Log in
2012 May 18 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2007/04/03/whats-wrong-with-europe/
0
0
  |   40 comments

In the comment section of my post of yesterday called “The European Divide” reader and commenter David and I expressed our concern for Europe’s passiveness. David left two interesting, thought-provoking comments, which I have decided to publish right here, on the frontpage for two reasons:
1- I am concerned about Europe
2- It might cause a good, interesting debate about this issue.

So, David’s first comment:
The world is heading from (relative) order towards increasing chaos.

In an orderly and peaceful world institutions such as the EU have a lot of relevance, creating ways for countries to interact and co-operate peacefully.

In a more chaotic world power comes not from international laws but from military strength. This is where Europe is living in an advanced state of self delusion.

This struck me most strongly during the Mohammad cartoons crisis. In a lot of Middle Eastern countries people were quite prepared to attack their local Danish or Norwegian Embassy, yet they would not dream of doing the same with their US Embassy. This was not because they hated Denmark and Norway more than the US, but because they still have a fear of the US.

Unfortunately European politics reflects the sheltered world of the European chattering classes. In this environment it is a great shame to have opinions that are out of step or to be labeled an extremist. This is why European politics focuses so much on words. The chattering classes are very concerned about what other members of their group think about them; they always want to follow the fashion. In the real world outside the wealthier parts of Europe a lot of people do not really care if some group of pompous hypocrites thinks about them. They do care, however, about what action someone might take against them.

In Europe there are tensions between the wealthy western countries, which are drowning in self-righteous complacency and those of the east, who can see Russia trying to show them who is boss on their borders.

If Russia decided to invade Estonia would Europe actually do anything? I do not think it would happen because the US would intervene, but I have considerable doubts that a lot of people in France or Germany would want to fight against one of their biggest economic partners on behalf of a country that they know nothing about.

Something is rotten in the heart of Europe.

To which I replied that “there s no doubt in my mind that the EU would condemn Russia / Putin, would go to the UN but do nothing that would actually change the situation / defend Estonia” and I asked (re. “something is rotten in the heart of Europe”) “yes, but what is it exactly? What caused Europe to become so complacent? I’m wondering about this myself every now and then and I’m thinking in the direction of moral relativism, pocketbook, no war = peace thinking, wartiredness, etc. but I think that there is more to it. But what exactly?”

David’s answer:

There seem to be a few factors that are important:

1. Moral relativism.

This is the biggest reason. I think that one of the main ironies of moral relativism is how easily it becomes political correctness that is very dogmatic about the current political fashion and that is completely oblivious to its own self-righteousness.

2. The Welfare State.

The struggle for survival has been taken away in much of western Europe. It is easier to fight and die if you think you have a good chance of dying of TB at age 35 than if you feel entitled to live on to 80 in peace and prosperity.

3. Affluence.

Too much luxury. My ancient history is a bit vague but I recollect that many historians regard the collapse of the Roman Empire as being partly due to its affluence and love of luxury.

4. Collapse of Christian belief.

“Imagine all the people living for today” – well you don’t have to imagine any more – they are doing just that. The removal of a complete system of morality with no replacement other than a few simplistic slogans.

  1. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #968 ›
    domajot All of these points might very well contribute to what is seen as Europe's malady. But the article ignores a major contributor: the world in which Europe exists. Nations and cultures exist today in a smaller, more claustrophobic arena. They have been crunched together by the age of fast travel, fast communications and fast transport of goods and weapons. Actions, like bullets, ricochet in these close quarters and can return to hit you right back in the blink of an eye. As a result, the world is more dangerous and requires much more caution and foresight than it used to. Think of it as picking your way through a mine field, trying to survive. We are all made weaker by this phenomenon. Guns have their role, but conflicts will be won by a superiority of wits. Iran is flexing its strategy, its power of imagination, even as we speak. Europe and all the West should do the same. Vis-a-vis the imagined invasion of Estonia, I see no reason to see the US as any different from Europe. For 50 years, the US reacted to Russia's occupation of Estonia and the other Baltic States - by making empassioned declarations. These countries have nothing to offer to US national interests, and there is no reason to expect anything more. Remember, too, that weak-spined France and Germany made a better decision about Iraq than strong Ametica. To win, we have to use our best weapons, our brains to learn to adapt to the new world.
  2. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #969 ›
    mvdg
    But the article ignores a major contributor: the world in which Europe exists.
    Sure, but doesn't that make Europe's complacency even more dangerous? The changing world, the world getting smaller I mean?
    Remember, too, that weak-spined France and Germany made a better decision about Iraq than strong Ametica.
    To which one could say that even if Iraq did have WMD's, these countries would not have favored an attack because of Europe's current fear of using force and because of the almighty $.
  3. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #970 ›
    domajot "even if Iraq did have WMD’s, these countries would not have favored an attack " __________________ We are guessing, and I'm not sure. It just strikes me that being strong and moral is too often equated with a willingness to attack militarily, and this is foolhardy, besides degrading the meaning of 'moral'. Sometimes the world's wrongs can't be set right, because the cost would be too great. The smart man knows when to attack and when to go home and get over it. The West is in a weakened state, and it's time to admit it. A cat would just laugh at a roaring mouse before eating it. Military strength is necessary, as a last resort in offense and always for defense. To give it a moral value is the most dangerous thing that can be done. Radicalized Islam, globalization, new technologies are changing the world so fast that Europe and the US are having trouble adjusting. That's why I place such emphasis on thinking in new ways, as well. I'm very frustrated with the world (It refuses to come to me for instructions), but relying on military power too much is as dangerous as staying in bed and ignoring the gathering storm. I will never see military strength as the equivalent of moral strength; it's just a necessary evil, like money. I think Europe is searching for moral strength in a misguided way. But the US is using military strength as the equivalent of moral strength, and look where its real moral values have gone. I just listened to a defense lawyer for a detainee at Gitmo, and what he described (reading from FBI reports) made me sick. There are many ways a society can get on a wrong path. We have to be careful how to make our way, and we have to find new paths.
  4. Posted by Alan
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #971 ›
    Alan I have to agree with domajot--military power isn't the same as moral power. And I'm not sure "affluence" is responsible for Europe's malaise. America probably has more money still, but its situation seems rather different. Nor do I believe in the "welfare state" as a cause for inaction. Here is the US it is a political axiom that the wealthy are conservative because they want to protect what they have. Similarly, I would suspect that people who receive extensive benefits from the state would fight to protect them (and the state that provides them). I have to say, as an American I do wish Europe would help out more militarily, rather than leaning on the US so much. It results in the US spending heavily on the military, while its European allies can spend less and use the savings to benefit themselves. Plus, I don't think the US will remain a superpower too much longer, so they'll have to pitch in eventually.
  5. Posted by Michael van der Galiën
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #972 ›
    Michael van der Galiën
    I would suspect that people who receive extensive benefits from the state would fight to protect them (and the state that provides them).
    I don't agree. They're not used to fighting for anything. They become complacent and lazy.
  6. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #973 ›
    Interested
    It just strikes me that being strong and moral is too often equated with a willingness to attack militarily, and this is foolhardy, besides degrading the meaning of ‘moral’.
    I agree with that, and your right power has been equated to military power for centuries. With Europe's complacency - I think a good portion is just the passage of time. Over a generation grew up without needing to fully pay for and perform it's own defense as the United States played the big brother role for decades. Instead that money went towards social programs and developing the society.
  7. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #974 ›
    mvdg
    With Europe's complacency - I think a good portion is just the passage of time. Over a generation grew up without needing to fully pay for and perform it's own defense as the United States played the big brother role for decades. Instead that money went towards social programs and developing the society.
    Again I disagree. It began before WW2 already, not after.
  8. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #975 ›
    Interested
    Again I disagree. It began before WW2 already, not after.
    You can't say that not having to provide for your own defense does not instill a level of complacency. It very well may have started before then, but all country mind-sets grow generation to generation. Whatever took place prior to WW2 is not the same mindset of today unless that mindset has been maintained the entire time.
  9. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #976 ›
    mvdg
    You can’t say that not having to provide for your own defense does not instill a level of complacency
    No, I agree with that.
    Whatever took place prior to WW2 is not the same mindset of today
    I think it is, only is today's mindset a result of the mindset back then, in combination with "not having to provide for [our] own defense". Like: it made matters even worse.
  10. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #977 ›
    Interested ahhh gottchya, I'm following what your sayin now.
  11. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #978 ›
    mvdg what do you think of this - I'm reading an article about American conservatism for an essay I have to write and came across the following passage:
    it is democracy itself that fosters the growth of government and threatens liberty. The origins of Big Government are several: Democratic peoples have neither the inclination nor the time to engage in public business (being too preoccupied with their own business)--and so in their apathy they leave matters of governing to the State. Their otherwise admirable pride in their independence also feeds the State's growth. Unlike the power exercised by a family patriarch, a local magistrate, or a religious minister, governmental authority, being more anonymous, is less likely to offend, and is thus more easily tolerated in a democracy. Democratic capitalism also plays a role. In times of equality, the middle class increases and eventually predominates. Their aspirations for comfort and ease become society's, as does their strong aversion to whatever might upset their pursuit of well being, and so increasingly the State is looked to for security and public order.
    What do you all think of that?
  12. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #979 ›
    domajot MVDG- (Re welfate recipients) "They’re not used to fighting for anything. They become complacent and lazy" --------------------- I can hardly believe you said that; that is so unjust. To be sure, some do. But do you know what percentage receive welfare only temporarily, to get out of a tight spot? Do you know how many take welfare because they are disabled physically or mentally and can/t work? Do you know how many women with children whose husbands skipped town, take welfare while they go to school or take training to quality for a job? Again, I don't deny that there are those who have made it a way of life, like unwed teen mothers who keep on having babies. What would you like a moral country to do - leave the mentally ill on the streets? And even in the case of teen mothers, would you rather those babies went without medical care or food? What did they do wrong except be born? I find yours to be an outrageous statement.
  13. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #980 ›
    mvdg Interested: lol, i knew you would ;)
  14. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #981 ›
    domajot You didn't ask me, but I'll react to your passage anyway. (You've really got me riled, now, so watch out!) The passage ,as all doctrinaire texts, consists of half-truths. That is, it takes some selected phenomenon out of many and extends them to cover the whole ground. In the process, a small truth becomes a lie, because it elides too much, oversimplifies too much and exagerates too much. This is the kind of text that can only be useful if taken as a subtext of a much larger story. Like Lawrence, it provides one angle, but it doesn't show the whole picture. This is precisely the kind of ideological approach that pollutes all political debate. It takes ideas, gives them labels (big government, welfare state, death taxes) and then pretends the labels in themselves can be applied to all of life's complexities. I take beck the honorary citizenship I bestowed on you; I don;t want you anywhere near our US government! (Ha Ha)
  15. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #982 ›
    mvdg What made you think that I endorse the idea expressed in the passage? Note that when I agree with something I let it be known. If I don't and only write "what do you think of this", well, that's what I want really: to know what you all think of it. Let me let you in on little secret... it's one of the basic ideas behind neoconservatism in a nutshell, that passage... And no, I am not a neoconservative. Re. welfare recipients: of course not all of them, I was not speaking about individuals, i was talking about a society as a whole that is used to a government taking care of it (re: excessive welfare state). Apologize for not expressing myself careful enough. There are individuals who cannot have a job because of, indeed, mental illness, etc. but there are, it has to be said, also individuals who are lazy and who do refuse to work, etc.
  16. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #983 ›
    domajot Let's get back to complacency. Let's talk about Darfur. A genocide has been taking place for years, and the world watches (or forgets about it). What would you have a military and thus, moral nation do? Invade Sudan? Bomb the capital? Kill the leadership and install one of your own choosing? All of the choices will have consequences in a vast area,outside of Sudan, and will end by involving a large group of other nations. So what is the uncomplacent and moral thing to do?
  17. Posted by Alan
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #984 ›
    Alan "Democratic peoples have neither the inclination nor the time to engage in public business (being too preoccupied with their own business)–and so in their apathy they leave matters of governing to the State" That seems a little contradictory--the very purpose of democracy is to involve people in the business of government. I would suspect that people who would want a democracy would do so because they'd want to participate. If they didn't , then they'd probably go for some form of dictatorship.
  18. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #985 ›
    Interested
    but there are, it has to be said, also individuals who are lazy and who do refuse to work, etc.
    According to Economic studies, 1.5% of the population is in a do not want to work mode. In times of economic prosperity add another 1.5% for workers in transient mode. It doesn't reflect those in one type of disability or another. For the passage - I can't really agree with it, Like Doma, I think it's picking and choosing what to modify where. Yes society as a whole looks to government for security. but parts like this
    Their aspirations for comfort and ease become society’s
    I do not believe so. Middle class people that I know worked hard to gain what comfort level they choose to have and look to themselves to maintain it.
  19. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #986 ›
    domajot And no, I am not a neoconservative ----------- Okay, then you can have the US citizenship. I recognized the ideological source of the text, but I made the error of thinking you were reading it as your guide. Mea culpa. FYI, the last time I saw statistics about welfare was over a year ago, but I was astounded at the small percentage of adults who abuse the system. Men are kicked off the rolls pretty fast. Some relate that to the breakup of families and crime rates, but I haven't seen any studies that looked trustworthy. And that is really the problem with welfare: everybody argues about it, but few do any real analyses of which type of welfare does the most good while doing the least harm.
  20. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #987 ›
    Interested
    And that is really the problem with welfare: everybody argues about it, but few do any real analyses of which type of welfare does the most good while doing the least harm.
    I had a friend who - a number of years ago - had to go on welfare. She wasn't on very long and didn't want to be. But parts of welfare made it hard for someone to get back on their feet. For example, she, a fairly new mom - got to the point where she could work part time, yet the state took most of her earnings. Looking at the numbers it basically made no sense for her to try to work, edging herself closer to self-sufficiency. Instead the system seems to encourage working under the table to be able to step up to the level to get off the welfare. Other areas, like food stamps or heating assistance is in a pretty good position to help people through temporary rough times. It's still tough to get onboard with just food stamps. the family suffers during that short period. Which really hurts, these folks often scrimp through life, and when they're forced to go that route - the route has time barriers.
  21. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #988 ›
    mvdg In the Netherlands they released a report a couple of years ago which led to tougher check ups on welfare for the disabled. About 50% if I recall correctly, of Turks and Morroccons who received this type of welfare were faking it.
  22. Posted by David
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #989 ›
    David Interesting discussion. Here are a few points in response: domajot: "Guns have their role, but conflicts will be won by a superiority of wits. Iran is flexing its strategy, its power of imagination, even as we speak. Europe and all the West should do the same." I do not believe that warfare should be anything other than the last resort. The problem is that Europe has wound down its military forces to the stage that it would be quite difficult to go to war even to defend itself. The EU aspires to be some sort of player on the world stage, yet it EU member states were actually threatened they would have to rely on their NATO alliance with the US to defend themselves. "Remember, too, that weak-spined France and Germany made a better decision about Iraq than strong Ametica." I disagree. France and Germany made 2 decisions about Iraq: 1. They did not back the US. 2. They publically opposed and attempted to undermine the US. The first decision was justifiable, the second was not. France and Germany adopt realpolitik when it comes to pretty much everyone else in the world, when it comes to the actions of their supposed ally and the country that provides their military defence they then start moralising. to be continued...
  23. Posted by David
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #990 ›
    David continuation: Alan: "Plus, I don’t think the US will remain a superpower too much longer, so they’ll have to pitch in eventually." I agree about the US, but I have a fear that rather than "pitching in" to its own defence, Europe if threatened will go for what will be termed "dialogue" but which will actually be surrender in installments.
  24. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #991 ›
    mvdg
    I have a fear that rather than “pitching in” to its own defence, Europe if threatened will go for what will be termed “dialogue” but which will actually be surrender in installments.
    I agree.
  25. Posted by David
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #992 ›
    David continuation 2 MVDG: In my opinion big government has largely happened as a result of well intentioned efforts to improve the lives of the citizenry. Unfortunately when government takes over responsibility for an area there is a tendency to forget that anyone else ever did anything there. Take, for example, care of the elderly. In the late 1980s I worked as a manager for care workers with the elderly in a state run scheme. I had a conversation one day with one of my elderly clients and he told me he had done something similar to me back in the 1960s. When I asked him about this it turned out that before the state care service was set up, there were dozens of voluntary organisations and church groups organising care for the elderly. When the state came along they all ceased to exist. By the 1980s there were funding problems with the state provision, but by that stage nobody else had been providing such services voluntarily for more than 20 years. When the state stopped funding particular services (such as cleaning help) there was no longer anyone there from the voluntary sector to take up the task again. Handing responsibilities to government is very much a two edged sword.
  26. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #993 ›
    mvdg One of the problems with letting the government do something is that once the government steps in, it is very, very difficult to get the government to step out of it again, for a variety of reasons. One of them is this very practical reason: once people are used to the government doing things formerly done by volunteers, it is almost impossible to set a similar system of volunteerism up again.
  27. Posted by David
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #994 ›
    David I would also add that I have some experience with the voluntary and charity sector. Unfortunately much of this is now also state orientated. Charities and voluntary organisations spend a lot of effort trying to get state funding as this is a much bigger prize than individual contributions, especially as individuals tend to be fickle and change their support in line with the latest fashions. The Leviathan gets everywhere.
  28. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #995 ›
    domajot David- When I react to someone else's statement, I end up sounding as if I endorse the exact oppostie. Not tue. Regarding Europe and the military, there is a lot in what you say. On the other hand, there is equal danger on relying on the military too much to resolve foreign policy. The US has done good as well as bad when it has intervened, but when there is the capacity of military action, it can become tempting to resort to it automatically and even come to regard warfare as a virtue. Europe's aversion to military action can lead to a blind faith in the power of words. At other times, the cautious approach avoids unnecessary secondary-round conflicts. In a shrinking world, caution does become ever more important. I react very strongly to broad statements in an either/or fashion. Where we are: the EU condemns the US, and you, MDVG and others condemn the EU. It would be much more constructive to admit when one's approach has failed as well as triumphed, and to glean the other side for lessons to temper and season one's own endorsement of policy. The mutual condemnation bottle neck weakens both sides of the Atlantic.
  29. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #996 ›
    Interested
    One of the problems with letting the government do something is that once the government steps in, it is very, very difficult to get the government to step out of it again, for a variety of reasons. One of them is this very practical reason: once people are used to the government doing things formerly done by volunteers, it is almost impossible to set a similar system of volunteerism up again.
    Boy isn't that right. A self-inducing machine. And when Gov't can't do all of the jobs and contracts out to private firms on a per-pay basis, then if something goes wrong the gov't is berated for contracting it out rather than doing it in-house.
  30. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #997 ›
    domajot David- The debates about welfare are frustrating to the nth degree. Each side has a narrative into which it squeezes every aspect and pretends that nothing is being left out. To wit: Your story on eldercare neglects to address the question: If things were so great, why did the nation turn to government? I would suspect that the need was greater than the capacity of charitable works. Charity was alive and well in the time of Dickens, when aristocratic ladies held hankies to their noses and delivered food baskets to the poor. High minded as those ladies were, their excursions to the slums led to a smug self-satisfaction that they had done their duty, and so all was well with world and there was no need to think about the phenomenon of poverty any further. Government is called on when the suffering that private efforts can not address becomes a glaring eyesore and a blot of shame on society. Conservatives are happy to find something to blame (big governemtn, liberals, Democrats, whatever) and prophesy that a return to the old ways will cure everything. Should we, indeed, embrace that prophesy, on the road to claiming the positive effect, we will return to the failures of the past, as well. The call for government intercession will rise once more. Stop! We need to get off the see-saw. Just as every medicine has side effects, so will every cure. There is no need to ban the medicine if you can minimize the side effects. Iim beginning to think the divide on this concerns a basic difference in how we perceive the individual's relationship to the greater society. But that topic is a whole book in itself. To emphasize: the call to return to the past is highly unconvincing. We need a fresh approach.
  31. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #998 ›
    mvdg
    If things were so great, why did the nation turn to government? I would suspect that the need was greater than the capacity of charitable works.
    Which begs the question: if the government could take so good care of it, why did the government give it up and did volunteers have to do it once again? Also: just because individuals / charities have a problem doing something, does not mean that the government should take it over. Then one should consider the loss of freedom, and whether or not the government can take care of whatever it is quite easily / in the future as well, or whether it will, in the long run, be difficult for the government to continue doing so.
    To emphasize: the call to return to the past is highly unconvincing. We need a fresh approach.
    I disagree. We can learn from the past. We can learn from how things were done in the past. In fact, the challenge for conservatives is to apply the lessons learned through history to the problems of today (paraphrasing Goldwater).
  32. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #999 ›
    domajot Interested: "And when Gov’t can’t do all of the jobs and contracts out to private firms on a per-pay basis, then if something goes wrong the gov’t is berated for contracting it out rather than doing it in-house." ----------------- .. and rightly so, in many instances. The government is responsible for the results, after all. Through the maze of contractors and their subcontractors, the burden of responsibiliy can get utterly lost. I've watched too many panels of contractors whose eyes glaze over with bewilderment when the question of responsibiliy is raised. I wonder, too, how is governement smaller just because the checks for employees go through intermediaries? Also, why is waste by contractor qualitatively different than more direct government waste? As far as I can see, this whole rallying call against government is a sham. What matters is efficiency and responsibility, not the method we come by these goals. So far, I see huge failings by both methods.
  33. Posted by David
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #1000 ›
    David "To wit: Your story on eldercare neglects to address the question: If things were so great, why did the nation turn to government? I would suspect that the need was greater than the capacity of charitable works." That is one possible conclusion. Another might be that people at the time thought that it was a good idea to pay carers for the care that they were already giving. Some welfare projects were driven by need, but others were driven by the fact that at the time it was possible and seemed like a good idea. The Victorian charity which you mock was actually highly effective in a lot of ways, especially in bringing education and literacy to the masses. I doubt that any Victorian aristocratic lady was any more smug and self-righteous than a modern day anti-poverty protester who goes to a rally against government policy but doesn't do anything themselves. "Iim beginning to think the divide on this concerns a basic difference in how we perceive the individual’s relationship to the greater society. But that topic is a whole book in itself." I think that this might very well be correct. I'll try to expand on this point tomorrow if I have time. "To emphasize: the call to return to the past is highly unconvincing. We need a fresh approach." I do not advocate a "return to the past", however society is not some linear progress from a barbaric past to a progressive future. Some things were done better in the past, some things were done worse. Best to try to learn from the past rather than write it all off with ill informed mocking.
  34. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #1001 ›
    domajot MVDG- I agree that the past can be a valuable reference. We can learn from it, but with the caution, that we can not replicate it. In general, the wish to return to the past is a wish to return to an idealized and unrealistic version of the past. There have been movements to return to nature, as well as the idealization of 'the noble savage'. These are dreams in reaction to the ugliness of reality. In fact, the past failed the poor. Read histories of how the poor fared in the beginning years of the Industrial Age. Read histories of the Aooalachians and how their children have fared when they've had the 'liberty' to take care of themselves. When FDR introduced his programs, he wasn't acting in a world of dreams; he was reacting to a crisis of humanity. Fast forward, and there is no denying that welfare programs have had negative side effects. As I said, all medicines have side effects. But I'd rather see how the side effects can be minimized than die fom the disease without the medicine. A personal story: A friend was entranced with the '20s after reading The Great Gatsby. She spent weeks wanting to be transported back to that era of gay parties, dancing and carefree fun. But she never considered that going back in time might land her, not among the idle rich, but in the role of the poor wife of the gas station worker.
  35. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #1002 ›
    mvdg
    the wish to return to the past is a wish to return to an idealized and unrealistic version of the past.
    But many conservatives don't have the wish to go back to the past, conservatism is, as i said, more to apply the lessons learned through history to the problems of today" than wanting to back to the past. Conservatives are not opposed to progress: they only say: think twice about it, and make sure to keep that which is good while progressing.
  36. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #1003 ›
    domajot David- I mock, not seriously, but to make a point. It reflects my shortcomings and frustrations with language, more than anything else. I find myself using word cartoons, so to speak, simply because it comes more easily.
  37. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #1004 ›
    domajot MVDG- But many conservatives don’t have the wish to go back to the past, ------------- Unfortunaley, this message does not come through well. Ususally, the past is cited as an example of a golden age, as opposed to the evils of the present endorsed by political opponents. I have repeatedly admitted the bad side effects of welfare programs. If conservatives would refer, now and then, to the good, or at least necessary, aspects of welfare, this whole conversation would have died away quietly. I say it again: I endorse a serious analyis of the various government progams and cutting, adjusting, enhancing according to shown results. I don't endorse across-the- board cuts, because they can cut the best, while leaving the worst in place. For the same reason, I don't endorse across-the-board increases. This is an area, where politicians with their pet projects interfere entirely too much in what should be an academic exercise.
  38. Posted by mvdg
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #1005 ›
    mvdg Doma: if we were politicians, you probably democrat, i probably republican, we could do business with each other ;)
  39. Posted by domajot
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #1006 ›
    domajot MVDG- Our next project: world peace!
  40. Posted by David
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #967 ›
    David "I mock, not seriously, but to make a point. It reflects my shortcomings and frustrations with language, more than anything else. I find myself using word cartoons, so to speak, simply because it comes more easily." No problem. I get a bit angry when people criticise the Victorians, because from my own reading of the history of the time that era was one where people did have a lot of optimistic reforming zeal and where there were a lot of positive changes in areas such as education, literacy and hygeine. Much of the subsequent mockery of the time started because British socialists in the 1930s despised the Victorian tendency towards pragmatic rather than socialist solutions and their belief in the inculcation of individual virtue. These two issues seem to me to be the ones where the Victorians had a better view than their successors.
1