A Collective Loss of Europe's Will

NY Sun ^ | April 11, 2006 | DANIEL JOHNSON

[veronica]

London Letter

"The lamps are going out all over Europe," the British foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, declared on August 3, 1914, as the Continent descended into world war. April 10, 2006, was not so apocalyptic, but its symbolism is nonetheless potent. Two years ago, the Madrid bombs panicked Spain into electing a left-wing government that would pull out of Iraq. Now it is the turn of two other Mediterranean peoples to put out their lamps.

Yesterday was a dark day in the history of Europe, not only because both France and Italy turned their backs on economic reform, but because both of these great nations have visibly lost their nerve in the face of an even greater challenge - a challenge to Judeo-Christian civilization itself.

For the real beneficiaries of this collective loss of nerve will be Al Qaeda and its Islamist power base, who pose a more immediate threat to freedom in Europe than they do in America. The failure of the Berlusconi government to win a ringing endorsement may leave Italy bereft of the courageous leadership that has seen Italian troops standing alongside their NATO allies in Iraq for three long years, in the teeth of public opinion. Mr. Berlusconi, for all his faults, had begun a renaissance of the entrepreneurial and family values that made post-war Italy great.

[coydog]

I concur with that, most Mexicans are too fond of their beer and their ladies to ever take up the kufi or the veil.

[ClaireSolt]

Berlesconi has done his bit. He is, after all, an old man. Hope for morals and family values in Italy may well rest in the leadership of the Vatican and a resurgence of the Church. Multipolar, as Chirac likes to say, church and state, instead of statism.

[untenured]

I wonder in various countries in the West what percentage of people under 30 believe in "The West" as a distinct, valuable civilization worth defending, with arms if necessary.

[fragrant abuse]

You know, maybe this isn't a vote about Iraq at all.

Just because it's the only issue we care about in the Italian election doesn't mean that it's all that the Italians care about.

[Cicero]

Yes, Berlusconi is a good man. Probably I should have said so. But Italy seems to be returning to the days of revolving-door governments. And they are among the worst in failing to reproduce themselves.

Spain had a good leader too, yet they turned against him. It doesn't look terribly good right now for Europe. It will need some sort of moral and religious revolution to turn things around, I think, and few signs of one so far.

There are some promising movements of religious revival in Europe, but so far they are confined to small minorities.

[r9etb]

Sad but true. I throw up my hands in disgust. Seems like Western Civilization is under assault, demographically and otherwise, both here and in Europe.

FWIW, I think a lot of what we're seeing in Europe is an unintended consequence of the Cold War. Given the money and troops we placed over there, it's been 50+ years since the European nations have had to worry about their own protection. They're complacent in the same way, I suppose, that Rome was complacent. They entrusted their military protection to outlanders (i.e., us), and used their monetary savings to build welfare states.

At the same time, however, the last century shows just how incredibly savage Western Civilization can be, when pushed too far. The Muslims are a numerical threat only on the fringes of Europe, and not a legitimate military threat anywhere. If they ever become a serious physical threat (and they're not, yet -- not even close), the results will not be pretty. It's coming....

[r9etb]

De Gaulle was a so-called French conservative, too, and he is the guy who first laid out France's long-term policy: break up NATO, oppose America in every way possible, and cozy up to the Arabs.

I think De Gaulle is better described as a French Nationalist, and his thinking was probably more along the lines that NATO represented the ascension of the US to what it has now become: THE world power.

Probably the best way to look at him is through the eyes of both Eisenhower and Churchill -- both described De Gaulle as always looking for personal advantage and personal aggrandizement. To have France relegated to essentially a vassal state would not have sat well with him; nor would the idea of being bailed out by the US yet again.

Be that as it may, it has to be said that the French have always been odd ducks in stuff like this. De Gaulle's NATO moves weren't much different from past French governments; nor is the French decadence much different from pre-WWII, pre-Franco-Prussian War, or even pre-Revolution.

[LK44-40]

I suspect that a major factor -- perhaps ~the~ major factor -- in the "softening," of Europe, particularly France and Germany, has been the slaughter in two world wars of so many men.

We Americans often look casually at these events and tend to equate our participation in these wars with the participation of the Europeans. We may have been heroic and we may have been decisive, but our losses were trivial compared to the decimation of European manhood. (Yes, I know that France did not lose as many men as it should have in WWII, but it lost a devastating number in WWI.)

Happily, it takes only the arrival of the next generation for men and women to return to parity in the population. BUT, the devastation of the male population of fathering age, necessarily leaves to women, in an unbalanced proportion, the responsibility of raising the next generation. The effect on culture and national character will persist into future generations, even though the biological parity will immediately return.

These remarks are not intended as some silly insult to women. I believe that a healthy society needs both its male and female components. The fact that women tend to be a bit softer, less rigid, more moved by immediate human concerns than larger principles works well balanced by the more male tendencies. But take those male impulses out of the culture for a couple of generations and you have a different culture. In my opinion, it is a too-soft culture.

[Lancey Howard]

We are under assault - but we will win in the end.

We have been under assault for a very long time but the rise of conservatism and the public's rejection (overwhelming rejection by America's normal, hard-working, traditional families) of the Democrat Party agenda of turning our nation into a Euro-style, secular-socialist welfare state gives me great hope that the Democrats will not anytime soon succeed in turning America into France.

In the end, we have the ultimate safety valve - - the Second Amendment.

[cvq3842]

interesting thoughts!

scary, too . . .

[MissAmericanPie]

Our Democrat President Jose Ferrah will handle it.

[ClaireSolt]

I agree that they lost a lot, both men and materiel. It took a lot of time and money to rebuild their homes and other buildings. Their GDP/cap is still only about half of ours. Since 1990 their minds has been on bringing the Eastern European countries up to standard. They are as busy promoting democracy and prosperity as we are, just in their own area.

[Jacquerie]

Okay, so what does Hanson have to say? I am pessimistic about winning and would appreciate optimism.

[Cicero]

No, I was just using de Gaulle as an example, who shows that the problem in Europe is not merely with the socialists. And you are right that France has a long history of destructive and essentially uncivilized behavior.

Going back even further, France allied itself for long periods of time with the Muslims against Christian Europe, during much of the 16th and 17th centuries, even though the Grand Turk at that time was a threat to the very survival of Europe.

Then there was the Napoleonic adventure. Not to speak of the French Revolution, which, unlike the American revolution had destructive effects which echo through the western world even today.

France has a long history of putting its "national interests" above absolutely everything else, and the result has not, in fact, been helpful either to western civilization or to France.

[horse_doc]

He basically gives example after example of the West colliding with other cultures - Persia, the Ottoman Empire, the Aztecs, etc. He then describes how the great victories happened.

Inevitably, the weakness of the West (need to build concensus in war, the apparent decentralized concentration of power, etc.) turn out to be the qualities that make us flexible enough to come up with a formula for victory.

At Salamis, it was Greek democracy run amok that came up with the winning game plan. At Lepanto, it was the flexibility to alter ships at the last minute. For Cortez, it was the ability to build landing craft on the fly, out of local resources.

I'm slaughtering the premise here a bit, and you have to read the book to get the gist. But the bottom line, is that I wouldn't making it a habit to bet against the West, in the long term.

[tonycavanagh]

re :I wonder in various countries in the West what percentage of people under 30 believe in "The West" as a distinct, valuable civilization worth defending, with arms if necessary.

You could ask that question at any time, most people of any age when asked about there chief concerns cite family problems, relationships, employment, work problems.

Its only when you have the enemy at the door that people start thinking about war.

This goes all over the world.

Many a time I have sat down in some battle scarred land and asked the locals did they see it coming and they said know this was as true in the Balkans as it was in Africa.

Since this subject is discussed at great length on FR it is very much in your mind.

[tonycavanagh]

re :France has a long history of putting its "national interests" above absolutely everything else.

LOL That is true for every country.

[untenured]

Many a time I have sat down in some battle scarred land and asked the locals did they see it coming and they said know this was as true in the Balkans as it was in Africa.

That's a different issue. I don't dispute that the future is often hard to forecast. The issue is whether people in the West feel their civilization has any distinct value.

The World Values Survey, an ongoing multinational survey of people in about 100 countries, surveys people about many things. One of them is "How proud are you of your nationality?", and I just retrieved the percentages answering "very" for some randomly selected countries from the West, the Islamic world and other places. Here are those percentages, from most to least:

1. Morocco 85.9
2. Pakistan 81.2
3. Mexico 79.1
4. Saudi Arabia 74.5
5. USA 72.4
6. Canada 67.1
7. Sweden 67
8. UK 48.9
9. France 39.9
10. Russia 31.6
11. Czech Rep. 26.6
12. Belgium 23.7
13. Japan 22.8
14. Germany 22.2
15. Holland 19.5
16. S. Korea 17.4

So the U.S. and Canada are, as in so many things, outliers in patriotism among Western nations. And Swedish pride may be due to the globally hyped "Swedish" model. And Germany could be explained by war guilt. But why is Holland so lacking in self-confidence, despite its being able to take pride in its reputation as the ultimately tolerant country? Why are the French, the British, the Belgians and the Czechs so much less proud than the Saudis, the Moroccans and the Pakistanis, despite arguably having much more to be proud about?

There is such a thing as too much patriotism, and it's not a sure thing that lack of pride in a civilization means you will quietly watch it die, but there appears to be something amiss in the West these days, a guilt that has some basis in reality but, in global terms, is vastly out of proportion to that reality.

[dfwgator]

The Nazis made nationalism and pride in one's country an evil concept in the eyes of many.

Nowadays if you see a rally with a lot of American flags, the lefty loonies will inevitably compare it with a Nuremberg Rally.

[tonycavanagh]

I always take surveys with a pinch of salt.

For a start how do you define patriotism, what was going on that persons mind.

Before the War, Britain was a pacifist nation, America an Isolaniontist, as soon as we had no choice we rallied to the cause.

Just because we don't want a war and would rather seek a peaceful resolution does not mean we wont fight if called upon.

That is the mistake despots make over and over again.

Before Argentina invaded the Falklands i would bet a survey in the UK would reveal most would not fight to keep it and would not even know where they were.

But the whole nation rallied when Argentina did.

Before the Second World war the Oxford debating society passed a resolution that the house would not fight and die for there country.

But fight they did.

New countries are always more patriotic than older countries, but that does not mean we wont fight if called upon.

In Europe we don't make a song and dance over everything.

And in Europe we don't have students objecting to Military recruitment, and we don't need to maintain vigils outside Army recruiting depots.