Theodore Dalrymple on the European debt crisis
Our own roiling political waters have obscured some of the other important things going on in the rest of the world. So I hereby present the ever-insightful Theodore Dalrymple, who has a lot to say on the euro crisis and national identities.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here are some excerpts to whet your appetite:
[A journalist asked me] whether I thought that nationalism was dangerous. The question implied that the choice before Europe was between the European Union and fascism: that all that stood between us and the ascension to power of new Mussolinis, Francos, and Hitlers were the free lunches of senior Eurocrats. I replied that dangerous forms of nationalism existed, of course, but that in the present circumstances, supranationalism represented by far the greater danger. Not only was such supranationalism undemocratic, for it reflected no widespread demand or sentiment among the population; it also risked provoking the very kind of nationalism against which it was to stand as the bulwark. Further, the breakup of supranational polities in Europe tends to be messy, as history demonstrates…
It happens that the central offices of the E.U. are located in Brussels. Yet the political difficulties of Belgium [two very separate factions in one very small country] do not give the European unionists pause for thought””or, if they do pause, they reach a peculiar conclusion: that what has not worked in two centuries in a small area with only two populations will work in a few years in a much larger area with a multitude of populations. It does not occur to the unionists that different countries really are different: not a little bit, but radically, in culture, language, history, traditions, and economies. The term “European” is not meaningless, but whatever content the term may have, it is not sufficient for the formation of a viable polity.
The debt crisis has revealed differences in national character of precisely the kind that make any closer union both difficult and dangerous. Indeed, the very attempt to force a union is at the root of the crisis, for if Greece and Ireland, to take two countries at the geographical extremes of the continent, had not been able to borrow in euros under the false supposition that eurozone membership effectively guaranteed their sovereign debts, it is unlikely that they would have wound up in their current straits.
Dalrymple goes on to describe the different reactions of the Irish and the Greeks to their respective financial crises, and the role Germany has had to play, almost against its will. He concludes:
In short, the incontinent spending of many European governments, which awarded whole populations unearned benefits at the expense of generations to come, has””along with a megalomaniacal currency union””produced a crisis not merely economic but social, political, and even civilizational.
No matter how long the Europeans keep postponing the inevitable end of the common currency, it will come.
Schaudenfreude, schaudenfreude. How long have the Eurosneers claimed their arrangement was vastly superior to that of the “heartless” US? How long have the libs pointed to Europe as the model we should follow?
Long enough.
Too long, in fact.
Schaudenfreude, schaudenfreude
It was interesting to read of the different reactions of Greece and Ireland to the financial crisis. The Irish agreed that they had some complicity in it, and accepted the haircut that came with it. By contrast, the Greeks wanted to keep the party going.
Both the Greek and Italian governments are now led by appointed (not elected) bankers. It may not be a conspiracy, but it sure looks like one.
Various aphorisms:
The pols are buying the chumps’ votes with the chumps’ own money and the chumps haven’t figured it out.
It’s easy to get people to vote themselves other people’s money.
If you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, you can generally count on Paul’s vote.
What can’t go on won’t.
The only question left is who the denialists will blame.
Europe is a hotbed of tribal conflict and has been for a couple of millennium. The European Union and the almost common currency known as the Euro were an attempt to paper over the deep divisions that are the essence of Europe. There is no commonality between Northern Europe and Southern Europe. There is no real commonality between France and Germany or France and the UK, for example. This is simply a matter of history and it is undeniable.
After WWII the USA gave (free of interest or repayment) Western Europe hundreds of billions (adjusted for inflation) to rebuild and then from 1945 until today provided for their defense (trillions upon trillions adjusted for inflation). They chose to create highly intrusive cradle to grave social welfare systems and have for the most part lost any sense of a work ethic or entrepreneurial spirit (there are a few exceptions — mainly Germany).
Now, the tensions increase as productive and frugal Germany is asked to bailout the PIIGS. The Germans resent having to bail them out and the PIIGS resent the Germans for their reluctance to bail them out. France is trying to hold onto their imaginary power. And the UK wonders where their interests lay. Its going to get ugly.
I spent a semester abroad in the Netherlands back in my college days (1995). One of the courses that was required study was called “Nations and Nationalism”. I went to a college with a high degree of exchange students. That particular class was primarily russians with some irish, some greeks (funny, eh?) and… me.
I can still vividly recall the how the concept of Nationalism was the great Bogeyman to the professor and many of the europeans.
In their minds, it wasn’t Hitler, Mussolini, Fascism, etc. that caused WW2. It was Nationalism. There was only one place Natioanlism could go: To Fascism. This was especially jarring for me to accept as 20 year old american. It made for quite a few intense arguments. Class was never dull. But it was constantly made clear: Nationalism was the route of all evil.
Not that any of that is pertinent but reading the links was like taking a step back in time.
Dalrymple says it so well:
“In short, the incontinent spending of many European governments, which awarded whole populations unearned benefits at the expense of generations to come, has–along with a megalomaniacal currency union–produced a crisis not merely economic but social, political, and even civilizational.”
For me to say anything seems pointless. Nothing good, only much bad, can come from this.
There’s another website which uses a macro when the EU is mentioned: “successor to the Austro-Hungarian Empire except without the music, the dancing and the nifty uniforms”.
One characteristic of the upper classes from Bristol to Moscow was frequent service as military officers. The point was that there was plenty of room. Lots of armies. For a reason.
Let us presume that they got religion in 1914-1918. Just short of a century to now going against type. The primary reason was that the victorious Allies of WW II were sitting on them. NATO may not have “occupied” Holland or France or Belgium, but it included US troops and US guarantees that American mothers’ sons would once again fall in straightening out the yurps’ next Big Idea.
The Americans are taking ship, the Zone is breaking up under circumstances not conducive to placid politics, and you can fund an army by mortgaging the future. If you win, you pay with the other guy’s stuff. If you lose, nobody will try to collect.
Remind me how the debt situation of the U.S. is so different from Europe.
“Remind me how the debt situation of the U.S. is so different from Europe.”
Because we’re the U.S. of freakin’ A.!
“There was only one place Nationalism could go: To Fascism.”
Heh.
When the Yuroes blame fascism on something or somebody, you can be sure that fascism is exactly their goal.
The Japanese still teach their youth, via various social and propaganda messages, that they are the future and should be the ones to change debt ridden Japan.
I think the Japanese still have a chance, since they have spirit. I don’t know about European spirit, however.
Switzerland has managed to bridge the gap between German, French, and Italian cultures. When you travel around the country you encounter all those differences which are immediately apparent. The Germans – tidy, brisk, businesslike, friendly toward non-German speakers. The French – less tidy, less businesslike, less friendly to non-French speakers. The Italians – Less tidy, casual attitude toward business, laid back, friendly to non-Italian speakers (especially if you have a few lira to hand out). Anyone who has been to Europe has seen these cultural differences. And those differences are deeply ingrained. it’s interesting to ponder how the Swiss have made it work. However, the Swiss haven’t joined the Euro. They may have known from their own experience how difficult it would be.
The U.S. isn’t like Greece, Spain, Italy, France, or even Denmark. Why? Because, in spite of the deficit situation, we have far more capability of cutting government spending and raising the level of our economy, which can bring our budget into balance. Imagine how a country like Greece can improve their economic/fiscal situation. They have two assets -olives/olive oil and tourism. Not exactly areas of economic dynamism. Their only way forward is to declare bankruptcy and lower their standard of living to the level their economy will support. Maybe they can find a new, vibrant tech industry to set up there, but that seems a long shot given the Greek culture. Yes, the Euro zone will probably breakup or at least shrink. It will create problems for all the rest of the world – we’re in a globalized economy now. But it need not lead to the failure of countries with economic strength and sound fiscal policies. Just one more reason why the 2012 election is so important. We need to get our fiscal policies right.