MaxedOutMama
Thursday, November 18, 2004
European Reflections
There is a considerable irony inherent in the news of two election campaigns in the last month. In Europe, Barroso could not gain approval for his EU Commission until Rocco Buttiglione resigned his seat in the commission. Buttiglione commented in this WSJ column:
"One of America's founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, was convinced that politics needed values it could not produce itself and had to rely on other agencies (mainly the churches) to nurture the virtues civil life needs. The state could therefore not privilege any church in particular but had to maintain a positive attitude to religion in general.
"Jean Jacques Rousseau thought, on the contrary, that the state needed a kind of civil religion of its own and the existing churches had to bow to this civil religion by incorporating its commandments in their theology. Many scholars see in this idea of Rousseau's the seminal principle of totalitarianism. The tradition of Rousseau and of the Jacobins has survived in Europe in less virulent forms than in the not too distant past, but it's still part of the European political and ideological landscape.
"These differing philosophical approaches to religion and politics do not give us, however, the whole truth. In the 1960s, both Europe and the United States lived through a cultural era that belittled traditional values and wanted to prepare the young generation for a world of tomorrow in which individual responsibility, self-sacrifice and other virtues of the past would be needed no more. In this world nobody would need moral convictions. It would be a world without the constraint of limitedness disposable resources. Nobody would need to toil for his bread."
This, I think, is about the best description I have read of the two different world views exemplified by the presidential campaign. The same theme - that George Bush and John Kerry were two men who had come down on two different sides of the cultural divide stemming from the 1960's - appeared in several German columns on the US election, and I thought it was accurate. Describing the current political split in the US as a Democratic/Republican difference is false - you can find exponents of both cultures within either party. It does fall somewhat along rural/urban lines, but that correlation is relatively weak. In most urban areas Bush got 40 odd percentage of the vote, and in most rural areas Kerry got 40 odd percentage of the vote.
Having rejected the cradle-to-grave model of social responsibility, what we in the US are experiencing now is a fight between social theories. Those on both sides believe their underlying principles and strategies will provide the best hope for the future, collectively and individually. A failure to recognize that dooms any realistic dialogue between the opposing sides.
Successful presidents often shape their parties, and I wonder if we are not seeing a sorting-out process, in which the Republican party is picking up the Hamiltonians and the Democratic party is picking up the Rousseauists, with their calls for toleration and an underlying fear of any ultimate loyalty to a faith other than that in a presumably perfectable body politic. This progression started under Reagan, but was blurred during Clinton's era, because he straddled the divide due to his experience in Southern politics.
The irony is that the "red" South embraces a sort of progressive economic doctrine combined with an emphasis on individual responsibility. For instance, in Georgia a welfare applicant is normally referred first to job placement facilities ("WorkFirst") - but we also have the very popular Peachcare program, under which the medical costs for both mother and infant are covered for a huge percentage of the middle and lower class population. College or trade school tuition is essentially free for state residents who can maintain a B average.
This is a profoundly populist type of compromise which defines Southern politics and could be summed up as "Keep trying, do the best you can - but yes, we have a responsibility to try to make life possible for the average responsible person."
Rocco Buttiglione lost his seat on the European commission because he stated he held personal beliefs regarding the immorality of homosexuality. He also stated that the state had no right to interfere or discriminate against homosexuals, but this fact was lost in the outcry against his personal and religious beliefs:
"When it came to Signor Buttiglione's nomination hearing two weeks ago for the post of justice commissioner, left-wingers in the European Parliament were lying in wait, ready to turn his Catholic beliefs back against him.
"Quizzed about his attitude to homosexuality, Signor Buttiglione told MEPs: "Many things may be considered immoral which should not be prohibited."
"He added: "I may think that homosexuality is a sin, and this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime." When asked why he was opposed to gay marriages, he said that "the family exists to allow women to have children and be protected by their husbands."
"Signor Buttiglione tried to clarify his beliefs, telling the MEPs: "The state has no right to stick its nose into these things and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation... this stands in the Charter of Human Rights, this stands in the Constitution and I have pledged to defend this constitution.""
But, of course, the damage was done, and Buttiglione's political career would not survive the consequences of his statements. Nor is this out of the line of other European solutions to these type of questions. In France they have a law banning "signs and behavior...whose wearing immediately makes known a person’s religious faith" from government institutions like schools, and there was an uproar recently in Germany over a teacher who wore one. The belief seems to be that this can't be tolerated.
"It's not for me to comment on -- and certainly not to criticize -- whether someone wears a headscarf as an expression of her religious convictions.... But we have to differentiate between wearing a headscarf in public and wearing a headscarf when working as a civil servant. It's different, for example, with a teacher, who the children cannot avoid. We can't tolerate that. That is no longer an issue of private convictions."
In Sweden, a Pentecostal pastor was sentenced to one month in prison for preaching a sermon against homosexuality in his church. In Oslo, Norway, Jewish symbols were banned from the march commemorating Kristallnacht:
"The news presenter said that authorities forbade any Jewish symbols, including the Star of David and the Israeli flag from being displayed. Even more outrageous and disturbing, was the evening news showing a group of Norwegian Jews who wanted to take part in the commemoration being told by a Norwegian policeman to '"leave the area,'" he continued."
This is a European consensus of sorts, but it isn't a consensus which will work in the US.
"One of America's founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, was convinced that politics needed values it could not produce itself and had to rely on other agencies (mainly the churches) to nurture the virtues civil life needs. The state could therefore not privilege any church in particular but had to maintain a positive attitude to religion in general.
"Jean Jacques Rousseau thought, on the contrary, that the state needed a kind of civil religion of its own and the existing churches had to bow to this civil religion by incorporating its commandments in their theology. Many scholars see in this idea of Rousseau's the seminal principle of totalitarianism. The tradition of Rousseau and of the Jacobins has survived in Europe in less virulent forms than in the not too distant past, but it's still part of the European political and ideological landscape.
"These differing philosophical approaches to religion and politics do not give us, however, the whole truth. In the 1960s, both Europe and the United States lived through a cultural era that belittled traditional values and wanted to prepare the young generation for a world of tomorrow in which individual responsibility, self-sacrifice and other virtues of the past would be needed no more. In this world nobody would need moral convictions. It would be a world without the constraint of limitedness disposable resources. Nobody would need to toil for his bread."
This, I think, is about the best description I have read of the two different world views exemplified by the presidential campaign. The same theme - that George Bush and John Kerry were two men who had come down on two different sides of the cultural divide stemming from the 1960's - appeared in several German columns on the US election, and I thought it was accurate. Describing the current political split in the US as a Democratic/Republican difference is false - you can find exponents of both cultures within either party. It does fall somewhat along rural/urban lines, but that correlation is relatively weak. In most urban areas Bush got 40 odd percentage of the vote, and in most rural areas Kerry got 40 odd percentage of the vote.
Having rejected the cradle-to-grave model of social responsibility, what we in the US are experiencing now is a fight between social theories. Those on both sides believe their underlying principles and strategies will provide the best hope for the future, collectively and individually. A failure to recognize that dooms any realistic dialogue between the opposing sides.
Successful presidents often shape their parties, and I wonder if we are not seeing a sorting-out process, in which the Republican party is picking up the Hamiltonians and the Democratic party is picking up the Rousseauists, with their calls for toleration and an underlying fear of any ultimate loyalty to a faith other than that in a presumably perfectable body politic. This progression started under Reagan, but was blurred during Clinton's era, because he straddled the divide due to his experience in Southern politics.
The irony is that the "red" South embraces a sort of progressive economic doctrine combined with an emphasis on individual responsibility. For instance, in Georgia a welfare applicant is normally referred first to job placement facilities ("WorkFirst") - but we also have the very popular Peachcare program, under which the medical costs for both mother and infant are covered for a huge percentage of the middle and lower class population. College or trade school tuition is essentially free for state residents who can maintain a B average.
This is a profoundly populist type of compromise which defines Southern politics and could be summed up as "Keep trying, do the best you can - but yes, we have a responsibility to try to make life possible for the average responsible person."
Rocco Buttiglione lost his seat on the European commission because he stated he held personal beliefs regarding the immorality of homosexuality. He also stated that the state had no right to interfere or discriminate against homosexuals, but this fact was lost in the outcry against his personal and religious beliefs:
"When it came to Signor Buttiglione's nomination hearing two weeks ago for the post of justice commissioner, left-wingers in the European Parliament were lying in wait, ready to turn his Catholic beliefs back against him.
"Quizzed about his attitude to homosexuality, Signor Buttiglione told MEPs: "Many things may be considered immoral which should not be prohibited."
"He added: "I may think that homosexuality is a sin, and this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime." When asked why he was opposed to gay marriages, he said that "the family exists to allow women to have children and be protected by their husbands."
"Signor Buttiglione tried to clarify his beliefs, telling the MEPs: "The state has no right to stick its nose into these things and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation... this stands in the Charter of Human Rights, this stands in the Constitution and I have pledged to defend this constitution.""
But, of course, the damage was done, and Buttiglione's political career would not survive the consequences of his statements. Nor is this out of the line of other European solutions to these type of questions. In France they have a law banning "signs and behavior...whose wearing immediately makes known a person’s religious faith" from government institutions like schools, and there was an uproar recently in Germany over a teacher who wore one. The belief seems to be that this can't be tolerated.
"It's not for me to comment on -- and certainly not to criticize -- whether someone wears a headscarf as an expression of her religious convictions.... But we have to differentiate between wearing a headscarf in public and wearing a headscarf when working as a civil servant. It's different, for example, with a teacher, who the children cannot avoid. We can't tolerate that. That is no longer an issue of private convictions."
In Sweden, a Pentecostal pastor was sentenced to one month in prison for preaching a sermon against homosexuality in his church. In Oslo, Norway, Jewish symbols were banned from the march commemorating Kristallnacht:
"The news presenter said that authorities forbade any Jewish symbols, including the Star of David and the Israeli flag from being displayed. Even more outrageous and disturbing, was the evening news showing a group of Norwegian Jews who wanted to take part in the commemoration being told by a Norwegian policeman to '"leave the area,'" he continued."
This is a European consensus of sorts, but it isn't a consensus which will work in the US.
