Left and right, Europe and the US
I found the following comment to my post on Tamerlane Tsarnaev and the BBC (cross-posted at Legal Insurrection) to be a good reminder of the difference between our own left/right divide vs. those of Europe:
Some concepts don’t translate well across the Atlantic, and to Americans the European press can seem to have originated on Planet Bananas.
In Europe (which includes Britain, even if they sometimes like to pretend otherwise) they’re all socialists, save for a smattering of monarchists and anarchists. The left-wing/right-wing schism is along different lines than in the US.
European right-wing means socialist and nationalist, left-wing means socialist and internationalist. Extreme European right-wingers are fascists. Extreme European left-wingers are communists. There are of course many minor variants. To Americans the distinctions aren’t terribly important; they’re all totalitarians. We’d call them all left-wing. It’s not clear that very many Europeans have even the vaguest idea of what the American right-wing is really about. They just assume that it has some similarity to the European right-wing, which couldn’t be more wrong. They simply lack the conceptual machinery to recognize it.
And it occurs to me that’s exactly the way our very own MSM would like us to see it here, too. They purposely misrepresent the American left/right divide (and especially the right) in just that manner. They are such Europhiles that they’d like the US to resemble Europe today, and are trying to push us in that direction. Obama, of course, is doing the same, with their assistance.
I’ve noticed this point of view among many of my liberal friends, too—a reflexive idealization of Europe and downputting of the US at almost every opportunity.
And another great comment, this one from “MBE” on the BBC thread at this blog:
In simple terms, the fundamental difference between Socialism/Communism and Nazism/Fascism is under the Communist model, the government owns everything and allocates it amongst citizens as it sees fit. Under Fascism, private individuals and companies own property, but must do whatever the government want (ie independent rule of law is illusionary). The primary difference is the degree to which the government micromanages: under Communism it must do everything (which is difficult and stifling), under Fascism and working forms of Socialism the government doesn’t need to bother with every little thing, but remains all-powerful. As commentator “Paul in Boston” noted, Fascism utilises “Corporatism”.
Ring Wing/Conservative tends to be foremostly based upon individual freedom within the framework of the law, with a large focus on self-control/discipline. Communism/Fascism are pretty much the exact opposite: individual freedom is totally subordinate to the whims of the ruling group of the ruling party.
Commentator “MDL” mentions Franco and Pinochet ”“ two very interesting people. I’d add Lee Kwan Yew into that mix: dictators who seized control for the very specific reason of preventing Communism, and who used their time not to establish a dynasty, but to transition to Democracy. Past leaders of Taiwan and South Korea (I forget their names, but there are a few “Kims” in there) deserve similar kudos.
Spain has been a strong democracy since Franco died (their only big mistake has been the EU). Chile, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore have become probably the best examples of democracies transitioning from dictatorships/juntas in recent history. Kemal Ataturk and his successors in the Turkish military also fit this mold. While one may disagree with their methods, the bottom line is they acted to prevent long term communist totalitarianism, and left behind vibrant democracies with vibrant economies.
These are guys who broke eggs to make omelettes, but at least they made pretty decent omelettes.
What do you think? Did they break too many eggs or just the necessary number, and how good are the resulting omelettes?
Ring Wing/Conservative tends to be foremostly based upon individual freedom within the framework of the law, with a large focus on self-control/discipline. Communism/Fascism are pretty much the exact opposite: individual freedom is totally subordinate to the whims of the ruling group of the ruling party.
I think that’s right. Boiling it all down, the right-left axis is individualism versus collectivism.
I’ve noticed this point of view among many of my liberal friends, too–a reflexive idealization of Europe and downputting of the US at almost every opportunity.
Instapundit terms it oikophobia.
“a reflexive idealization of Europe and downputting of the US at almost every opportunity”
I take the idealization of Europe as evidence that reality is beyond the interests of liberals and only totems count; the idealization is no more than a convenience based on shared features, attributes, and characteristics; white (interesting, that one, and essential, I believe, howls of denial to no avail — most liberals are exceedingly racist) post-Christian, and anti-West. Asinus asinum fricat (“one ass rubs another”), more apt than ‘birds of a feather’, makes the liberal case, by liberal calculations, all the more compelling. There is nothing that so assures liberal to Leftist democrats of their rightness as numbers and majorities.
I like to tell people a little history of my family and the area I live in now to highlight the differences between Europe and USA. We have an astounding amount of experience with representative government.
I live now in CT which is known as the Constitution State. Few people know why but the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” written in 1636 by three local towns are considered to be the first real written constitution. By the time the American Revolution came around New Englanders had over 140 years of substantially self government.
My family came from North Germany around 1860. I have a copy of the US Land Grant signed in 1861 which closed by the date of issue as “in the year of our lord 1861” and “of the independence of the United States the 85th”. My German ancestors came to a country with more years of representative government (as the USA) than Germany would reach in total (neglecting the Nazi years) until today! No european state except the UK can even come close.
We have been more or less successfully governing with a representative, individual rights oriented government for close to 380 years. Few Europeans can relate or even imagine what this creates.
I would say the “advantage” of rightist dictators is that they tend to preserve more of the naturally existing institutions of the societies they take over; they often celebrate traditional social relationships, identities, national feeling, religion, etc., so that when the dictator is gone there’s more social capital to work with.
“Did they break too many eggs or just the necessary number, and how good are the resulting omelettes?”
I don’t know, but Spain, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore have transitioned to pretty decent countries without the wholesale bloodletting that occurred in the Communist world–like China (65 million dead), USSR (20 million dead), Cambodia (2 million dead), North Korea (2 million dead) and Vietnam (1 million dead). The death figures come from “The Black Book of Communism” (and let’s not quibble: the stats would bad enough even if we halved them).
A large portion of the American Left specializes in the kind of idealized, fantasy-world thinking where there are no tough trade-offs and no horrible choices. In the real world, sometimes one must decide between very awful and hideously-nauseatingly horrible. In which case the responsible thing to do is choose very awful.
The US is often criticized for supporting dictators like the Shah of Iran. And certainly we should be extremely circumspect about doing such things. But from where I’m standing, the old Shah of Iran does not look like the worst possible choice right now.
The Left can only be stopped by death.
I have some direct knowledge of Spain and Chile.
I spent time in Spain when Franco was the dictator. It was a police state. The Guardia Civil had the power to execute you on the spot. We were briefed to always do what they said. That said, I never saw them abuse that awesome power. And Spain was an exceedingly civil, law abiding place. Franco’s rule over the economy was not as well done as Pinochet in Chile, but it was orderly and an inviting place for northern Europeans to vacation.
My sojourns there in the post Franco world have been as a tourist. It’s got a nice climate, beautiful beaches, and welcoming (for the most part) people. Crime is more of an issue than in the Franco days, and there are still Spaniards who believe in communism visible through demonstrations, signs, and attitudes. Their economy is in awful shape these days. They had a real estate bubble that burst and their solar/wind energy investments are not paying off as expected. (Very unexpected, of course.) The situation there is such that I would not be surprised to learn that they have turned down the road of collectivism again. Franco’s work to stabilize the country and its economy may go to waste.
Chile, went bust in three short years under Allende. From wiki:
“Allende adopted measures including price freezes, wage increases, and tax reforms, to increase consumer spending and redistribute income downward. Joint public-private public works projects helped reduce unemployment. Much of the banking sector was nationalized. Many enterprises within the copper, coal, iron, nitrate, and steel industries were expropriated, nationalized, or subjected to state intervention.” Do any of those policies sound familiar? Allende printed money and stoked inflation such that by 1973 the country was a basket case.
Pinochet executed a military coups and the country was a military dictatorship for the next seven years. During that time Pinochet went after the hard core communists. He killed up to 2500 and imprisoned several thousand. Many of the commies left the country for Cuba, Nicaragua, and other more communist friendly countries. Pinochet privatized most businesses – the notable exception being copper, which is still a state owned enterprise.
Chile is blessed with rich farmland, productive oceans, some good ports, and abundant mineral wealth (especially copper). Between 1980, when Pinochet stepped down as dictator and the present, the country has been an economic star in South America. From wiki:
“The unemployment rate was 6.4% in April 2013. There are reported labor shortages in agriculture, mining, and construction. The percentage of Chileans with per capita household incomes below the poverty line–defined as twice the cost of satisfying a person’s minimal nutritional needs–fell from 45.1 percent in 1987 to 11.5 percent in 2009, according to government surveys.”
All that good news in Chile and yet, when I was there a year ago, there were obvious signs of leftist political pressure for more government programs and “power to the people.” It seems to me that the siren song of egalitarianism is always present. The successes of free markets and private property with minimal government interference are never enough to satisfy those who think economic equality of outcomes is the only way to go. I sensed that Chile might be trending left and would not be surprised to see it happen.
Given the European history of kings, emperors, and czars there is an expectation and acceptance of a strong central government. The U.S. rejected that type of government having seen the European model and set up a limited central government. That lasted until the Civil War.
“They simply lack the conceptual machinery to recognize it.”
That’s why its known as the Old World and we, once the second revolution (peaceful I hope) is properly settled, will continue to be the New World.
Really, those like Pinochet broke few eggs, and the option would have not simply lead to communism in Chile, but would have broken more eggs along the way.
When you deal with foreign culture you often don’t have the option of dealing with the likes of our Founding Fathers.
Three weeks before the 1973 coup in Chile, the democratically elected Chamber of Deputies passed by an 81-47 vote, a strong 63% majority, a resolution which some have called the “Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy.” An excerpt follows.
President Salvador “Democratically Elected” Allende correctly called the Declaration an invitation to a coup. The democratically elected members of the Chamber of Deputies would not have passed such a strongly-worded Declaration by a commanding 63- 37% majority if their constituents, the Chilean people, were not also disgusted with the Allende government’s repeated violations of law and democratic procedure.
The Declaration also shows that Pinochet took power with considerable popular support. The system was broken, and Pinochet picked up the pieces.
For any nostalgic lefties who still rant about Pinochet, please inform them that they should take up their complaint with the Christian Democrat Party, which was the leading force behind the 1973 Declaration and also was the leading party in the coalition which held the Presidency for the first 20 years after Pinochet.
It is also interesting that former President Patricio Aylwin, who led the NO Campaign in the 1988 Referendum over elections versus 8 more years of Pinochet, has more positive things to say about Pinochet than about Allende. I will provide the link if others are interested.
I regard Pinochet as a great man, the greatest Chilean since the days of Bernardo O’Higgins. He is-no surprise-hated by the Euros, who sought long and hard to have him tried on various trumped-up charges in their absurd “International Court of Justice”. His extradition to The Hague for this was ordered, if memory serves, by a Spanish judge.
20th century Chile was a progressively more Leftist democracy, including setting up its own Social Security under the FDR Ponzi model, culminating with Allende’s election on a plurality, I believe.
Politically, one might term Obama an American Allende.
BTW, under Pinochet the Chilean Social Security was (shudder!) privatized, and Chileans benefitted mightily from that. Their Social Security is part of each person’s estate, its assets passed on to heirs upon death. Kinda like a Roth IRA.
Pinochet was considered by my sources to be a competent leader.
The fact that the Left hated him, is perhaps its own proof.
In case of Chile, the full number of persons killed was 3000 during time span of 17 years in a country with population about 10 millions – probably, much less than the number of victims of traffic accidents during the same period. And the results are excellent by any measure: Chile is the most wealthy country in Latin America, the only one member of OECD on this continent. Most of the person killed were professional revolutionaries from Cuba, Nicaragua and so devoted killers themselves. Much more people would be dead now if they were not killed.
I spend my working time in the belly of the beast – that is, in a lefty-leaning university atmosphere. A complimentary word about Pinochet is equivalent to saying “I love Satan and eat little children”. Because, CIA! Dictator! Sigh. I don’t have any great admiration for dictatorship in any form, but Allende was worse than Pinochet by any measure.
Surellin
Those who equate Pinochet with the CIA in nearly all cases have no knowledge of the “Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy” which the Chamber of Deputies passed by a strong 63% majority. When this is brought to their attention, they start sputtering “Foreign interference,foreign interference…,” totally ignoring the point that the Declaration showed the the coup was made in Chile.
Ymarsakar
Fidel Castro’s acolytes universally point out that Castro did a great job on reducing Infant Mortality. [Which also ignores that Cuba had a good record in Infant Mortality before 1959.]In his 16 years in power, Pinochet did a better job than Castro in HIS first 16 years in power in reducing Infant Mortality.
I once brought this point up at a meeting of Sandalistas mourning the 1990 electoral defeat of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. When I later opened my mouth to make a second point, I was informed that if I didn’t STFU, I would suffer violence on my body. True hearts of leftists.
While Pinochet may have been a competent ruler, most military dictators are disasters. Look at the Videla Junta in Argentina. The Videla Junta killed ten times as many as Pinochet’s regime did, but is hardly ever mentioned . The reason is that Pinochet did a fairly competent job of governing, while the Videla Junta did not.
I think the primary reason the Left mentions Pinochet is because he found a way to execute so many of the operatives of the Leftist alliance, without facing the music. Thus he was equivalent to a George Bush killing their Islamic allies, a Sarah Palin trying to free women as a feminist, or a Hitler rebelling against the Social Justice Way.
Because, CIA! Dictator! Sigh.
What the Left doesn’t want you to know is that most of those assassinations were ordered by Leftist allied bureaucrats in the State Department.
Look up the assassination of Diem in Vietnam for one example. There were plenty of others.
Also, while the FBI and internal organizations in 1950s weren’t full members of the Left, they did have great attachments to federal power: i.e. Roosevelt. Many of their career bureaucrats eventually joined the Leftist alliance, once fighting communism became obsolete.
The Leftist prejudice against the CIA is mostly because the CIA ran counter intel and smoked out a bunch of Leftist traitors and spies. Grilling them through the works. The Left never forgot that.
However, now a days they figured out that CIA bureaucrats are easily controlled if they do 2 things.
1. Win the White House
2. Co opt high ranking security officials and military officers.
Sting wrote a beautiful song about the wives and mothers of the “Missing” Cambodians, and that forever changed my view of what happened there. It was called “They Dance Alone.”
I think I have that right.