November 17, 2004
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
Europe doesn't believe in democracy (Janet Daley, The Telegraph, November 17th, 2004)
Europeans and American Democrats in denial. George Bush has just got the mandate for pursuing his global policy on terrorism that he did not have in his first term: his position is stronger, not weaker. For the domestic market (which is all that matters to an American president), he has less need than before for the spurious credibility that European approval might offer.Posted by Peter Burnet at November 17, 2004 6:32 AMThe other side - as Jacques Chirac so sublimely demonstrated in his grandiloquent comments this week - is even less interested in a rapprochement. For Mr Chirac, too, the home audience is all that matters, and his supercilious dismissal of the "cowboy in the White House" is going down a treat with the French public.
Mr Blair is the only world leader who sees much point in trying to find common ground between the Chirac world view and the Bush one. That is because the home market is the most important audience for him, too, and he is determined to sell himself as both an Atlanticist and a pro-European. It is he who must square the circle, not the White House or the European Union.
The Prime Minister still hopes that the great triumph of his premiership - his lasting historical testament - will be taking Britain into full-hearted participation in the EU. Somehow, he must reconcile this with his equally passionate conviction, not only that the United States is Britain's most important ally, but that its present foreign policy is ethical and sound.
But, even given Mr Blair's own political vested interest in this undertaking, it could still be worthwhile in itself. After all, if you believe (as I think Mr Blair genuinely does) that the right way to bring lasting peace is through the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy to the regions of the world which now lack it, then surely it must be right to try to get everybody on board.
The more countries that participate in this democracy outreach programme, the more effective it is likely to be. That was what Mr Blair's Guildhall speech was trying to invoke: what Mr Bush would call "the free peoples of the world" should be joining together in this great task, in the liberation of those populations which do not enjoy what Mr Blair described as the "rights we take for granted".
Surely on this, he suggested, we could all agree: it must be the goal of the great democracies to deal with those failed states that "injure rather than protect" their own citizens. This must be the shared moral obligation of the fortunate nations of the Earth, the great thing that unites, rather than divides Europe and America.
What we share - an unfailing belief in democracy - has to be deeper than any present disagreement.
This is all very fine and very eloquent. The trouble is that it is quite wrong. Europe (particularly in the incarnation of Mr Chirac) does not have a deep commitment to democracy, at least not in the sense that the English-speaking tradition understands it.
The American Constitution may have borrowed much of its frame of reference from French revolutionary ideals, but the historical outcomes parted company pretty quickly. The United States ended up with a federalised system and an iron-clad Bill of Rights while France was descending into the Terror. We do not have a shared reverence for the robustness of democratic institutions because, in continental Europe, democratic institutions have been anything but robust.
That is why the EU is busily moving away from the idea of government being directly and transparently responsive to the popular will.
The monstrous global crimes of the 20th century - the collective guilt which is still the motor force of European political consciousness - were all thought to have been generated (or at least condoned) by popular will.
The political instincts of the people are far too inflammable and mercurial to be trusted. Better leave the serious business of law-making and governance to a professional class of administrators, an enlightened elite who will not be subject to the whims and volatile passions of the mob whose vicissitudes have brought such disgrace on our countries.
Public opinion manipulated by national political leaders has to take the rap for the hideous events of the two world wars and the Cold War that followed them, and so they will all be cut down to size. Democracy is all well and good in its place but the power of the people must be sieved, regulated and heavily supervised if it is to come to the right conclusions.
It may sound apocalyptic, but I do believe that the democratic experiment in continental Europe, begun just over 200 years or so ago, is coming to a close.
The European Union is creating what it hopes will be a benign oligarchy. Real political power will reside once again within elite circles (as it does already in France) which will conduct their business in the corridors rather than in the assemblies.Meanwhile, the United States will persevere with the belief, which Europe regards as crass, that giving ordinary people power over their governing class is the only hope for peace and security. Democracy, and what it entails, is not what unites us, Mr Blair. It is what divides us.
The American Constitution may have borrowed much of its frame of reference from French revolutionary ideals
Wow.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 17, 2004 7:42 AMUh, no, we borrowed some ideas from French thinkers of the time, but mostly from the English thinkers. France...is France, and different from us. Always was, always will be.
Posted by: Mikey at November 17, 2004 8:13 AMAs the article notes Blair has a choice to make. Merge with the EU and yield to the "benign oligarchy" or stick with the US and remain an independent voice. Unfortunately it appears Blair (and his party Labour) are determined to merge with EU.
Posted by: AWW at November 17, 2004 8:17 AMIf you can't have a dictatorship, I guess for some political leaders convicing the public they're too malevolent and/or stupid collectively to know what's best for them is the next best thing for the pols. And while that attitude is certainly there among the British elites (and a bunch of the elites over here as well), I suspect the British people still have too much disdain for the continent to allow for any long term marriage to the rest of the EU, as long as France maintains its public air of superiority (something their intellectuals have been doing for onwards of 225 years now).
Posted by: John at November 17, 2004 9:03 AMJohn Locke was a Frenchman?
I'm currently reading "How the Scots Invented the Modern World." I recommend it to Ms. Daly. Either that, or any history text that mentions the date the U.S. Constitution was adopted (March 4, 1789) and the date the French Revolution began (Bastille Day, July 14, 1789).
Posted by: Bill at November 17, 2004 9:25 AMThe French may have borrowed their revolutionary ideas from us, but being French, they got them garbled.
Posted by: pj at November 17, 2004 10:30 AMWe were influenced by Montesquieu but we were smart enough to choose Locke and Hobbes over Rousseau. The French alas were not.
Posted by: Bart at November 17, 2004 10:56 AMI think this is a very common misconception outside of the States. In college, we were assigned Burke and Tom Paine in political theory class, and Paine was about the only American revolutionary we ever read. It was many years before I read anything intelligent on the distinctions between the American and French revolutions. As a matter of fact, we didn't realize you were doing much thinking at all. We thought you were too busy tarring and feathering the innocent Loyalists.
Posted by: Peter B at November 17, 2004 11:13 AMI agree that it's time to try liberal democracy on people (like the Iraqis) who might actually be able to hold on to it, rather than continuing to waste our time trying to plant it in Old Europe.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 17, 2004 11:17 AMThe European Union is creating what it hopes will be a benign oligarchy. Real political power will reside once again within elite circles (as it does already in France) which will conduct their business in the corridors rather than in the assemblies.
And which will soon become completely hereditary ("Birth and Breeding") as it has already in France.
It seems that Europe has had so much time under hereditary aristocrats that they can't do things any other way.
Posted by: Ken at November 17, 2004 12:24 PMThe French Revolution was not about freedom, it was about "equality" so a dictatorship is perfectly consistent with their ideals--(most) everyone is equally miserable.
Posted by: brian at November 17, 2004 2:14 PMBrian,
Before you spout such nonsense you might want to read the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.
Posted by: Bart at November 17, 2004 2:54 PMBart: Yeah, and I could read the Soviet Constitution and marvel at their wonderful ideals. Deeds, not words.
Haven't read it, but from the Amazon Editorial Review of Sister Revolutions : French Lightning, American Light, by Susan Dunn, comes the following: "In her view, the American Revolution emphasized personal freedom, thanks in large measure to the arguments of philosophers mistrustful of government in any form (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison among them). For the French, she suggests, personal freedom was of less importance than consensus, public order, and economic democracy."
Posted by: brian at November 17, 2004 4:11 PMOrrin:
Don't you find it disturbing that Europe, which you consider self-loathing and suicidal, has exactly the same attitude towards democracy and hoi polloi that you do ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 17, 2004 7:44 PMBrian,
Deeds then? The post-Revloutionary French government ended slavery in the 1790s and emancipated the Jews in 1791. France had elections with universal male suffrage.
If you want to understand the real distinction between what happened in France and in the US, you should read Rousseau. The French trusted the mob, the Founding Fathers did not. Thus, we have a system of checks and balances while the French concentrated their power in one figure, like Napoleon or DeGaulle, or a narrow Directorate or Committee on Public Safety. The Americans restricted the franchise and dispersed power, because they could see man's essentially evil nature. That is an important element of Christian and Jewish teaching. In America, the people must be prevented from making a terrible mistake. In France, the people are incapable of making a terrible mistake.
The French bought into the Rousseau paradigm of the Noble Savage and the perfection that is the Natural Man. Once you see this, it is not hard to understand why Americans value self-reliance and restrained government while the French from time to time behave like the characters in Lord of the Flies.
Posted by: Bart at November 18, 2004 7:17 AM