether we really did or not is open to debate, I suppose.

and the Monroe Doctrine, which set a precedent, was given birth after the War of 1812, our 'funny little war' http://www.radiodirectory.com/usstoreproducts0306806533.html

with Britain. Today we are no longer subservient to Britain, France or any other power, though perhaps we wish differently, just not the case.

We cannot ignore today, any place on Earth that may cause us harm.
 
Kathianne said:
and the Monroe Doctrine, which set a precedent, was given birth after the War of 1812, our 'funny little war' http://www.radiodirectory.com/usstoreproducts0306806533.html

with Britain. Today we are no longer subservient to Britain, France or any other power, though perhaps we wish differently, just not the case.

We cannot ignore today, any place on Earth that may cause us harm.

The word 'may' is the one I have a problem with. ANYWHERE may cause us harm. just as ANYONE may come and kill you. That does not give us the right to attack any nation, just as it does not give us the right to shoot any person walking down the street.

In place of may we should use 'is likely to cause us harm even when we do no harm to them'.

it is not likely that we will be attacked by any islamic extremeists IF we would stop sending troops to their holy lands, sending aid to their enemies, and embargoeing their people.

In other words we need to apply the monroe doctrine to the middle east countries as we had the european ones.
 
tpahl said:
The word 'may' is the one I have a problem with. ANYWHERE may cause us harm. just as ANYONE may come and kill you. That does not give us the right to attack any nation, just as it does not give us the right to shoot any person walking down the street.

In place of may we should use 'is likely to cause us harm even when we do no harm to them'.

it is not likely that we will be attacked by any islamic extremeists IF we would stop sending troops to their holy lands, sending aid to their enemies, and embargoeing their people.

In other words we need to apply the monroe doctrine to the middle east countries as we had the european ones.

As an isolationist, that is a reasonable stand to take. Not all of us feel that way, post 9/11.
 
tpahl said:
.....it is not likely that we will be attacked by any islamic extremeists IF we would stop sending troops to their holy lands, sending aid to their enemies, and embargoeing their people.

In other words we need to apply the monroe doctrine to the middle east countries as we had the european ones.

I am disagreement with this. We are likely to be attacked by Islamic extremeists no matter what. Unfortunately, the United States cannot afford to withdraw from international affairs. Nor can any other civilized nation. Like it or not, we are intertwined because of economics, politics, and so forth (and yes, even oil). Let's face it, if the Middle East had no market for its oil, they would not have much else to export.

The argument that the US does not have vital interests in Middle Eastern oil doesn't hold water with me. Until a viable alternative is made available that is commercially less expensive, then (in my opinion) our dependence on oil will force the US to protect it's interests; that could mean ensuring a steady supply of the stuff to our shores even by military might if need be.
 
tpahl said:
The word 'may' is the one I have a problem with. ANYWHERE may cause us harm. just as ANYONE may come and kill you. That does not give us the right to attack any nation, just as it does not give us the right to shoot any person walking down the street.

In place of may we should use 'is likely to cause us harm even when we do no harm to them'.

it is not likely that we will be attacked by any islamic extremeists IF we would stop sending troops to their holy lands, sending aid to their enemies, and embargoeing their people.

In other words we need to apply the monroe doctrine to the middle east countries as we had the european ones.

you are being delusional here.
 
CSM said:
I am disagreement with this. We are likely to be attacked by Islamic extremeists no matter what. Unfortunately, the United States cannot afford to withdraw from international affairs. Nor can any other civilized nation. Like it or not, we are intertwined because of economics, politics, and so forth (and yes, even oil). Let's face it, if the Middle East had no market for its oil, they would not have much else to export.

Why do you think they want to attack us?

The argument that the US does not have vital interests in Middle Eastern oil doesn't hold water with me. Until a viable alternative is made available that is commercially less expensive, then (in my opinion) our dependence on oil will force the US to protect it's interests; that could mean ensuring a steady supply of the stuff to our shores even by military might if need be.

I did not say they do not have vital interests there. They have oil and we need oil. But that does not mean that we have to be involved in their politics and wars.

Travis
 
Kathianne said:
you are being delusional here.

No. I am just listenting to the specific reasons the terrorists have given for their acts over and over again, looked at the world around me to see if these reasons make sense, looked at other reasons given, looked to see if they seem reasonable, and concluded that it is much more probably they hate us for our troops in their holy lands, embargoes on their people, and support of their enemies, than the other list of reasons given.

I have never heard one terrorists yet say they hate us for our freedom. I have not seen one suicide bomber attack us because of our western culture. To claim those are the reasons just does not seem to jive with the world around me. You may disagree, but it is not dilusional.

Also...

2- Flaming - It's understood and expected that flaming (An insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network) will occur when discussing politics and other sensitive issues. I ask once again to have common sense prevail. This is not an invitation to flame someone for no reason because the board tolerates the occassional outburst. Members that are here solely to be disruptive will be removed. Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occassional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not.

Moderators are not allowed to flame members, therefore members cannot flame the moderators. I expect the moderators to be held to a different standard than the rest of the board, and I also expect they will get the respect they deserve in return. Flaming of a moderator will result in a warning. On the 3rd warning your account will be banned.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top