Bush and Europe: moving apart?

[fable]

I've been hearing a lot of news reports and reading a fair amount of coverage from the European press (both liberal and conservative) over the last few months regarding the traditional close ties between the US and Europe being severed by Dubyah's administration. Europe has repeatedly complained about the US arbitrarily scrapping signed treaties, bowing out of those under discussion, or even working to see the defeat of treaties it once favored. European heads-of-state who were solicited to join the "War on Terrorism" are now claiming that they haven't been consulted about Iraq, and are simply being told why they should agree to US policy. European concerns about the Palestinians have been ignored by the US administration, and for the sake of this year's elections, the US has placed high tarriffs on European steel and Canadian timber. Trade sanctions are currently being formulated.

The BBC did a panel discussion earlier this evening with three relatively distinguished experts on US-European affairs, one of whom was a high-ranking official in the Clinton administration. Reactions to the problem were diverse. An Italian historian of note believed that they were watching an unprecedented shift away from Europe. (Unprecedented to him, perhaps. The US closed in on itself during the 1920s, as well.) The Clinton administration official said nothing was changing, and that the Bush team was merely do the same kind of adjustments that every new administration does after entering the White House. A former British diplomat now affiliated with a Washington thinktank said that Bush had many ideologues on his team who believed in a kind of New Right unilaterlism, one that stressed that the US was economically superior to the rest of the world, and therefore all US ideas concerning government, economy, religion, etc, were superior to anything being tried elsewhere.

Which of these people do you feel were right--if any? Or do you hold to another position? Why are the US and Europe moving apart, and what can be done to reverse the situation?

[HighLordDave]

I think that we must also factor in protectinism into the equation. Remember that Big Business is one of the Republican Party's (and especially Dubya's) core constituencies; not only did they help get him elected, but many of his advisors come from that arena. As a result, their mindset is to protect US industries from foreign markets, including Europe. Here in West Virginia, there is a big bruhaha about US vs. foreign steel and how other countries dump an inferior product on the American market. Even though WV has only five electoral votes, he still panders to the United Steel Workers of America because he needs each and every vote he can get for his party in November and for himself in 2004. I'm sure many of the other industries in the United States have a similar claim on Dubya's "allegience".

I think his fundamentalist Christian mindet also has something to do with it. It seems to me, over several years of observation, that the ultra-conservative elements within this country are incapable of compromise. In my opinion it is because they are so convinced that they alone are right that they cannot stand to come down from their high perch and make a deal with the opposition. The NRA has this mindset, as does the Right to Life faction. Dubya has none of Reagan's charisma, nor his father's moderation, so he is going off and doing whatever the hell he wants, the rest of the world be damned. Conservatives love it, but I think in the end it will spell his doom.

As the US economy goes, so goes the rest of the world. That's what Dubya and his number-crunchers will have you believe. And they're correct. What they fail to understand is how the world economy goes, so goes the United States. It's not just the world economy that is tied into our own, but we are an integral part of it. If we fail to consider the global ramifications of things like withdrawing from the ABM Treaty or ultra-protectionist tarriffs, we are only spelling our own doom. Fortunately, unless Dubya does something miraculous with the economy, or starts a war in July 2004 (which I wouldn't put past him, by the way), I think he'll lose his job in a couple of years.

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave I think his fundamentalist Christian mindet also has something to do with it.

I believe this has a lot to do with it. As M&M said in one thread, the "right" in Europe is the "left" in the US.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Weasel I believe this has a lot to do with it. As M&M said in one thread, the "right" in Europe is the "left" in the US.

The right in Europe is pretty far to the right. It's approximately where the conservatives were in the US before the "New Right" appeared about 20 years ago, the latter being the loony extreme American rightwing, fleshed out by the far-right Christian sects and their political machine. I once had the pleasure to witness one of these self-righteous, New Right Congressmen idealogues utter a put down of former Senator Barry Goldwater at a political forum. (The latter was extremely conservative in the old sense of the term, and ran against Johnson back in the 60's.) Goldwater just looked at the simpering zealot, then proceeded to methodically tear every platform the Congressman held to shreds with detail, facts and humor; and then proceeded to do the same with the faux-history that the Congressman was spouting about American founding fathers favoring a mixed Church and State. The divide between old and new conservatism is pretty broad in the US, and if it gets much broader, I might expect some of the older conservatives to jump ship and ally with moderate Republicans and Democrats in 2004. Interesting times lie ahead.

[EMINEM]

"Ultra-protectionist"
"Fundamentalist Christian mindset"
"Ultra-Conservative"
"Lunatic extreme right-wing"
"Self-righteous"
"Far-right Christian sect"
"Political machine"

Wow! All in just three posts! I wanted to write a detailed response, 'cuz I DO think Americans and Europeans are drifting apart when it comes to social values, but I'd rather watch this kind of liberal polemic on Crossfire.

[C Elegans]

Certainly Europe and the US is drifting apart, something I find both worrying and sad. Anti-american feelings seems to be increasing in Europe, and it seems anti- European feelings are increasing in the US.

Intitially, the Bush administration was been heavily critisised by many Europeans because of the clear unwillingness to participate in important international issues. The US refusad to sign the Kyoto protocol although the board of American scientists Bush appointed came to the same conclusion as the international committee that Bush previously mistrusted. The US refused to sign the small arms and the anti-landmines treaty. The US also refused to participate in an international agreement to make AIDS-medicine cheaper for 3rd world countries.
All of this within a few months, and with the same argument: "IT may potentially damage US industry".

In a Europe where both globalisation and concern about the environment have been increasingly important issues to politicans as well as people for a long time now, it's no wonder the Bush administration gets impopular. As far I my memory goes, I have never seen a US president who is despited among people in Europe, especially young people.

Then came the WTC attacks, and this partly changed people's focus. The US got a lot of sympathy, and I believe a majorty of people were fairly satisfied with the Bush administrations acting in the war in Afghanistan.

But now focus is not only on 9/11 anymore, other political issues start to matter again, and thus the Bush administration again loose respect and popularity in Europe. The protectionism and the lack of concern about global issues that Europeans think are important, is only one part of this. As HLD points out, the fundamental christian values that mix into Bush politics, also plays a part. By European standards, Bush is a fundamental Christian with values most (also Christian) Europeans feel are totally outdated and hypocritical. It shares many features with the 19th century colonial time in Europe, something the vast majority of Europeans abhor today.

Quote:

posted by Weasel I believe this has a lot to do with it. As M&M said in one thread, the "right" in Europe is the "left" in the US.

With the exception of the ultra-right parties that previously never took any parlament places, this is correct. The right-wing in countries like Scandinavia, France, Holland or Germany is usually viewed as far left liberals by US standards. However, we must also note than the "right wing" in Europe does not represent the same type of values as the right wing in the US.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable The right in Europe is pretty far to the right.

The ultra-rights is Europe (such as the recently murdered Fortyun in the Netherlands, France's Le Pen or Denmark's Pia Kjaersegaard) don't at all represent values similar to the Bush administration. Instead, the issue they all have in common is anti-immigration politics. They all propose that immigration is the problem in European society today, and instead of working on improving the integration programs that today are lousy is most countries, they choose the simple way, and attribute the problems to the immigrants instead.

"Immigrants take your jobs" - yeah right, perhaps they would do if they could ever get any other jobs than washing dishes, cleaning and unqualified heath care jobs, such jobs that Europeans born in Europe reject because of the hard work for a very low salary.

[Robnark]

"Immigrants take your jobs" - yeah right, perhaps they would do if they could ever get any other jobs than washing dishes, cleaning and unqualified heath care jobs, such jobs that Europeans born in Europe reject because of the hard for a very low salary.

indeed, and in this country there was a report that found that immigration, as a whole, created jobs (i'm currently trying to find out exactly which report it was, watch this space), as well as accounting for a huge proportion of the money sent to poor and third-world countries.

also, there is the fact that if the earnings to retired people ratio is to be maintained, substantial increases must be made in the numbers of people coming in from outside europe. if this doesn't happen, the only way to support the elderly at the same level as today in a decade or two will be to drastically increase the birth rate across europe.

[/-\lastor]

But immigration also increases criminality. The immigrant youth isn't used to the light punishment most Europian countries, in their original cultures the law-enforcers are much harsher consider the local police officers "wimpy". I live in the Netherlands, possibly the country with the most tolerant immigration procedures, and the people here are afraid to go into some parts of town or go to the local clubs.

I, for one, am in favour of making the immigration laws a bit "harsher", making it more difficult for immigrants to get into the country. I do not mean to close the borders only narrowing the doorways to Europe. Let the people in who are willing to adjust to the local laws, ways and procedures. We have 3d generation immigrants here who refuse to speak dutch, go to school or even accept dutch people, while they are our, forgive me the expression, guests!

[fable]

Let's keep focused on the Bush administration/Europe issue, folks: what's causing the perception in both Europe and the US that there is currently a growing split between forces that have seen themselves as allies since the end of WWII?

[C Elegans]

@Robnark and Alastor: I'll be happy to continue this discussion in another thread. I'm going away for a couple of days now, but feel free to start a new thread and I'll join you later

Sorry for the spam Fable, the immigration issue would probably be apt for another thread. I however do think it's part of an important difference between the European and US concepts about what "right wing" politics represents. The strong christian influence in US right wing politics, where political questions are viewed in a religious context, is highly infrequent in Europe. Very few European countries discuss for instance abortion or homosexuality issues in relation to religion, it's connected to other areas.

Another issue that demostrates the US-Europe differences in left-right continuum is protectionism. In Sweden, protectionism is conncected to the extreme left, whereas the right wing support free trade and increased globalisation. The Swedish Green Party, who are very far left, is the most protectionist party ever seen in Swedish politics.

Something I've always found interesting as a striking difference between US and most European countries, is what the parliamentary system v the two party system leads to in people minds, how it affects peoples' way of conceptualising the world.
In the US, it seems like many issues become dichotomised, IMO a false dichotomy is often presented, like either you support the US "war on terror", or you are on the terrorists side. Now, it should be obvious that it's fully possible to support neither of the two - a person might be a pacifict for instance.
This dichotomisation of issues is not common in Europe, where we in most cases are more used to parliaments consisting of many parties negotiating and compromising with each other. Sometimes this of course leads to lack of swift decisions and efficiency, but it also leads to people getting many different alternative solutions to every issue. I believe the Bush administration has underscored and enhanced this to Europe strange dichotomisation.

[Tamerlane]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Let's keep focused on the Bush administration/Europe issue, folks: what's causing the perception in both Europe and the US that there is currently a growing split between forces that have seen themselves as allies since the end of WWII?

Well I'll attribute it all down to the tall poppy syndrome. Where one group (EU) resents the power and success held by another group the US.

That and the constant arguments over trade. How could the EU view themselves as equal partners with the US, when they disagree over what is normally a friendly issue such as trade.

I'd say that there are too many reasons to go into...

[Obsidian]

The way I see it, this new isolantionist policy of the US, tariffs, immigration laws etc, is a predicable response to recent events. Just as it was a likely response after WW1. The world more or less follows a pendulum, especially politically and socially, with charisteristics of cultures changing in an almost set pattern. 80 some years ago, the US split away from Europe because of a) the war, and b) the US's rising economic/military might. Now, after 30 some years, the EU is presenting a serious threat the America's economic monopoly. They now have REAL competition. And predicatbly, they don't like it.

The "War on Terror" (*cough*vengeance*cough*) is now spreading to beyond the party with a direct tie to 911, to basically every nation the US wanted to deal with but couldn't due to political pressure. Europe, doesn't want to be drawn into another military operation, but neither do they want to get on the US's bad side. As dubyah so terrifinly put it, "you are either with us, or against us". Paraphrased of course.

With the withdrawal of a half dozen major treaties, primarily the Kyoto accord, (which I personnally have some thoughts on), the elimination of AP Mines, and the ABM treaty, which threatens to bring the world to destruction. 2 of those 3 threaten life on earth, and the other, landmines, is just ridiculous!

What the US really needs is a Scott Nearing in power...

that'd be interesting eh fabs?

(I'm assuming fable knows who I'm talking about)

[Quark]

Okay, I don't know what is spread by people, but there is no way that a 100% defensive system could harm people. Whether or not it would work (and if it's worth the money) is a whole other point, of course.

The whole idea behind the ABM Treaty is stupid: Let's prevent ourselves from being able to save our citizens in order to still be able to kill our enemies. What?

If your afraid of some knight harming you, would you take away his shield or his sword? People may think Mutual Assured Distruction is 'safer', but it was given the name MAD for a reason!

Back on topic, it'll be interesting to see how the GOP deals with the short memory of the American public. Bush is having free reign right now on all of his issues because of support he gained after 9/11. Once that passes (and it's only a matter of time), people are gonna start realizing how much Bush is messing up the rest of the foreign policy job. The November elections should show us how far it's coming.

The sad thing is I expected Bush to do a better job than Gore in foreign policy. I knew Gore wouldn't do anything right internationally, but at least he wouldn't do so much wrong.

[fable]

What the US really needs is a Scott Nearing in power...

that'd be interesting eh fabs?

Won't happen while the industrial American culture of the last 120 years or so remains intact, but it is an interesting thought.

For those who don't know, Nearing was a prescient environmentalist and figure opposed to the commercial/industrial practices of modern Western culture--who surfaced around the time of World War 1, when he was an economics professor in Pennsylvania. He was a peace activist who analyzed the economic and political causes of war, and saw governments as self-perpetuating organisms that used war sloganeering as a method of feeding. He died at the age of 100 in the early 1980s, as I recall.

How do you think a Nearing, in power anywhere in Europe, would come to terms with a US led by Dubyah? What are the best possible European reactions at the moment internationally to the rise of Bush?

[Nightmare]

Damn, Obsidian beat to what I wanted to say.