Europe as a counterbalance to American hegemony doesn't seem realistic in near future. Despite decades of integration, they are still not part of a single state, and America will simply continue it's policy of 'divide and conquer' by forging close relationships with smaller states that fear dominance by larger ones within the E.U.

"the EU has forged a harmonious society on a continent that spent most of history at war with itself."

Film makers being shot in the street, synagogues, mosques, and churches being firebombed, unemployment north of 10%, inability to even prevent genocide in Europe without US arms. Yeh, Europe is real harmonious.

Actually, in the economic sphere the EU is already clearly "serving as a counterbalance to US hegenomy".
Look at the strength of the Euro versus the US dollar. All indicators are that the dollar will weaken more as the Party of God spends money it does not have.
The EU has an interesting economic strength in their rapid embrace of new technologies in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Meanwhile the US consumes 25% of world oil and occupies the country with second largest oil reserves on the planet (coincidence, I know). The extreme US dependence on imported oil, paid for in a collapsing currency, will only increase EU dominance in the economic sphere.
I had to laugh a little about the "corruption" of those weasely Euros, just after the Repubs passed a rule change allowing indicted Delay to stay in office, and with Cheney still drawing 200K a year in checks from Halliburton, and with Enron's old lawyer Gonzales nominated for AG.
My own experience is that Europe is vastly more "harmonious" than the US. Murder rates from 50% to 90% lower than the US would tend to back the anecdotal experience up.
I'm just glad that Europe is out there, holding up the social democratic ideal, while the US heads back to the past, destroying the "Security" aspects of Social Security and replacing it with a welfare plan for Wall Street traders,etc.,etc.
As the article indicates, Europe leads the US in almost all indicators of social health (life expectancy, education, crimes of violence,etc.).
Somehow, diehard conservatives still have to fit that reality into the procrustean bed of their ideology and its fun to watch their contortions and excuses as they try.

EU a new superpower. I do not think so. The central government has already become immune to the entreaties of its citizens. It sits above its subjects like the kings of old allowing no dissension.

The EU might become a Super-power. But it will not become a democratic super-power.

The US has problems of its own, but they are mostly FAR easier to solve than those plaguing Europe.

Of course we are moving to a new Cold War, or as it used to be called, "Balance of Powers," and the problem is the political culture of France.

Through Monarchy, Anarchy, and (3?) Democracies, the French body politic has favored an international order with opposing forces. They favor Competetive Politics over Cooperative Politics, leading to apparent stability because everyone's too afraid to move an inch. Britain v. France; Austro-Hungarian Empire v. France and Britain; USA v. USSR, etc.

In today's world there is no apparent competitor for the USA to be set up against, but the French political instincts remain. They have driven the creation of the EU to "counterbalance" the Hyperpower. They make arms deals with China and the Islamic nations, hoping to play them against us in some Grand Game.

It is foolish, and unwise in the extreme. The Balance of Powers was responsible for WWI. The French desire to punish Germany and preserve the peace by keeping them down (rather than building them up cooperatively) led to WW2. The 20th Century's Balance of Powers caused us to fight lots of little wars without confronting the power behind the little thrones.

I hope, I really, really hope, that the Federalist instincts of Germany will resurface in the fine company of the East European and British instinctual fear of tyranny, to make an EU which practices Cooperative Politics with the USA and the growing powers in Central and East Asia. The WTO is a great example of such an institution. An infrastructure of military-force cooperation which includes China, Japan and India as well as the Atlantic Powers would go a long way to establishing a lasting, global peace.

The world is developing a global economy and culture. It needs a global police power to protect it.

But it won't happen as long as France's political culture runs the EU.

Don't worry, Brock. French agricultural subsidies can't survive a Ukraine or Romania each of which have agricultural potential at least as great as France's. I'm surprised they've lasted as long as they have. And when the agricultural subsidies fail there will be a major re-alignment of French politics.

Brock

You'd see a little more restraint in French arms sales if they didn't have to compete with so many U.S. exports of weaponry. Most of the world's arms makers depend on export sales, and as far as I know France generally doesn't sell its best technology to enemies of the west. They mostly sell to some nations who want decent equipment but feel that the U.S. Congress is an unreliable trading partner. The French are no different than our close ally Israel, which is a big purveyor of advanced systems to countries outside the middle east, including China.

I think it bears worth noting that the EU was designed to offset US power (i.e. be an adversary). Every time Chirac talks about he, he talks in terms of being an "alternative" to the US. Then there was that crap about having an EU military. I think it is intended to re-create a bipolar atmosphere.

Cicero,

As always I appreciate your analysis, however, you don't actually engage many of the positive points of the article, but just point out the holes in the argument, or counter-examples, such as van Gogh.

What ABOUT the fact that there is health coverage for all EU members? Speak to that comparison with the US?

What ABOUT the fact that "the United States would rank ninth in the EU in reading, ninth in scientific literacy, and 13th in math"?

What ABOUT the fact that "Twenty-two percent of American children grow up in poverty, which means that our country ranks 22nd out of the 23 industrialized nations, ahead of only Mexico and behind all 15 of the pre-2004 EU countries.

What ABOUT the fact that "European business has not been strangled by the EU welfare state; in fact, quite the opposite is true. Europe has surpassed the United States in several high-tech and financial sectors, including wireless technology, grid computing and the insurance industry. The EU has a higher proportion of small businesses than the U.S., and their success rate is higher. American capitalists have begun to pay attention to all this. In Reid's book, Ford Motor Co. chairman Bill Ford explains that the company's Volvo subsidiary is more profitable than its U.S. manufacturing operation, even though wages and benefits are significantly higher in Sweden. Government-subsidized healthcare, child care, pensions and other social supports, Ford says, more than make up for the difference."

Your criticisms are valid - but you fail in your analysis by not honestly confronting the positives mentioned in the article, and how this also reflects on the US, in my opinion.

"Europeans with nothing but carrots and Americans with nothing but sticks". That's a bit (a lot) too "nothing but" to be valid. Certainly the billions of construction money and longer-term vision of freedom and human rights are what really get the attention of the non-intimidated segments of the ME populace, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is notable that not only did the EU offer neither of these carrots, it was de facto opposed to doing anything practical to make them possible. The EU carrots seem to have all gone into the mouths of a select few who were/are determined to keep it that way.

"European business has not been strangled by the EU welfare state; in fact, quite the opposite is true."

Bollocks. EU growth was about 0.5% last year.

JC:

"Twenty-two percent of American children grow up in poverty ..."

That's why they cruise around restlessly in their cars until 4:00 in the morning, listening to Eminem on their 800 watt stereos. Some Europeans would kill for that kind of "poverty", which is why we need to boost our defense spending, pronto.

U.S. policy until very recently was strong support of European integration. The Bush administration's more recent stance is a reaction to a debate that is occurring within Europe itself between Atlanticists and 'Multipolarists' (secessionists?). This divide also mirrors the 'liberal'/'conservative' in foreign policy in the U.S. (André Glucksmann also defines the debate in intra-civilizational terms in "West Against West", using the divide "nihilism/civilization").

I think however that your exposition of the hard power/soft power functions, etc. is too generous to the Europeans. The principal difference between the U.S. and Europe is not that America has abandoned soft power or a "broader vision", but that much of Europe is increasingly relying on the U.S. hard power not only for its own defense but to enhance its own soft power, including its diplomatic stature and geopolitical influence as well as its trade and investment interests.

O'Hehir makes less of a defense of the inherent benefits of the European social welfare model (which I will concede are real) than an argument for freeridership. He complains that the U.S. continues to pour resources into defense (while Europe directs its resources to social welfare), but never addresses the question of what the actual global security risks are and how they will be dealt with and financed otherwise.

Europe is quite capable of producing, and indeed does produce, hundreds of Leclerc tanks or Eurofighters or Rolland missiles worth tens of billions of dollars for sale to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran, Sudan or Saudia Arabia or more recently China (if France has her way). Ironically, this is motivated as much by concerns of geopolitical influence as for the sake of saving jobs (and eight week vacations) at Dassault Aviation and Giat Industries. Soft power indeed.

Europe, and France in particular, will also leverage their freedom from global defense obligations to increase political capital in third world markets, including currying favor with authoritarian regimes and rogue states otherwise alienated from the U.S.

How this contributes to global security, addresses Europe's structural demographic issues, constitutes a morally compelling model, or presents a "broader vision" escapes me.

What ABOUT the fact that there is health coverage for all EU members? Speak to that comparison with the US?

What ABOUT the fact that "the United States would rank ninth in the EU in reading, ninth in scientific literacy, and 13th in math"?

What ABOUT the fact that "Twenty-two percent of American children grow up in poverty, which means that our country ranks 22nd out of the 23 industrialized nations, ahead of only Mexico and behind all 15 of the pre-2004 EU countries.

JC-

These are all valid issues that require more debate (and certainly more progress) in the U.S. The lack of public healthcare and the staggering levels of poverty in the world's richest country is a moral shame.

These issues however do not have a lot to do (at least directly) with the soft power/hard power debate.

Our poverty level is so high mainly due to our moronic immigration policy.

Mr. Schuler -- Are French farmers the source of France’s tendency to prefer a world of opposing poles over a unitary authority? I honestly don’t know, but common sense would say otherwise. What would really fix things would be a more democratically responsive, federalist EU system. The Germans are already quite comfortable with Federalism (that’s how their internal system works), and it’s in everyone’s interest (including France, though they realize it not) to have such a system. Then they would really be a “United States of Europe.” A rational USE would be something the USA could work with. A rational USE would keep their extremists in check the same way the USA protects the world from Nader and Buchanon.

dingo -- I wasn’t referring to just their arms sales. I mean their willful violations of the UN embargo on Iraq, their practice of joint naval exercises with China in the Taiwan Straight, their actions contributing to Iran getting the bomb, their continued and willful funding of Palestinian terrorism in Israel, and other anti-social behavior.

Mr. Bambenek -- Exactly. Readers should notice it’s mostly the French that use this language, and not the Poles, Italians, or British. The French see the EU as something that will oppose the USA, while I think others within Europe see the EU as something that can work with the USA towards joint goals.

JC -- Cicero didn’t cover those issues because Mr. O’Hehir already did. Cicero was pointing to the gaps in the Salon article, not repeating already covered materials.

The French, of course, sank Bush's hopes for a truly international coalition against Iraq

I’m frankly surprised the article warranted a post on this excellent site, but I admire Cicero’s ability to recognize a diamond so rough.

Cicero said: “The US and Europe have had a symbiotic relationship for a long time.”

If you mean culturally and economically, yes, a long time. If you mean politically and militarily, no, not a long time. Never, in fact. For the last 50 years it has been parasitic, not symbiotic. If we’re to avoid a Cold War, Europe (and by Europe, I mean France) needs to grow up and start playing the Globalization game. Globalization does not mean Americanization, because globalization is an all-way street. The Global world will have American, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, European, etc. etc. characteristics, which means France too will have its chance to leave its mark on the world, but in return will have to accept some of “the other.” It can’t both be part of the EU and the world economically without also becoming part of it culturally and militarily. As long as France resists this basic fact there will be friction.

Cicero said: “An America on a search-and-destroy anti-terror obsession might suffer from a myopia that might overlook, for example, the internal threats to freedom that an open-ended war against terror will produce.”

Our commitment to free speech will keep this in check. We have swung on this pendulum before, during the Civil and Cold Wars, and the nation prospered nonetheless.

What is a bigger problem is a Pentagon culture shaped around war-fighting, and not enough on after-the-war stuff. We farked up the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion, but we learned from our mistake. Before we even went into Fallujah we already lined up Iraqi units to patrol the streets afterwards and had $95M in funds and supplies to sweep in and rebuild the city. That’s cultural progress within the US military. More will be needed, but our ability to admit our mistakes and move on can be relied upon.

Cicero said: “We must avoid loose talk of civil war, by whatever label it is given. So much of what passes for analysis, discourse and news is ruled by passion in this era. Discipline of inquiry goes lacking.”

Indeed. “Loose” talk is bad, but serious talk is not. The Union decided that both slavery and secession were unacceptable, and the Confederate States disagreed on both. What to do?

The United States is committed to creating a peaceful, democratic world. We opposed Communism, and now support the democracies in Eastern Europe and Asia. We oppose Islamic Fascism and have created a democracy in Afghanistan and (fingers-crossed) will create one in Iraq. If the Europeans are fundamentally opposed to our goals, and no common ground can be found; What to do?

I do not speak of Civil War because I want to give those French surrender monkeys a thrashing, far from it. I do not want Civil War within the West at all, but we must speak of these things in the harsh light of day if we are to avoid them. Pretending they aren’t there will do us no good.

As just one little example, UNSCAM is unacceptable. There must be accountability in any global world order, or America will oppose it.

Brock:

Then they would really be a “United States of Europe.” A rational USE would be something the USA could work with. A rational USE would keep their extremists in check the same way the USA protects the world from Nader and Buchanon.

In Europe, the Naders are commissioners. The socialists are ruling the EU roost - there might be a USE but it will not be 'rational' in any meaningful sense.

Brock,

Pretty serious charges against the French (except for the one about joint-Naval exercises- that one is silly given our own investment in China). What sources are you relying on for these charges?

I don't know where you get this "both sides" business except rhetorically.

On the one hand, you have a bunch of editors of some magazine blowing off some rhetorical steam. On the other, you have the GOP floating tax proposals (ending state and local tax deductions) that will affect urban areas and therefore blue states disproportionately. The EU/US relationship is a distraction compared to that.

You're right, there already is a cold civil war on in the U.S. But you're wrong if you don't think it's a one-sided contest, and if you don't think liberals and urban areas will be losing it for at least the next couple of years, and probably longer.

Are French farmers the source of France’s tendency to prefer a world of opposing poles over a unitary authority?

Well no, but French farmers are part of the power base (and substantial source of political contributions) of the current ruling party. And France is no more a monolith politically than the U. S. or Britain is.

The Euro-utopia is under attack from within and without. Holland and Spain are witness to the Islamic facist problem. The death of large numbers of French elderly in a recent heat-wave speaks to other problems. Increasing hours worked while keeping pay constant - that is not a pay raise, but reduction in hourly earnings - was not done to reward the workforce for excellent productivity.

Europe would not have been able to afford their socialist programs if they had to defend themselves from the Warsaw Pact threat. Things have not improved. Bosnia was on their own doorstep, but they did nothing. What are they doing to improve things anywhere?

And as for the ever-peaceful French, have you read what they did in Ivory Coast? It sounded a lot like shoot first and answer questions later. So much for carrots over sticks.

Holland and Spain are witness to the Islamic facist problem.

Belgium, too. Antwerp will get very ugly in the next few years.

Gabriel,

The reasons I talk about the "civic issues" is because Cicero says the following:

Mr. O'Hehir also turns a blind eye to the unrest in the Netherlands. Holland is reeling from Theo Van Gogh's recent murder. Since the Dutch icon's killing by an Islamic jihadist, there is the fear of an anxious native European nationalism. If such a thing does catch fire, it will be sparked by resentment of the immigration and naturalization policies of the governing socialists---having permitted radical Islamic hatred for secular Europeans to flourish, while pressure toward assimilation and acculturation were considered culturally insensitive. More high-profile murders like Van Gogh's might bring rising internal distrust to a boil across Europe. Germany, for example, is bracing for unrest of the kind we are seeing in the Netherlands.

This is pointing out civil issues, and criticizing them. (and note that I agree with the points made.) Since Cicero is making a point to NEGATIVELY talk about civil issues, I think it is incumbent to also speak to the POSITIVE civic issues that are one of the main points of the article.

I pretty much agree with the main thrust of Cicero's post, and should have made my agreement clearer. Europe and the US have been each other's allies for too long a time, and the relationship has been far too fruitful, for anyone to be happy that a "cold civil war" may be in the offing.

JC:

I guess it depends where you draw the line between 'civic' and 'civilisational' (new word?) issues. They blur, inevitably; witness the welfare state's impact on European attitudes towards enterprise. The assimilation of migrants is a civic issue that determines much about the civilisation in question.

I think I'm agreeing with you, but disagreeing with your terms. Essentially, the division between civic and civilisational issues is artificial and you're entitled IMHO to bring up what you did.

What ABOUT the fact that there is health coverage for all EU members? Speak to that comparison with the US?

The health coverage goes from "horrendous" to "good but expensive beyond all reason".

Take the British system. Without getting in to a debate about the NHS (time being the main factor, consider this: British doctors and nurses are going to the US because the pay is better. In turn, we're taking doctors and nurses from the Third World. The incentive to practice medicine here is only attractive to people from countries in which clean water is rare. Socialised medicine cannot maintain a medical staff without plundering the scarce resources of the developing world.

Don't overlook the impotent European economy. From 1995 to 2003, the US was responsible for something approaching 80% of all world economic growth.

Europe was about 3%. With roughly equal populations.

If it were an American state, Sweden would now rank #51, and has become somewhat crime infested. If they can't do it in a rinky-dink little country of 8 million, with a completely uniform lily-white population ... they aren't going to be able to do it anywhere.

And like American Democrats, they are losers who refuse to address the core issues, but instead fabricate elaborate rationalisations to explain their failure as external, while continuing to proclaim superiority over the very same people who are consistently kicking their backsides around the block.

Part of my view on France and the EU, I posted under the two books post.....

"Of course France, as it has always done, continues along it's own blind and self serving path. We have been lucky to retain the alliance of England, Australia, Poland and other new Eastern European democracies that know what totalitarianism looked like and aren't so willing to let others be condemned to it...unlike ....France. Reagan once said, "Only those already born support Abortion."..... France under Chirac, all ready enjoying her freedom is quite willing to abort the freedoms of others and relegate them to life under this barbarism while not missing the opportunity to sell their arms in VIOLATION of UN sanctions; even if it means that these weapons will be used against her 'allies'. (small letters is my emphasis)

Chirac is only persuing the dream of a new "pre'sence francaise" under the colors of the EU. We can clearly see the one goal being pursued through their illicit sales of weapons to the dictator Saddam, their telling the new EU hopefuls to speak when spoken to..and of course speak as France wishes, now their goal of making a deal with the Iranians...the same governments that sold weapons against UN sanctions are now the arbiters of the "World's" best interest.... I don't think so.

French liberte' is best described by the Napoleonic Marshal Lefevre "We have come to bring you Liberte' and Equalite', but don't lose your heads over it. For the first one of you who steps out of line will be shot." The Eastern Europeans used to have the same deal with the Soviets didn't they?"

As for health care..look at the waiting line for treatment.. everyone talks of universal health care but won't even touch the time it takes to get appointments for MRIs much less the operations. ..or that the Socialists are OUTSOURCING the health care to other nations because THEY CANT COPE. Here in the US.. even over a holiday ...MRI was done in 2 days. Sorry for all you socialists... capitalism does work.

"MRI was done in 2 days"
But how long would it take the 40 million uninsured people in the US to get an MRI?
Approximately forever, of course, the neocon answer is "Why should I care?" and they do not.
Sure, NHS has sucked ever since Thatcher ruined it, bottom line is if you let people who do not believe in government run the government, they do a bad job (some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy).
In health care, capitalism "works" to give US citizens worse health metrics at twice the per capita capita cost of Europe. It "works" to suck $10K per family/year into a Kafkesque bureacracy that dwarfs anything the public sector could come up with. (Have you ever tried to talk to a live human being to get the unintelligible charges on an HMO bill explained?)
Capitalism "works" to give US workers the least vacacation time of any industrialized nation (even the worker bee salarymen of Japan get more time off).
Sure, markets do lots of things well, but how many people can send out competitive bids while waiting in the ER?
One thing markets are doing well right now is evaluating the worth of US dollars under a "borrow from future generations" "conservative" administration.

JC-

Agreed, and I see why you're raising the issues you do. I also agree with Colt about "civic" versus "civilizational". I guess the whole problem i have with O'Hehir's piece is that he makes a decent case for the benefits of the European welfare state as currently developed but never really gets to the long-term issues of security, immigrant assimilation and structural economic sustainability. On the matter of Europe's Arab populations, I don't think the whole complex set of issues of second class citizenship, social and economic exclusion, racism, religion, economic stagnation, welfare dependency, etc. are well understood in the U.S. European policy towards the Arab world (eg the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) has traditionally and still is largely driven economic and geopolitical relations to the Arab countries than by local concerns. The policy differences between the immigrant-bashing Nationalist Parties, the traditional pro-Sovereignty parties (Gaullists, etc.) and the socialists and communists is pretty much the same, and has little to do with the local populations. The whole dhimmitude/islamization meme is pretty much overstated and over-simplified.

That said, getting back to the European paradise, yes - the local unemployed Arab populations have free public education in their "ghettoes" as well as free health care, with no responsibility, and little social and economic opportunity.

These are the civilizational issues that are at the center of any serious debate about social/economic models.

And I've read that a good 1/3 of those 40million are illegal aliens and that a great many people without health insurance earn upwards of 50k/year, which means that they go uninsured by choice. I'd like to see a real analysis of the 40 million number. How many of the reported 40 million are eligible for Medicaid? I've even read that the state of California spends more money providing health care than the UK does. The way this number is used it's nothing but a weapon.

What ABOUT the fact that "Twenty-two percent of American children grow up in poverty, which means that our country ranks 22nd out of the 23 industrialized nations, ahead of only Mexico and behind all 15 of the pre-2004 EU countries.

This is a totally meaningless claim, as it repeats offical statistics which do not use anything like the same definition of "poverty". I'll try to find time to link to some direct sources when I'm back at my own PC late tonight.

#3, You're right.
I think the EU is acting more and more as a counter balace. I DO think this stems, however from the fact that they are cohesing into a socialistic, capitalistic, republic.
While we are a democratic republic. We shall gradually drift apart through the decade, but not very far after that.
Around 2100a.d. we'll have to have a cohesive African Union too and many pains of that are being felt as power shifts from tribal to national. Right now We and th EU seem to dis-agree on the tranfer of the Middle-East from a tribal, kingdom oriented gov't. to a nationalistic society, with NEW borders or some tweaking, The Middle-East can become quite a modern economic power.
When the term Old Euroope is used I cannot help but give a pinch of creedance to the slogan, for the EU mayhave drifted into an American trait of the past "Isolationism". They feel they have enough work to do without fighting where ever America decides to, right or wrong.

" I DO think this stems, however from the fact that they are cohesing into a socialistic, capitalistic, republic."

You think the EU is a republic? I don't. I think the EU, including many of its member states, has a serious democratic deficit.

Meridian Leeweather: "Around 2100a.d. we'll have to have a cohesive African Union too and many pains of that are being felt as power shifts from tribal to national."

I think Africa will have a healthy and workable multi-national union before Europe does. In fact, they might decide they need one to protect themselves from Europe.

Speaking of which, what is the EU going to do about the continuing colonial military adventures of France in the Ivory Coast? Until somebody comes up with a good answer to questions like that, all the blather about EU Health Care is no more impressive than literacy rates in Cuba.

The dollar's fall relative to the Euro may be a counter-intuitive blessing to the US--our goods become more attractive as exports, while theirs become less competitive in trade--if that is really possible. Remember, Saab, Jaguar, Volvo, and Mercedes are no longer European companies--their ownership is essentially in detroit. BP, Shell, and Schlumberger have more business and assets in the U.S. than in their respective home countries. Europe's potential for significance in the coming post-post-modern world was sqandered decades ago, when they failed to capitalize on the disintegration of the Soviet Union and stayed in the same political and cultural malaise they'd existed in since the 50's. They're still courting socialism and coddling radical islam for goodness sake. Russia and Eastern Europe will pass "Old Europe" in growth and influence, leaving it as a big, really old and gritty Epcot for the rest of the world.

#29 Tom Volckhausen on November 19, 2004 12:18 AM

"MRI was done in 2 days"
But how long would it take the 40 million uninsured people in the US to get an MRI?
Approximately forever, of course,

False in fact.

Of course. I can't speak for how long it would take for them to get 40 million MRIs all at once, but I know that my personal experience on the occasions when a patient-declared emergency led to a doctor's request for medical imaging was that the ERs (including such prestigious institutions as Stanford Medical Center) would "image first, bill later". X-rays were fast, MRIs were reasonable (delays measured in hundreds of minutes at the most).

It might be different in other parts of the country. It might be different if you walked into the ER receiving area with, say, only the report of a headache or blurred vision. I don't know.

I do know that, for example, any complaint of chest pain in a patient who shows up at an ER is taken very seriously, with blood drawn to look for heart muscle breakdown chemicals as a matter of course.

One of the reasons US non-socialized medicine is so expensive is that the paying customers subsidize the ER no- and slow-pays, particularly at charitable and county hospitals.

The real gap in medical care is in preventive care and long-term prescriptions (blood pressure meds, diabetes meds, chemo, HIV cocktails, etc., etc.). Emergencies usually (not always) get handled pretty well once the patient gets to the ER.

Sorry to blow the whistle on your overblown rhetoric,

Nortius Maximus

More thorazine needed.

I guess both Europe and the US have a lot of challenges. The US seems at least to have a better chance of meeting them without catastrophe. There is much to do in raising living standards, growing the economy, and dealing with immigration from poorer neighboring countries (including, likely, Cuba post-Fidel).

However, we are blessed with no immediate neighbors with hostile intents and dangerous military capability.

You can't say the same about Europe. Spain has no real military; given some dispute with the UK over Gibraltar, say, that freezes NATO, it's possible for Morrocco to grab a good deal of al-Andulus. Algeria? Perhaps they might have ambitions in France to protect their co-religionists with rising tensions. Imagine a Turkey run by jihadists and on the doorstep of Vienna again. Who'd stop them? Would Libya want Sicily once again under Arab rule?

The European militaries, excepting the UK's, are not very good or large. Europe lives in a hostile neighborhood, with poor states envious of their goodies, who have long memories of looting raids and occupation from centuries past. Absent the Soviet Union, there's not much to require the US having a massive military commitment to protecting the people of Europe.

There is no escape from history, and Europe will find out sadly all too soon that not having any military capability also has it's cost. After which I'm sure Europe will draw closer to the US in attitudes towards defense and security.

Sound silly? So did the idea in 2000 that terrorists would actually fly airplanes into buildings.

Real soft power is not the art of making deals.

Real soft power is having a culture people want.

MTV is soft power. Chirac is just a crook.

Europe will be assimilated by its Moslems, or assimilate them. The possible third choice being that old European favorite: genocide.

Soft power in the European sense needs hard power in tandem to work effectively. i.e. the Euros would have much more power if they allied themselves with the US of A. Then we could play hard cop, soft cop. As it is what we are playing is hard cop, no cop. This is not making friends with the big guy on the block. You suppose any one will notice? Certainly not that dummy Bush. The Euro position is way too nuanced for the likes of him.

This may be good for making deals. (You might want to ask Chirac how the oil deal with Saddam is working out.) It is no way to bring order to the world.

#39,

BTW Jim,

I'm M. Simon from Rockford. Illinois that is.

The poverty in America is just staggering.

I was reading just yesterday (so it seems) that 50% of America's poor own their own homes.

80+% own a car.

90+% own a microwave.

95% have a TV and VCR.

America country is a disgrace.

And I believe it too on odd Thursdays in months with 32 days.

And oil prices are still falling.

America could cut its murder rate by at least 50% if it gave up drug prohibition.

Brock,

I take exception to "we learned our lesson and had Iraqis ready" idea re: April 2003.

Where exactly were we going to ge 50,000 American trained Iraqis on short notice?

The fact that we have them now indicates they were part of the plan then. Sometimes plans take a while to execute.

Sometimes you don't announce fully your intentions. Keeps the enemy off guard.

Just to weigh in here on a couple of issues..

1. The numbers of uninsured (uncovered for medical expenses) are misleading. The US statistics consider someone uninsured if they are uninsured for one day. This includes anyone changing jobs and securing new insurance. It also does not include people who select continuation coverage (known as COBRA) - which they may do retroactively for a period of 60 to 105 days. The real issue is the chronically uninsured - those with no insurance for six months or longer. In this category are young single workers who do not purchase insurance even if offered at subsidized prices by the employer. Lastly, anyone not insured is not denied medical care. It is illegal to refuse care at a public hospital.

2. This comment: "Capitalism "works" to give US workers the least vacacation time of any industrialized nation (even the worker bee salarymen of Japan get more time off)."

My brother lives in Japan. While on paper, employees may be given lots of vacation, it is rarely used. Social custom dictates that one not take vacation except a few days at most.

As to the assertion that the US capitalist system is inherently bad because of the lesser vacation time...this is just socialist dogma that convinces no one but socialists. An American could just as easily point to the discriminatory hiring practices in Europe as evidence of an inherently bad system. Witness the job adverts specifying male or female or particularly maximum age of applicants.

"While on paper, employees may be given lots of vacation, it is rarely used. Social custom dictates that one not take vacation except a few days at most."

Okay, but I see a lot of them in Hawaii. Business trips, do you think?

I take exception to "we learned our lesson and had Iraqis ready" idea re: April 2003.

Where exactly were we going to ge 50,000 American trained Iraqis on short notice?

Rusmfeld's attempt to train 100,000 Iraqi exiles in the runup to the war was shot down by State Dept. pressure at the White House.

That "short notice" was how it happened, but not how it was planned.

The definition of "living in poverty" depends not on some international standard (which in the end would find normalization through the international currency markets), but rather on what a country decides to call 'poverty'.

M.Simon #42 makes a rich point... that our impoverished qualify as 'middle class' in places like Mexico, our NAFTA partner, and our living-in-poverty look positively wealthy by comparison to the majority of Africa and South America. Or, as the redneck joke goes, "You know you're a poor redneck when you own 5 cars, 1 that runs, and the other 4 for spare parts."

But poverty really IS relative. NO ONE in America is starving, or even significantly nutritionally challenged. NO ONE is denied medical services at the county hospital. A person may have to wait interminably for the government subsidized services, but hey... they ARE "free". No one need be poorer in this country than their combination of talent, aspirations and local opportunity afford. The "poor" of the Bayou in Louisiana are well below the national standard for 'living below the poverty line', but theirs is also a rich culture, full of things that money cannot buy, economists cannot valuate. What is the value of the boatload of jumping shrimp? What is the value of the endless Grange or (generic) Christian pancake breakfasts? There is definitely an off-book economy at play. But officially they're living below the line.

This is just a tiny window on the pointlessness in comparing 'poverty' levels in countries. It would be better to ask yourself the question:

Would you rather be poor in America, or 'doing OK' in Nigeria?

Point -- to the Goat

GoatGuy

Maybe, my rhetoric was somewhat overblown, since some of the uninsured do get MRIs, after car accidents or other trauma. However, cancer, heart disease, and other killers go untreated and MRIs do not happen for many non-emergency situations which eventually become lifethreatening.
"Published on Wednesday, May 23, 2002 in the USAToday
Study Blames 18,000 Deaths in USA on Lack of Insurance
by Steve Sternberg

WASHINGTON -- More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, ''Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late,'' examines the plight of 30 million -- one in seven -- working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.
Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.

Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.

About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.

Being uninsured also magnifies the risk of death and disability for chronically sick and mentally ill patients, poor people and minorities, who disproportionately lack access to medical care, the landmark study states"

More overblown liberal rhetoric I know, and the neocons prescribe Thorazine to anyone paying attention in their Prozac Nation.

Europe's crime rates are soaring, particularly in the countries that are going Islamic due to rapid uncontrolled immigration.

The smart Europeans are fleeing the continent ahead of the next big wave of Islamists. The cities of Europe will resemble Ramallah in a striking manner.

Most of the posts here have dwelled on the granularity of specific factoids coming from the essay.

I would be interested in knowing what people think of the controlling metaphor: cold civil war.

If it wasn't spelled-out clearly in the essay, I will be the first to admit to my failings as a cogent essayist. It's a craft of continual refinement.

We hear much of the divide in America, and between America and Europe---the divide within the West. Does the divide have civil war potential? Or do we all have too much DNA in common for it to come to that? Is it a cold civil war, hallmarked by deep division with limited violence?

It's a question I ask myself everyday. The Salon article sparked the essay because it was yet another screed announcing a divorce within the West. I choose to not accept that view. But many are accepting it, in my opinion.

Do you accept it, dear readers?

Thanks for the update Robin,

So we have a disfunctional State Dept? Formerly run by Colin (the thinking man's general) Powell.

Powell is gone. Rummy is still in.

There is a god.

Rummy seems to like Chalabi and state hates him.

Hmmmmmmm.

It is quite possible that the war will only take half as long. (see Churchill, W.)

I think Europe and America will re-unite when the street killings by Islamics becomes more prevalent. Until then the cold war will continue.

I'd give it another year or so.

Schroder and Chirac will have to go. That is a pre-condition.

Marcus;

In respons to the broader question, we still share enough in common with the Euros that there is no cold civil war. Our security services and are militaries conduct operations together, our leaders can still talk. Most of the anger and frsutration seems to come up from the people of both sides, not their leaders.

As the rhetoric ramps up, however, the more pressure there will be on leaders to take more extreme steps with truly harmful consequences. The leaders have to do more to stress what works among the relationships than what doesn't.

I'm sorry, my dear M. Cicero but you'll have to wait for our comments on the forest. We're still checking out the trees.

Graham Danton’s complaints of lack of democracy are misconceived. Compare some of the EU institutions with some roughly comparable US and UK ones:
EU Commission: unelected
US Cabinet: unelected
UK Permanent Secretaries: unelected
EU Court of Justice: unelected
US Supreme Court: unelected
UK Law Lords: unelected
European Bank: unelected.
US Federal Reserve: unelected
UK Bank of England: unelected
EU Council of Ministers: we have 10 votes out of 87.
US Senate: each state has 2 votes out of 100.
EU Parliament: we have just 13.9% of the votes.
US House: each state has representatives in proportion to population.

This is, in short, a silly argument.

What is more to the point is that the EU lacks the basis of a popular political and cultural community which is essential to the cohesion of a polity, and its capacity for internal argument without division into warring factions. Heaven knows the Red/Blue and Tory/Labour disputation can be bitter enough as things are.

And secondly, the problem that the EU Constitution goes beyond limits on government to positive prescription, and substitutes for the outcomes of political debate a pre-ordained implementation of one side. Even where this is a consensual position, which it often is not, this is an unwarranted and illegitimate intrusion into the outcomes of pluralist politics.
As an old lefty, many of its prescriptions are in fact, the outcomes I would prefer. Nonetheless, I do not wish to see them established and entrenched in this manner. Liberal democratic politics is all about debate and choices, between often incommensurable ends. Preordaining the outcomes reduces it to an exercise in rather futile and trivial managerialism, and the division of spoils of office.

Which is why the proposed Constitution is unacceptable. Personally, I would prefer to see the EU both LESS democratic, and restricted primarily to trade, commerce and the free movement of labour, other matters remaining with the states, with optional co-operation on a interstate basis on other matters: back to the EEC, basically.
And within that, power should lie firmly with the states in the Council, NOT any federal ‘democratic’ institution.

Cicero:
"cold civil war"
Well, this has been the plague of pluralist polities since the days of Greece and Rome (as you of all folks will know :)
And even in less 'zero-sum' societies there is always the danger of mistaking your opponent for your enemy.
This can be reduced or increased by the irruption into internal argument of genuine external enemies. Both sides will tend to accuse the other of making use of (or ignoring) the external factor in pursuit their (nefarious, of course) factional purposes.

I think, though, if you look beyond the shriller pronouncements of activists and ideologues on either side, the mass of the people continue to share common attitudes, sympathies, and (most potent of all) underlying interests, both within and between the Western states, that civil strife is unlikely.

In specific case of the transatlantic 'differences', the driving force has been twofold.
Firstly, the twitterings of some rather marginal 'intellectuals', mostly of 'euro-leftists' trying rather desperately to define themselves as NOT the heirs of the common Western civilisation. Lots of noise, but little socio-political traction.

Secondly, the cynical realpolitik of the French foreign policy establishment, in harness with the current executive members. They have sought, since the 1960's, to establish a 'new alignment' in diplomacy to 'balance' the USA. The core of this requires splitting Germany from the US, a possibility since the end of the Cold War. The Iraq crisis was their moment, the UN their arena, the German combination of pacifist tendencies, a weak goverment, and its intra-party vulnerability on the left their opportunity.

What the French establishment have never stopped to ask themselves, deeply, is WHY? What is all this FOR?
I would argue that from the same points of origin (1920's-30's, and Suez Crisis) the UK establishment has looked at the same issue and decided that, annoying as American power and policies may be, at times, our fundamental interests remain in alignment to such a degree that they allow, and the calculus of international power requires, alliance not opposition.

Insofar as France is attempting to use the EU to pursue its own interest, I believe it is a tool that will break in their hand. The EU has not the strength to be wielded in this way, nor are its other members likely, in the long term, to permit it and themselves to be used for one members rather incoherent and irrational goals.

The policy shift will come the faster the greater and more apparent the islamo-jihadist threat looms. Even in France.

My personal fear is that significant elements of the left in Europe may be so wedded to their intra-state and intra-western bogeymen that they refuse to see the real challenges (international, social, and economic) when the general population does, and by clinging to outmoded analyses, become politically marginalised, perhaps for generations. The loss of some of the old leftism wouls be small loss at all, but at least parts of that tradition are honourable, intelligent, and worth preserving and regenerating.

Marcus,

To address the American "cold civil war:" Since I've lived in "Red" states all my life--I've rarely even visited "Blue" states--I can't speak even anecdotally about their opinions of us. Still, maybe I'm naive but I can't imagine that large segments of the populations of "Blue" states or even of their major cities think they can secede or really want to. It's easy to get an impression of a "cold civil war" from the media and the blogosphere. But let's face it, which story is going to sell more papers or get more hits: 1)"BLUE" STATES DECLARE CIVIL COLD WAR! or 2)Millions of Citizens Accept Election Results and Get on with Their Lives.

M. Cicero,

Along with you, I choose to believe we are not entering into a cold civil war - as opposed to what the "freedom fries" crowd wants. I pretty much agree with Dingo's comments on shared security, and the rest of his post.

As far as the descent into details, that's probably partially my responsibility, and I guess that's the risk you take when you point out facts that are counterfactual to the myth of the Stepford Prozac nation. Everyone's all a'flutter.

To all who will accuse me of "anti-americanism" by pointing out the "negative" civic issues: It's a great nation we have here. Incredible dynamism, great openness and flexibility, civil peace among a great variety of different races and cultures. I love the United States, and I am part of the technological elite driving progress. (Well, more like a support person...)

But there isn't a reason to practice sputtering denial. The greatest country in the world should NOT be at the lower end of the statistics cited in the article - we are better than that.

Colt - good distinction between civic and civilization.

Gabriel - the local unemployed Arab populations have free public education in their "ghettoes" as well as free health care, with no responsibility, and little social and economic opportunity. - that's a fair point, and not a blustery denial.

Goatguy:

I think all the largest "points" have to go to you - after all you represent the main goatguy.

Party on, dude!

Is a Euro-American Cold War abrew? ... that is the question then.

Ideologically, Yes, conditionally.

We are in a war of ideas or memes if you will. The European, taken by its political leaders' positions, is adamant that coexistence is key to peace, that tolerance is a multiculturally difficult thing, but possible; The European sees America as a hegemony, a Novo Latium, replete with tragicomic leaders, waffling standards, disregard for infinitely patient diplomacy, and above all else, massive ignorance, incompetence, and absurd over-reaction to every perceived threat. "Cowboys."

The gap couldn't be bigger, really. At the level of our leadership.

But I find that ALL of Europe certainly is NOT exclusively liberal. Just as ALL of America is not exclusively conservative. There are a lot of each type on both sides of the pond. Europe has its armies, its Air forces. It is but a thimble of power compared to what it once was, but that was its self-imposed sentence following WW1 & WW2. Many saw that its own military-without-a-billet in part caused the World Wars. Further, slashing away at the classes, unifying and normalizing a 'happy middle class' to encompass most Europeans became the formula for socio-economic success. Europe "on the ground" is both remarkably liberal and full of a lot of suppressed, repressed, but just as avid conservativism. That balance has kept it from falling headfirst into the well of Communism.

Economically, Yes [but].

The European economy is a mystery. It has pooled together all the monies of its EU signatories; yet, it may be an economy without a future. Yesterday I read the Dwindling Natives link in Cicero's article. It speaks volumes about Europe's future. The births began to decline in the 1970's and 80's. Those 20+ year olds are now themselves even less encouraged to have even 1 child. The institution of marriage is all but obsolete in Europe -- especially give the lack kids. What will the grey, inverted economy look like in 25 years? How much will a Euro REALLY be worth, when it is being used over and over again to fund Social Welfare for the Aging programs, far in excess of its youth to uphold such a noble institution?

So, we are at odds with the European economy. Our economy is becoming progressively weighted toward services, toward 'keeping a job' (but being nearly unable to say what, exactly, after 25 years one's really done). Our manufacturing is in decline, our industry is on the wane, our mining, raw materials, "basement" economic activity is nearly entirely gone. But so is much of Europe's. It turns out that we're competing in the same marketspace. I know that sounds obvious, but it needs stating. Volvos compete with Fords; Mercedes with Cadillac. I bought a Bosch dishwasher, and I have a Toyota tank. The world-of-products is simply not dominated by either the Americans, the Europeans or the Far Easterners. We are competing in the same space, for the same money.

It is however both galling and obvious that there is a lot more sophistication among the European money-traders than our American counterpart. It has been nearly 3 decades now since the feeling of 'economic parity' has existed between the American wage-earner, and the European semi-socialist worker. Even back in 1980, I found Portugal (of all countries) to be remarkably expensive. They were [and are] still carrying improbably overloaded wooden-wheeled carts of cork bark to market, towed by smoking mopeds (I kid you not)! This, in a country whose vaunted Euro has basic office workers paid the equivalent of over $55,000 U.S. per year, WITH 6 weeks vacation, 24 months maternity, 30 hour work weeks, and almost incredible government stipends for day-care, education, medical services, and more? I'm sorry... but I just don't see the value.

Theologically, No.

Both of our great lands' majority christian religions are undergoing a falling out of biblical proportions. America is only but 20 or so years behind the European Curve. It all comes down, in the end, to family life. When the nuclear family ceases to be the central element of the majority of the population, the tenets of organized religion in turn diminish in relevance and importance. After all (having a passel of 3 kids of my own) parents use an amazing amount of time, energy, money, grief, happiness, frustration, longing and soul-searching in raising kids. Not so without: your domestic life consists more of keeping the domus clean (but it is minimalistically tiny), getting to your friends parties and pub-crawls. Tix to the opera, using those 6 weeks of vacay to travel, sun, swill and dance. Pretty hard on religion, that advocates giving to the poor, in raising happy families, in honoring one's parents, making sacrifices to coexist with one lifelong partner. Also, who gets up before 11 on Sundays anyway?

That was one of the most sad things (to me) in Portugal (where I have spent a lot of time). The single-service Sunday crowd was scant at best, even in high-population density urban settings. 10% of the seats filled. The average age was probably 55. There were essentially NO people as young as us (20's) at any church we went to. Even on Easter Sunday, we only counted a handful of obvious 20-somethings with their monsters in tow.

Academically, No.

I think both Europe and America got over 'academic competition' a century ago. We're quite different, and we're not competing on that level. Europe's huge disadvantage is it maintains its Tower of Babel... 25 mutually unintelligable languages. But who knows...

Militarily, No.

What military? Comparing a pop-gun to a howitzer is comic, of course. The Europeans have tuned their socialist economy to work without spending 15% of the GDP on the military. 15% doesn't sound like much, but it is a lot in real terms. More to the point, the military used to 'travel on its belly, succeed by its cavalry', but today it is much more dependent on the enormous summation of military technology that has come into play. It would be nearly impossible for Europe to mount a significantly competitive military at this point. And by the grace of God, they don't really seem to need one.

Geopolitically, Yes.

The hearts of billions of people are watching the battle of will, wit and idea played out on the media by the Americans and the Europeans. There are only but two significant voices, Euro and American. The news is not caught up with the opinions of the largely neutral Asian bloc, nor is it particularily interested in the news from Central, South America, Africa or anywhere else. It is all about the differences between the American and European position.

Chirac couldn't be happier. It is just this kind of high level "we'll have dinner together, and roast each other separately -- shall we say 5 then?" diplomacy that the Europeans are masters at. We aren't. We continue to play along because we need Europe at some level as a partner. And by so playing, we secure them as partners, just as we need. But it certainly keeps the presses running. I do wonder what the news would hold if it weren't for the incessent breathlessness of the Euro-American Ideological War.

GoatGuy

there is a danger that prolonged one-party domination of American politics makes for weak democratic governance.

Was there a danger from FDR on? Why is there more danger now than then?

I spent the 1st 20 years under dem Congress, Senate flipped during the 80s but House not until I was in my 30s.

That's why I don't get all the angst.

Europe is a protectorate of the United States. It is a tribute to the benign nature of US protection that Europe feels confident enough to attack its protector with such unrelenting belligerency. Without US protection and subsidies, no doubt Europe would be a vast and impoverished wasteland. Socialism does not work when there is nothing to distribute and re-distribute.

In the regions that really matter to our security and prosperity, Europe can't help us much, can't seriously hurt us. Europe's growing economic clout is not and will not be a major constraint on our power because our economies are so closely intertwined-- through cross-border investment and ownership mainly, also through global financial markets. For ex., someone was crowing about the euro's strength. Apparently this economic illiterate failed to note that Germany and France's export sectors are being crushed by a strong euro, which the EU Central Bank chief describes as "brutal" (or was it "Brutus"?).

Europe's age has passed. When has there ever been an emerging great power whose population was shrinking and rapidly aging and whose military capabilities were so pitiful as to require materiel support from basket-case neighbors like Uzbekistan?

Obviously, the axis of history in this century runs from Washington to Tokyo, Beijing, and New Delhi. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either spreading Chirac's dezinformatsiya ("tiens--pay no attention to Oil For Fraud and the TotalFinaElf deal with Saddam") or is simply expressing his wet dream that "social democracy" take over the earth. Look east, Americans, and pay no attention to that euro-chihuahua yapping at your heels.

So let me get this straight....

18,000 die in the US because they do not have health insurance.

10,000 die in France because they have EU health insurance.

I am not sure I understand the logic here. Almost 280 Million Americans. Less than 55 Million French.

So if you do the math, on a percentage bases you are 3 times as likely to die with EU health insurance than you are with no health insurance in the US.

Am I missing something here?

Sandy P wrote:

That's why I don't get all the angst.

Because in this case, it’s not the party that they would prefer be running things. Which is why you didn’t hear similar complaints during the Carter administration, the Kennedy administration, the Johnson administration, the FDR administration, the first two years of the Clinton administration, etc.