Friends, What Friends? (Ingraham)

Remember the first time you realized that someone you thought was a close friend became a distant one, or just dropped out of your life altogether? Sometimes you can't pinpoint exactly why a friendship changes, it just does. Sometimes you wake up one day and realize that your core beliefs were so different that the relationship never really was what you thought it was. When you see this old friend on the street you stop for a polite chat, ask about the kids, the job. Or perhaps you’ll meet for lunch every now and then, but it’s just not the same.

This week Secretary of State Colin Powell flew to Madrid to meet with that country's incoming Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. But the nice photo op notwithstanding, the trip was largely a bust. Powell was unsuccessful in getting the Zapatero, who ran as an anti-war/anti-Bush candidate, to change his mind about pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq unless the UN takes over.

Meanwhile, President Bush told French president Jacques Chirac that he will travel to Normandy on June 6th to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. This was heralded as a sign of "a thaw" in our frosty relations with France.

For his part, Sen. John Kerry -- who owned real estate in Italy's Lake Como until last year-- promises to rebuild the bridges to Europe that he charges were badly damaged by Pres. Bush's "arrogant, reckless foreign policy." The familiar Democrat refrain is that President Bush--with a "my-way-or-the-highway" approach to foreign policy-- squandered the goodwill that the world had bestowed on us post-September 11th. The cowboy didn’t kowtow. One can't help but conclude in a Kerry White House, there would be a full-court press to impress "the world."

But can any individual or any party significantly improve our relations with Europe?

It is conventional wisdom in some circles that Europe and the U.S. were much closer during the Clinton Administration. But this week that notion was blown out of the water by the 9/11 Commission testimony of former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. When asked why the Clinton team hadn’t launched an aggressive military campaign against Afghanistan after the 1998 African embassy bombings, both said that such a move wouldn't have been supported by the "international community." Apparently, neither had even bothered to make the case to our European pals that the Taliban and al Qaeda needed to be taken out. What does that say about the state of the American-European relationship?

Our problems with Europe result from the fact that Europeans strongly believe two things: (1) Israel is in the wrong in the Middle East, and (2) the United States has too much power. No president, Democrat or Republican, is going to give in on either of those points. Not even John Kerry.

The time has come for us to move beyond this whole concept of "allies." The term implies a friendship that simply does not exist anymore.

In the 30s, 40s, and 50s, America and much of Europe joined together to fight Nazism, fascism, and communism. We set ourselves apart from much of the rest of the world through our common beliefs in capitalism and free speech. The crusade to bring those values to the rest of the world has been very successful while the fears that drew us together are gone.

This is not something to get apoplectic about. After the Revolutionary War, there was real tension between the U.S. and Britain (the War of 1812). But over time we came back together as allies in a new struggle. Ditto for our relationship with France in the 19th century.

As much as I like this column's opening analogy, anytime we start pretending that countries are like friends or family we are bound to be disappointed. Countries aren't people. There is no "family of nations." There is no "global community." To think otherwise is naïve. The world is a dangerous place where each country acts in its own interest. Poland joined the European Union not because they felt some close affinity with the French, but because they thought it was the best thing for the future of the Polish people. Tony Blair sent British forces to Iraq in part because he thought it was in Britain’s long term interest both to maintain an alliance with the U.S. and beat back a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

If John Kerry thinks that attending European conferences and pushing Congress to ratify more international accords is going to endear him to the Europeans, he's sorely mistaken. He'd have better luck wearing French cuffs and buying a residence in Provence.

During a Kerry Administration, France, Germany, and Spain would probably be less overtly hostile to American interests than they are now. But that doesn’t mean much else would change. A Kerry presidency won't compel Europe to invest more money or manpower in the war on terror in order to show its support for America. It won’t mean Europe will cease subsidizing companies like Airbus to the detriment of its American competitors. It won’t mean that Europe will back off ruling against American giants like Microsoft.

No amount of turbo-diplomacy can make countries do what is not in their self-interest. The time may come when Europe will take terrorism as seriously as we do. If that happens, we will be reunited with our European allies once again -- until the next time when what's good for America isn't good for Europe, or vice versa.

Very true. Reminds me of one of Dennis Prager's great columns on us vs. them:

February 18, 2003

When have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?

With millions of Europeans demonstrating against America, many Americans, raised to regard Europe as an ally, must be wondering what is happening. Some Americans even may be wondering if Europe may be right: after all, when have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?

It is therefore essential that Americans understand the nature of the rift between America and Western Europe (not Eastern Europe, which thanks to its suffering under Communist evil, understands evil and values America) -- a rift that will only widen unless one adopts the values of the other. For at this moment, there are two civilizational wars taking place: Islamist hostility to Western liberty and European hostility to American values.

Why this European hostility?

First, Europe believes in socialism, while America believes in capitalism. This difference can hardly be overstated. Most Western Europeans believe in socialism as fervently as religious Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in their respective religions. To many Americans, socialism is only an economic system, but for Western Europeans it has largely replaced Christianity as their faith.

The United States not only rejects socialism; it is the chief obstacle to its spread -- because of its military and cultural might, and especially because of its economic success. Indeed, America is the chief impediment to the spread of both Islam and socialism. This explains the unity of leftist and Muslim activists. Though theoretically they have nothing in common, as Osama bin Laden just announced, "in the current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists" -- opposing America.

Second, as a result of the massive bloodshed of the nationalism-based World Wars, Western Europeans concluded that the abolition of national identities is a moral necessity. Europe's elite decided to believe in Europe and the United Nations rather than in their individual nations. An English protester, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, explained his protest in terms of support of the United Nations, not Britain: British Prime Minister Tony Blair "has totally misjudged . how destabilizing this (support for America) has been to the United Nations. And we believe in the United Nations."

Just as Europeans were losing faith in their national identities, the United States came to believe even more strongly in its distinct national identity. While Europeans and the American Left have more faith in the moral judgment of the United Nations, where Libya chairs the Human Rights Commission and Syria and China vote in the Security Council, most Americans have more faith in America.

Third, pacifist ideas dominate European society. Another major ideological consequence of the World Wars was the belief that wars are wrong, that any evil -- from Communism to Saddam Hussein or North Korea owning weapons of mass destruction -- is better than fighting. America, on the other hand, believes that it is sometimes better to fight evil. The last time many Europeans demonstrated against America was when President Ronald Reagan put Pershing missiles in Europe. Europeans thought that confronting the Soviets was provocative and wrong.

Fourth, Europe passionately affirms secularism, while America remains the most religious among the industrialized democracies. In this sphere, too, either America or Europe is right. And the predominance of America, a religious country -- one, no less, that affirms the religion the European elites have rejected -- infuriates the Europeans.

Positing no transcendent or religious basis for an objective and universal standard of good and evil, Europe disdains moral absolutes and moral judgments. Whether it was President Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" or President Bush labeling North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil," Europeans (and the American Left, whose values are identical) found such moral labeling contemptible.

Indeed our president personifies all that Europe dislikes in America. He comes from the business world, wears an Americans flag on his lapel, is ready to go to war against an evil regime, and believes deeply in God, in Christianity and America's Judeo-Christian identity. He even wears cowboy boots.

Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Great Seal of the United States depict the Israelites' exodus from Egypt. He and the other Founders knew that America's future was and must be based on leaving Europe. It is truer now than ever.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Give them a listen. Medved, Hewitt and Laura Ingraham are the 3 shows I try to listen to (at least some) every weekday.

Laura has the wit, humor and attitude that we all know and love.

Medved engages and debates the loony left better--and more--than ANY other talk show host. His show is like having a 3-hour logic, debate and argumentation class every afternoon.

Hugh Hewitt was an acquired taste. He has a regular lineup of some of the smartest folks in the country as weekly guests on the program. He especially focuses on constitutional law, but covers everything else as well.

Dennis Prager's show...well, it's usually pretty good, but moves a bit slowly sometimes. And while Dennis is certainly very bright and logical, he sometimes comes off as a bit pompous and overly self-referential, IMHO.

I'll take any of the above shows over Rush and Hannity. I only listen to them when I'm traveling in the sticks and I can't pick up any other program. I really need to get XM radio.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.