OT: Europe's Problem--And Ours

Whistle
1

Apologies to all for slowing my pace of OT threads, but I’ve been back at work after a lengthy holiday hiatus. Also, I’ve been busy with my new alto recorder and have been trying to keep a promise to my wife regarding internet time. Oh, by the way, while I’m typing I’m listening to a CD of Marion Verbruggen doing Handel’s complete recorder sonatas–wow!

At any rate, I came across an article in the latest First Things about the European Malaise. The author, George Weigel, is Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. He’s considered one of the really top experts on Just War theory, wrote a book called Tranquilitas Ordinis as well as a biography of Karol Wojtyla (otherwise known as JP2) and a lot of other stuff. In the article he discusses the views/lamentations of Donald Kagan, Pierre Manent, Henri de Lubac, S.J., José Casanova, and Christopher Dawson. It’s somewhat lengthy, so I’ve inserted the link, below. Big picture stuff.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0402/articles/weigel.html

2

It’s an interesting article, but unfortunatly my knowlege of the current state of Europe as well as its history is pretty limited. I don’t really know what to make of it. It’s rather disheartening at any rate, if there’s any truth to it…

3

IMO, this article is simply a mindless religious-right diatribe disguised (poorly) as a legitmate piece of scholarship.

4

I think they’re sort of right about the current state of Europe, but wrong about the reasons (the religious part). Europe does seem to be floundering a bit, but I rather doubt it can all be boiled down to the destruction of religion. Problems are rarely that simple, if ever.

5

I am not surprised that this guy blames the destruction of religion. Europeans by the way think that the American Problem is that religion hasn’t been destroyed in America.

In a sort of surprised tone the authors says that the Eureopean problem goes back even to the 19th century, when what he is after goes back much farther. He, like many Americans, doesn’t understand that in Europe after 1648 public professions of faith or religiosity, particularly in a political setting, are all but impossible and that Europeans view anyone asking God to bless this country or that as either off-the-rocker or more than usually cynical.

There is the corrollary “American Problem” in the European mind as a result, and I have spent many hours trying to explain that America functions very well without the enlightenment and that people in America are actually serious in what they say about their religion and religiosity here.

Much of the political fall-out between Europe and the US before the invasion of Iraq was due to either side failing to comprehend the other side’s historical and religious reference system.

P.S.
BTW, 1648 is the end of the thirty-years war, which was fought over religion and, in combination with the plague, reduced the poplulation of central Europe by about a third.

6

SteveB wrote:

IMO, this article is simply a mindless religious-right diatribe disguised (poorly) as a legitmate piece of scholarship.

Clever, very clever! But you can’t slip that type of tongue in cheek drollery past me! Now seriously, whaddaya think of it?

7

There is the corrollary “American Problem” in the European mind as a result, and I have spent many hours trying to explain that America functions very well without the enlightenment and that people in America are actually serious in what they say about their religion and religiosity here.

Much of the political fall-out between Europe and the US before the invasion of Iraq was due to either side failing to comprehend the other side’s historical and religious reference system.

Interesting point, Bloomie. What’s curious, though, is that so much of what you might call the “public philosophy” of America goes right back to the Enlightenment–in spite of the fact that America is probably the most publicly religious country in the West. It seems we’ve discussed this before. I tend toward the view that America has been undergoing a kind of creeping Enlightenment. What I mean is that the implications of America’s Enlightenment roots have very gradually been worked out in our public life, so that now we are tending toward what I like to call a fuzzy libertarianism, but which is really just a soft Enlightenment.

Obviusly, in America the Enlightenment was bound to work itself out a little differently than in Europe. Here, we were spared the wars of religion, so we weren’t likely to harbor the type of fierce anti-clericalism that Europeans do. And despite our involvement, we still had thousands of miles of ocean between us and the later wars of–what? Atheism? Irreligion? Ideology? Anti-religion? Modernity? And so, perhaps, just as we view religion as a largely benign phenomenon, so too we tend to domesticate socialism and for the most part make it a largely benign alternative to our overall libertarianism. A leftish flavor, so to speak, as opposed to the traditional flavor. Coke v. Classic Coke.

But the slow motion working out of Enlightenment principles in American also allowed for a lot of other strains of thought–some more or less indigenous, others adaptations of European thought (think of Dewey’s admiration for Hegel)-- to be incorporated and to muddy the process a little. The end result isn’t all that different, really, than the European result. IMO, of course.

You would think, though, that Europeans would be able to gain a better understanding of America if they viewed us through the prism of their own history. I suspect they’ve never really taken us seriously, that they view us as having no real intellectual roots. Or perhaps they found it easier to simply project their own myths on us: a nation of Natty Bumpos. What a shock when we grew up!

BTW, your reference to the 30 years war reminds me that I have another OT thread waiting in the wings. Brace yourself for OT: Galileo Redux!

8

An interesting perspective, and of course I speak as a (reluctant) European.

Perhaps you should also consider the several-thousand-year disparity between Europe’s history and America’s? I’m not at all sure that, at a tad over 200 years old, one can so righteously declare that one’s country is ‘grown up’.

“Here, we were spared the wars of religion, so we weren’t likely to harbor the type of fierce anti-clericalism that Europeans do.”

Actually, you weren’t. The USA wasn’t around ‘in those days’. Unless of course you’re a native American indian.

“America is probably the most publicly religious country in the West.”

Which one of the several thousand religions are you referring to? America was founded by religious and economic migrants (and refugees), and continues to be. If you’d said “probably the most religion-tolerant country in the West” I would agree. You have to be, given your ‘history’ and your Constitution.

I know there’s a tendency for Europeans to view the USA somewhat as a patrician grandfather might regard a grandson. Though these days the ‘grandson’ can be forgiven for viewing granpa as little more than the senile old goat dribbling in the corner who smells funny and goes on about the days when the map of the world was mostly coloured Empire Red.

But I’d humbly suggest you give it another five hundred years or so before laying claim to indigenous strains of thought and proclaiming "You would think, though, that Europeans would be able to gain a better understanding of America if they viewed us through the prism of their own history. "

9

Excuse me for being presumptious, Gary, but, I think it’s pretty clear (to me at least) that even a cursory study of American history shows that America had a slightly different flavour from the outset, even before the nation was a nation.

North America was basically the bone yard where Europe threw out its trash: poor people, the working classes, “excess population,” people who were running away from various things, and so forth. Even the upper classes that formed in colonial America were not quite as upper-crusty as that of Europe, and the few English elite that did show up were mostly chased out in the years following the revolution (anybody seen still supporting the English was likely to have their land stripped from them, to start with).

I do believe that there is in fact, a fundamental difference between between how Americans view the world and how Europeans do. Granted, it’s mostly a matter of degrees, but it’s there. We cling to ideas of individualism (often over the sake of the community), freedom, and property ownership like a child to it’s security blanket. Those 3 principles are mainly what led to the bloody civil war that nearly ripped us in half. I’m aware that these principals exist in Europe, but it seems less visceral (and bullheaded), if you know what I mean. The UK, for example, never seems to have an entire population madly and desperately scrambling for God knows what like the U.S. does (think Manifest Destiny and shite like that). There are other things, but it’s kind of hard to explain. Seriously, buy a book on early U.S. history, from the arrival of the English or earlier and at least up through the civil war, you’ll see what I’m getting at…

(and I know you don’t consider U.S. history to be “history” due to it’s brevity, but trust me, what it lacks in length it makes up for with barely controlled chaos.)

10

I haven’t had a chance to read the article yet, but I think the problem (so to speak) is that European countries, by and large, have chosen a socialistic path with regulations that, while aimed to protect and care for people, stifle the economy and deter hiring.

But, in essence, I think it can be boiled down as follows: Europe seems to favor equal outcome over equal opportunity. The US is mostly the opposite. Both have their benefits and problems, but the US outlook enables people to achieve more (albeit through hard wotrk) than do the European models. Also, the US model seems to motivate people to work harder and be more productive, perhaps because of the desire (and opportunity) to achieve, or because there is less of a societal safety net to catch us in the US if we fail.

Just my 2 cents.

Tres

11

Thanks, Gary, for your somewhat baffling input. While puzzling in a number of respects it certainly illustrates what I was talking about.

So, what was baffling about Gary’s post? Mainly the defensive tone and the obdurate resistance to simple, non-invidious statements of fact. America has been spared wars of religion–at least in the sense of inter-denominational wars. A good argument could certainly be made that our bloodiest conflict to date, the Civil War, was, in a significant sense, a religious war. Nevertheless, it wasn’t the type of religious conflict that would discredit organized religion, or could be used to discredit it. So, anti-clericalism, while it does exist, isn’t really a strong force in the US, as it is, especially, in the Romance countries of Europe. OK, the US didn’t exist at that time. The point was simply that wars of religion per se have not been formative for the American experience. Shouldn’t be a big deal.

Then Gary takes issue with my statement that America is perhaps the most publicly religious country in the West. He wants to claim that my wording implies an establishment of religion in the US and that I should have said: is the country most tolerant of public displays of religiosity. Gary, if it makes you feel better, I’ve said it, but everyone in America knows that my wording is more accurate, because it describes the centrality of religion to our public life, as I believe Bloomfield has written of it. The role of religion in US public life, no matter how you feel about it, certainly goes beyond mere toleration. And those who have read the writings of our influential Founders know, too, that that’s how they envisioned America. For good or ill. But why the nitpicking in the first place?

Gary, apparently, wishes to deny America a history, since he prefers to put the word in single quotes: ‘history.’ Two points. A little over two hundred years, counting from 1776 I guess, may not be a long time. On the other hand, an attempt at understanding America that goes back no further than 1776 is somewhat superficial to begin with.

Continuing in reflexive defense mode, Gary also wishes to deny us Americans any claim to indigenous strains of thought. Those who have read my posts will be aware that I would be among the least likely to claim great intrinsic value for American political and philosophical thought. Moreover, no invidious comparison was intended (by admonishing me to wait 500 years before “laying claim” to indigenous thought Gary definitely seems to imply that I was claiming merit for American thought). I intended only a simple statement of fact. For better or worse, whatever its intrinsic merit, Americans have had thoughts on matters political and philosophical. Whatever one may think of American thought, it seems patently silly to simply deny it. America is a factor in the world, IMO, that oughtn’t to be ignored. An effort at understanding even what might appear superficial would be a wiser approach.

Gary’s defensiveness over my reference to “indigenous strains of thought” is particularly puzzling, in that the whole purport of my post was that American thought is firmly rooted in European, and especially English and Scottish Enlightenment thought. That being the case, as it is, it is rather puzzling that Europeans tend to view America as somehow sui generis and ahistorical. It’s true that Americans, from their own perspective, share that attitude, but nevertheless I would expect more from Europeans with their longer experience to recognize those commonalities and to be more insightful in their reflections on America. Of course I speak here in general terms; there certainly are European observers with great insight into the American experience, just as there are Americans with understanding of Europe. Who knows, maybe George Weigel is one of them.

Finally, to wind up this belaboring of the obvious, to refer to America as “grown up” is not to impute great wisdom or maturity to American statecraft and foreign policy. In context, it was intended as a contrast to that period of “history” (as Gary would say) when America exerted no influence on the greater world stage. America is certainly no longer in its infancy. It seems pointless to quibble about words in this manner. I look forward to Gary’s comments on the substance of the article, rather than his petulant aspersions against America.

12

Just another big-mouthed arrogant American. So are you going to send us missionaries now? Or should we expect bombs?

Poland - they betrayed us even before they joined us for real. They just wanted to join the EU to get our money. Then they used it to buy american weapons. A fine ally you got there. They know all about opportunism but nothing about loyalty.

13

I think this is working off concepts that are no longer true. The American Dream does not exist any more, certainly not in its original definition. What was left of the notion that hard work pays off disappeared for good in the last wave of corporate scandals. The US outlook does not enable people to achieve more: currently, it enables people to work very hard for very little benefits and very little hope of comfortable retirement. For the 43 million without health coverage, hard work is dependent on staying healthy and it certainly does not lead to riches. And this is not intellectual, liberal babble: I am living it.
Our model has turned into unbounded consumerism. Unfortunately, how are we expected to keep consuming goods that we can’t afford and that are produced abroad by jobs that we’ve exported?

14

Gary’s post wasn’t baffling to me at all. It was articulate, and importantly provided by someone who lives outside of the USA. One might have initially thought a European’s perspective would be considered, rather than summarily dismissed. The initial post is written as if to make us aware of an article for consideration, but that’s immediately transparent.

Edited for punctuation.

15

I am happy to concede that Americans entered the Enlightenment but never got out of it. Abortive Enlightenment if you will.


You would think, though, that Europeans would be able to gain a better understanding of America if they viewed us through the prism of their own history. I suspect they’ve never really taken us seriously, that they view us as having no real intellectual roots. Or perhaps they found it easier to simply project their own myths on us: a nation of Natty Bumpos. What a shock when we grew up!

Nothing funnier to the adult than the kid declaring himself grown up.

But seriously, I don’t think it’s profitable to go down the “you’d think they’d be smarter” route. European in important respects fail to understand Americans. In others they understand very well and disagree. Americans in important respects fail to understand Europeans. In others they understand very well and disagree. You (and we all) will have to do a lot more learning and listening before we are able to tell lack of understanding from disagreement reliably.

16

… it is getting very heated already and only because of THAT article. Not everything “black on white” is true or comes close to truth. I have read the whole “and very long” article of Mr Weigel (as is sounds German ancestors he has) and would like to answer elendil’s question “if Mr. Weigel does know Europe better”. From my impression from the article Mr. Weigel may know a little about Eastern Europe but he seems to have a very limited insight about the rest.

St. Paul’s cathedral and the entrance fee they take from visitors and using this as a sign how down religion has come in Europe made me laugh. What is the problem with taking money from people who basically are interested to see this old building, tourists from all over the world who may also see it as a church but that is not their main reason to visit it Iwould presume. The collection keeps is maintained, how else should those buildings (some are older than 1000 years) could be preserved? The churches are poor as they claim (and that again is a different story in the different European countries all together) and repairs needs A LOT of money… millions a year per country in Europe… that just a side thing.

I think the article is misleading and I am wondering where he is coming from at times. i.e.:

He says “in Europe religion is handled so and so” but it does not work that easy. He did not even mention that there are three different systems of “state and religion seperations” which work totally different and do not show anything about the activity of religion in these countries. There is the separatistic, concordat and the unit system i.e. Ireland, Germany and England have these totally different systems (guess which is which system?) The systems come from different historical backgrounds as easy that a King wanted to be divorced and as hard that millions of people got killed during catholic and protestant wars. (Ireland btw is separatistic and it is probably the most religious coutry in Europe after Poland)

I think Mr. Weigel’s conclusion about the possible threat “that militant muslims will be taking over Europe” is a tad paranoid.

So making conclusions about Europe from Mr. Weigels article or get angry at each other might not be the best choice, same as making conclusions about America watching only Fox News… his view point is a tiny crump of a big cake coloured by his subjectivity.

open end…

Brigitte

edited to change to “catholic’s and protestant’s war”

17

I think this is a very good point. Yes, of course individualism, freedom, and property ownership are the also the pilars on which European societies are built (ignoring Communism for the moment). But there is a difference, and it does have to do with a visceral, emotional level. Americans consider it no infringement of their individuality that they all dress the same, eat the same fast food, watch the same television shows and movies etc etc. That is to say, for all it’s individualims the US is a strikingly homogenous society in cultural terms. The fascinating thing about it is that there is a huge fringe in the US, in all directions and more frayed than what you’d expect to find in European societies, and that the existance of this fringe somehow does not disturb the general and cultural perception of unity and homogenity.

Much of this, by the way, has to do with language to my mind. English is a language very well suited to expressing the subtleties of feelings and attitudes. It is not as well suited to conceptual and impersonal thought. Americans will say “I feel that liberty is important” but you could not image a German or a Dutchman saying it. The language itself in the US carries a unifying cultural hum, on that visceral level t-sam describes, that is absent in European societies.

18

Of course there’s a fundamental difference in thinking between residents of disparate nations; cultural influences and history practically ensure that. Perhaps the truly empowering aspect of the internet is its near-instantaneous ability to provide insight into other’s lives and lifestyles.

I’m not at all “anti-American”, although tongue-in-cheek I do often refer to your War of Independance as The Revolutionary War…one nation’s folk heroes are often another nation’s terrorists after all.

Frankly I found the article and its author, who Elendil appears to believe erudite and worthy of profound consideration, little more than pretentious at best and supremely arrogant at worse.

"I am prepared to argue that very little that has crossed the Atlantic in the past several centuries hasn’t been improved in the process: from the English language itself to the institutions of constitutional democracy to “rounders” (transformed by Americans into God’s game, baseball). "

So says Weigel. And Elendil wonders aloud “So, what was baffling about Gary’s post? Mainly the defensive tone and the obdurate resistance to simple, non-invidious statements of fact.” Perhaps because I’m using the old, unimproved language that didn’t cross the Atlantic.

Statements of fact? The title of the piece is arrogance in itself. “Europe’s Problem - and Ours”. What problem?

The piece contains nothing but the authors ramblings apparently prompted by the fact that like so many venerable buildings (many of which of course predate the small boulder in Plymouth, New England, scratched with the numerals “1620”), St Paul’s is a preserved heritage site. It is not simply become “an architectural museum” as Weigel claims.

Visit www.stpauls.co.uk, Elendil, and acquaint yourself with that simple, non-invidious fact.

The problem? Your guess is as good as mine. Weigel omits to define “the problem”, much less offer a solution.

“European man has convinced himself that in order to be modern and free, he must be radically secular. That conviction has had crucial, indeed lethal, consequences for European public life and European culture; indeed, that conviction and its public consequences are at the root of Europe’s contemporary crisis of civilizational morale.”

Pseudo-intellectual poppycock. He continues: “Europe’s crisis of civilizational morale teaches us that, while there are many lenses through which history can be read, theological lenses help us to see deeper, farther, and more truly.”

He’s entitled to his opinions, of course. But to tout this claptrap as some kind of “Enlightenment” leaves one (or at least this one) somewhat breathless with incredulity.

Elendil defends his statement, to the effect that “America is the most religious country in the Western world.” Far more so than the UK, I agree, but if I were Spanish, or Italian, or Greek…etc etc, I might take issue with you.

But to the crux of my point… European history is American history, from 1620 to relatively recent times. With also a large chunk of Asian history thrown into the crucible.

“America has been spared wars of religion” says Elendil… in spite of the fact that your Founding Fathers were English Separatist Puritans fleeing such wars and persecution. One might therefore argue that America is the direct result of those wars. How can the effect be separated from the cause?

Most of the USA’s written Constitution took what were considered the ‘best’ bits of European democratic ideals and, lucky for you, cast them effectively in stone. That Constitution of yours is the single most enviable foundation-stone of your multi-cultural society, in this chap’s opinion (we don’t have a Constitution here in the UK, and are thus continually at the mercy of some 700 occupants of the House of Commons and their political aspirations).

But it does really take the biscuit when someone asks the question “Why will Spain’s population likely decline from 40 million to 31.3 million by the middle of the century?” and then wags a stern finger about the rising threat of a tidal-wave of muslim immigrants completely destroying the fabric of European (and next, American) society. Pardon me while I rush over to the Costas to do my bit in improving Spain’s demographics…

19

Or you could just ignore me completely, that’s great too…

20

Gary, he means if we were more pious we would obey to the Pope, so we wouldn’t use contraception and have more babies. That way we would save our continent from the danger of “imploding” and spare America all the trouble.