Europe hates the bourgeoisie: Europe thinks like Mary Robinson, America thinks like Churchill

The Irish Independent ^ | September 8th 2002 | Eoghan Harris

[aculeus]

APPROACHING the anniversary of September 11, (I hate the flip-hip term "9/11"), it would be hypocritical of me to harp on about how much we in Ireland share the American sense of sorrow. We are more anti-American now than at any time in our history.

Some of you will be outraged at this observation. You will point out that Ireland was one of the few European countries to shut up shop. Certainly we closed down for a day. After that we opened up on America.

In the aftermath of the attack, Americans who tuned into RTE radio, or read the Irish Times were appalled. They were particularly shocked by the anti-American attitude of our public intellectualism, which seemed to think that in some sense America had it coming.

To tell the truth, I was a little shocked too. True, the Irish Times pundits had got it wrong in the Gulf War, in Bosnia and in Kosovo. True, although they professed to be pro-Arab, they had opposed the American bombings which benefited the Muslims of Kosovo.

But I was still genuinely gobsmacked when the Fintan O'Fisks refused to rally to America's war against Bin Laden in Afghanistan. After all, Afghanistan was not Vietnam, that vicious moral mess redeemed only by the willingness of America's best and brightest citizens to cry, "Stop!"

But there was a credit side. America had fought a civil war against slavery. It had fought two world wars in defence of democracy even the radical Studs Terkel called WWII "The Good War". And the most mindless leftist could not pretend that Afghanistan was "all about oil".

September 11 had no subtle moral shadings. On one side, Osama bin Laden, a rich playboy who saw people as so many pawns in his political project to make the world the way he wanted it. On the other side: 3,000 workers black, white, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Jewish all sacrificed to a rich pup's political project.

So what was the problem for the Irish Times pundits? How could the best brains in Irish society fail to fully support an open society like America against Osama bin Laden's closed system of religious repression? Had they forgotten European Enlightenment's long struggle against Christian fundamentalism?

For a while I was a bit baffled by the failure of the Irish and European left to leap to the defence of a great democracy. But a book and an essay let a bit of light in. In The Passing of an Illusion, the brilliant French sociologist, Francois Furet (who had briefly been a communist) says the most enduring ideology in Europe has not been either communism or fascism, but hatred of the bourgeoisie.

From the French Revolution onwards, the children of the bourgeoisie (that bulwark of parliamentary democracy) had conspired to destroy democracy. Both fascists and communists set out to destroy the democratic middle class. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had time for clerks or kulaks.

After Furet, a major essay by an American commentator Robert Kagan American Power and European Weakness made a lot more sense. At the risk of losing some of his subtle nuances, I should like to attempt a short précis of his principal points. He starts by saying that Americans and Europeans no longer see the same world, or see it the same way.

These differences arise from different perceptions of power. Exhausted by all its wars, Europe now thinks it is "entering a post-historical paradise of peace and prosperity" where any political problem is amenable to argument. America does not share that starry-eyed attitude. America is "mired in history", and sees the world as a hard Hobbesian place where military might is still needed.

In part this is a difference of perception. Europeans (including the Irish) think America sees the world in black and white, reaches for the gun too fast, and has no time for diplomacy. They think Americans prefer coercion to persuasion, the stick to the carrot, and to demand closure of a problem rather than its procrastination. They believe that America is unimpressed by the UN, less inclined to work with other nations for common goals, and more willing to break with the law.

Kagan says the gap between American and European attitudes transcends the left-right divides.

American democrats have more in common with American republicans than they do with most European liberals. They have a darker vision of the world and are more willing to use force.

Even Bill Clinton, the beloved hero of the Irish left, has shown his claws. Clinton bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and the Sudan. And Kagan says that Europe would not have bombed Belgrade in 1999 if the Americans had not pushed them to do it.

That means that Irish liberals who cling to the comforting notion that Colin Powell is a dove suffer from a delusion. Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld have much more in common than Colin Powell and Jack Straw.

All of which strikes me as sound stuff. So let me give my own little own local gloss on Kagan's general argument. Europe thinks like Mary Robinson. It believes in checks and balances, in rights and rules, and that there is nothing that cannot be solved by negotiation.

By contrast, America thinks like Winston Churchill. It believes that there are bad people in the world, that they sometimes get state power, and that democracies have to use force against them. And that sometimes democracies appease too long.

It will not be news that I take an American view of the world. If the Irish liberal-left were really European, in the Mary Robinson manner, I might respect its views. But it is only European in the most despicable way. Not European enough to vote for Nice but European enough to be anti-American.

Nothing now survives of socialism except political correctness and anti-Americanism. And if Irish public intellectuals can live on that pap, they are welcome to it. God Bless America.

[Tijeras_Slim]

BUMP

[Leisler]

Double bump!

[MissAmericanPie]

It comes down to morals. Some Englishman being interviewed described Blair as being more of a 19th century moralistic man, and this is why he likes Bush. Good vs Evil, right vs wrong is something they are not afraid to verbalize. He seemed to think it quaint and amusingly simple.

[muawiyah]

If the Europeans (and the Irish) think of Powell as a "dove", they are totally nuts. This morning Powell said it would be good to send in inspectors, but inspectors aren't all that effective. He pointed to defectors who came out and told about things that the inspectors hadn't even imagined.

Then he said inspection must be on our terms. That means anybody, anywhere, anytime!

It is simply amazing what Powell actually says versus what the heroin and cocaine users at the Washington Post say he says.

[quebecois]

Great article, but one slight criticism:

"From the French Revolution onward, the children of the bourgeoisie had conspired to destroy democracy"

There is a subtle error to this....they seek not to destroy "democracy", but rather "free market capitalism".

Europeans are steeped in a tradition of socialistic thought that stretches back to the mists of history (from which they only emerged, briefly, during the Enlightenment before slipping back into barbaric collectivism). The European intellectuals (and much of the people) hate America because its based on individualism and free markets...which they consider to be vulgar and materialistic. Yet, they know, deep down, that all of their goofy collectivism has only resulted in murder, pogroms, etc.

They know which system is superior...but they are unwilling to change their beliefs and re-examine their ideologies...therefore, they stew with anger at each American success.

[gaspar]

Harris is quite correct. And it is the elitists' hatred of their own middle class which has led them to use unfettered immigration as a tool to combat their political presence. The same may be said of the fools in the United States Congress where elitism and hatred of the middle class has become a sort of religion (remember the 59 Democrats who are admitted Socialists). It has led to everything from the attenuation of busing, to the acceptance of pornography and open homosexuality to abortion on demand and the destruction of the American school system.

[Tacis]

"For a while I was a bit baffled by the failure of the Irish and European left to leap to the defence of a great democracy."

My view is that Europe (and Ireland) is subconciously obsessed with the class structure. The left NEVER was about democracy, it was ALWAYS opposition to the class in power. The left has always worked only to replace the class in power. It is nothing more that who owns, controls or expends wealth and power.

The left has always argued that there are grounds on which the current distribution is wrong/unfair/etc. If they argued on the basis of democracy one day, it is only because that met their needs. Commie leaders lived very well and the party members lived much better than non-party members. They took wealth and power from those who had it - there is nothing else to the philosophy of today's left. Redistribution of wealth to the people of the world always includes subtext which says, "with a percentage off the top going to those of us with the greatest concern for the [.....]." You can put in the [...] any word like, "pandas," "hungry," "AIDS sufferers," "child laborers," "disenfranchized," "needy," ad nauseum.

[aculeus]

Here's more on the odious Mrs Robinson from the same paper:




Robinson unaware of Mao backers

Sunday September 8th 2002

Human rights credentials defended after revelation of Maoist support


THE HUMAN rights credentials of Mary Robinson have been vigorously defended by Brid Rosney, one of her key strategists in the 1990 presidential election, after it emerged that during her campaign she had the active support of a cadre of former Maoists from Trinity College Dublin (TCD).


Ms Rosney, now RTE's Corporate Affairs Manager, said that she was not aware of the involvement of Maoists in Labour's campaign.


She told the Sunday Independent that this did not, in her view, detract from Mary Robinson's work as UN Commissioner for Human Rights or her work for human rights generally.


Ms Rosney, who also worked as a key advisor to Mrs Robinson when she was President, said that those taking part in the 1990 campaign were not asked their political backgrounds.


She did not accept that Mrs Robinson's reputation would suffer from the Maoism disclosure. "She is a respected human rights lawyer and nothing can damage that," added Ms Rosney.


The fact that former Maoists were involved was revealed for the first time during the week by retiring Labour leader Ruairi Quinn who was Director of Elections.


Maoism involves following the ideas set down in Mao Tse-Tung's The Little Red Book. The ideas of Mao, who led Communist China from 1949 to 1976, resulted in massive human rights abuses in China with doctors, scientists, technicians and urban dwellers forced to labour in the countryside with huge loss of life, famine, hunger and suffering.


Maoism was particularly strong in TCD and was at the peak of its popularity in 1969, when 25-year-old Robinson became a senator on a platform of concern for civil liberties, human rights and the reform of family law.


She was not a Labour member then but joined in 1976 and stood unsuccessfully for general election in Rathmines West in 1977 and Dublin West in 1981.


Those involved in the 1990 presidential campaign in which she defeated the late Mr Brian Lenihan say that Mr Quinn was the only person to know the former Maoists.


Mr Quinn, once a student revolutionary at UCD and known as "Ho Chi-Quinn", made his revelation in an interview with Marian Finucane covering his life and times on RTE Radio 1.


He said that it was a "bizarre experience" that, as Director of Elections, he met "very well-placed and highly successful business executives, who in a previous life had been very radical Maoists.


"They may not have maintained the same level of commitment, but the value system is still there. They had not lost it and they still have not lost it," added Mr Quinn, who refused to reveal their names, saying some would be "well known to the general public".


Fergus Finlay, an advisor to former Labour leader, Dick Spring, told the Sunday Independent that, like Brid Rosney, he had not been aware of the involvement of former Maoists either.


He vigorously denied that there might have been a different outcome to the 1990 presidential election if the public had been made aware of the involvement of former radical Maoists.


Brian Lenihan of Fianna Fail had secured 44 per cent of the vote; Mary Robinson, 37 per cent; and Austin Currie (Fine Gael), 19 per cent. On the second count, she had a narrow 52 per cent victory.


Fergus Finlay rejected any notion that the Labour Party had deliberately concealed the fact that there were former Maoists working for their candidate to secure her victory.


Mrs Robinson plans to continue to work as a human rights specialist on African issues when her tenure with the UN ends in mid-September.



KEVIN MOORE


© http://www.unison.ie/

[Eternal_Bear]

"But there was a credit side. America had fought a civil war against slavery"

Is that really to our credit? Other Western nations were able to free their slaves without violence.

[tophat9000]

bump

[PLK]

It is simply amazing what Powell actually says versus what the heroin and cocaine users at the Washington Post say he says.

Powell said pretty much the same himself this morning to Tony Snow. He seems sincerely baffled by the divide the press fantacizes about between him and the remainder of the Bush administration. His words this morning on Fox were VERY reassuring and will go a long way to stifle the ridiculous lies of the media and stabilize things.

[VaBthang4]

"It is simply amazing what Powell actually says versus what the heroin and cocaine users at the Washington Post say he says."

Thank you!

And you can add "What the Kneejerk anti-powell Dramaqueens at FR say he says".

Powell's job is diplomacy...he is the chief diplomat in this cabinet (Who is a former General and JCS). It is now his "job" to say things in a different manner than the SecDef or the JCS. You'd think some of the nitwits here would see the great coup this is for our country.

Oi...

Nevermind.

[aculeus]

I see it differently. Rightly or wrongly, the WTC was seen as a Jewish target, not just by Moslems but by much of Europe and indeed the rest of the world. Given it was commonly believed that the twin towers were stuffed full of Jews, it really isn't surprising that not too many individuals were sympathetic to their plight on 9/11. It also would explain the knee-jerk reaction of blaming America herself for this heinous act, for throughout history Jews have been held responsible for anti-Semitism.

You don't see it differently. You see it oddly.

[foreshadowed at waco]

Nothing now survives of socialism except political correctness and anti-Americanism...and a bitter resentment by the defeated socialists toward the people who represent their defeat--mainly conservatives.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

In part this is a difference of perception. Europeans (including the Irish) think America sees the world in black and white, reaches for the gun too fast, and has no time for diplomacy. They think Americans prefer coercion to persuasion, the stick to the carrot, and to demand closure of a problem rather than its procrastination

Yep, you read the Europeans correctly, that's exactly why Hitler got as far as he did.

[livius]

Good post. I was not very aware of the Irish opinion on this, although I knew the Irish were fanatical devotees of Bill C, for reasons completely unknown to any rational human being. I didn't realize they hated us so much.

I think the point that Scouser (feel free to correct me, Scouser) was making is that blaming the victim is the way to go nowadays.

Most of the people killed in the WTC attacks were Catholic, including virtually all of the rescue forces. However, many Europeans and Arabs are so ignorant of the United States and so obsessed by anti-Semitism (which makes Jews a lot more important than they are) that they immediately had to look for a Jewish connection in this.

There wasn't one. Islam hates the US - and Christians - as much as it hates Jews. They also hate formerly-Christian Western Europe, too, but they've obviously decided that emigrating and outbreeding the non-breeding Europeans is much easier and safer than launching full attacks. Those may well come, however, unless Europe (including Ireland) accepts Islam, which would not surprise me in the least.

[desertcry]

I see now why the europeans love clinton so much. In europe,
nothing is ever simple, and is, is not always is. For example, the islamic terrorist did not really crash an airliner into the Pentagon.