February 23, 2005
“A” FOR EFFORT, “D” FOR ACHIEVEMENT
Freedom? Why Europe's not bothered (Janet Daley, The Telegraph, February, 23rd, 2005)
The enlightenment idealism of Europe was exported to the rebellious colonies and, in geographical isolation, it flourished. While Europeans themselves undermined their own great democratic project with their ancient hatreds and their aristocratic nostalgia, the naïve Americans kept the dream intact, building it into a written constitution (which was an 18th-century idea itself).Europe has pretty much given up on the whole undertaking now: we tried it and it ended in the Terror. We went through our phase of proselytising democratic revolution with Bonaparte and look where that ended. Spreading freedom? All that amounts to is killing off one generation of autocrats and replacing them with another. Trust the people? They are just as likely to follow a fascist demagogue as to perpetuate the sacred principle of justice.
Better to make your cynical peace with the worst aspects of human nature than to pretend that free men will always choose good over evil. Much better to make a mutually profitable trade-off behind the scenes than to expose political decisions to the popular will. What evidence is there that the people actually know what is best for them? Most charitably, the European philosophy of government - shortly to be permanently installed under the EU constitution - is paternalistic. At worst, it is arrogant and authoritarian.
But whatever it is, it no longer has a belief in real democracy of the kind that Americans recognise - government of the people, by the people and for the people - at its heart.
That is why Jacques Chirac - the very embodiment of corrupt European political cynicism - and George Bush can never, ever find true common ground. When the President tries to give credit where it is due - to the European authorship of democratic revolution - it sounds faintly sarcastic.
I have written before on this page that European hatred of the United States has a great deal to do with jealousy of American self-belief. But there is an element of shame there, too. Because Europe knows that it has sold the pass. It has traded liberty for security: the safety of consensus, the reassuring unfreedom of bureaucratic control and an over-regulated economy.
American talk about spreading freedom is not just gauche; it is a reproach.
But it is too late now. Europe has had disillusionments too great to permit a return to that purist belief in the transforming power of democratic institutions. What was left standing in the ruins of the Bonapartist experiment was effectively demolished by the two world wars. The people - with nothing but the raw franchise - will never be allowed to run amok again. Europeans cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Their affairs will be administered by an EU oligarchy. And if they do not trust their own populations, European leaders are scarcely going to support handing out freedom to anarchic tribal societies that scarcely know what the right to vote is for. (Never mind that the only way to learn the value of democracy is to practise it.)
Europeans have found something better, and more readily controlled, as a substitute for personal liberty. They have found wealth: mass prosperity and the kind of government-subsidised economic security that their countries, traumatised by generations of war and unrest, have never known. Since the Cold War ended, they have been able to consolidate the post-war economic miracle with a "peace dividend": all that money that used to be spent on arms could go into more and more generous welfare and pension arrangements. So now they are not even fit to defend themselves, or to sort out a mess in their own Balkan backyard. Why should they join in any crazy scheme to bring peace to the rest of the world?
There is some insight here, but unfortunately Ms. Daley falls victim to the old canard about Europe having blown the Enlightenment because of “ancient hatreds and aristocratic nostalgia”. She would have a tough time explaining why the President is so strongly supported by the conservative parishioners of tens of thousands of well-attended churches that dot the U.S. landscape, while the American secular left, which quite rightly sees itself as a child of the Enlightenment, is desperate to emulate the Europeans.
Same old, same old.
Mutated monarchy, unelected 1, unelected many.
It's not that they don't trust the rabble, they never have trusted the rabble.
And their wealth is subsidized by US. They don't pay their fair share.
Posted by: Sandy P at February 23, 2005 10:50 AMGertrude Himmelfarb's notion of 3 Enlightenments would be helpful to her.
Posted by: pj at February 23, 2005 11:26 AMpj: Exactly! In Himmelfarb's The Roads to Modernity, "she devotes the first 150 pages to the British (The Sociology of Virtue) and then examines more briefly the French (The Ideology of Reason) and, finally, the American (The Politics of Liberty)." ... "If America is now exceptional, it is because it has inherited and preserved aspects of the British Enlightenment that the British themselves have disarded and that other countries (France, most notably) have never adopted." ... "the French seek a benign despot capable of guiding purely by reason, the British and then Americans choose to encourage reason in all."
In addition, the French demand for galitaire is in fundamental conflict with libertie, and can only be imposed from above.
People who insist that there is no such thing as truth, that reason is an oppressive white male construct, etc., are not descendants of the Enlightenment.
Posted by: Tom at February 24, 2005 8:00 AM