Spectator: roots of French scepticism about EU constitution
-
Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism Looking back at the 1960s and 1970s, when I grew up in Germany, one of the most striking things was that everyone talked about work and money. The country was infuriatingly materialistic. The old West Germany felt more like an economy than a country. It used to have a proper currency, the Deutschmark, but it lacked a proper political capital. At a time when the British believed in incomes policies, capital controls and state ownership, Germany was as laissez-faire an economy as you could find anywhere in Europe. The Germans were the Americans of Europe, as a friend remarked at the time. Everyone was brimming with confidence and the superiority that comes with the belief that you are running the world’s most superior economy. The 1970s were the heyday of Germany’s social market economy, the economic equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Unification was supposed to make Germany even stronger. The opposite happened. The country’s political leadership mismanaged unification through forcing monetary union too early, at the wrong exchange rate, and on the basis of West Germany’s high social costs and bureaucratic rules. When I returned to Germany in the 1990s, what surprised me most was not the poor performance of the economy — this I expected. I was most shocked by the extraordinary loss of self-confidence among the political and business elites, combined with a poisonous cocktail of the three big As: anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism. Until then, post-war German politicians had been adept at keeping such sentiments hidden from public debate. This changed in 2002, when Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, won a general election through a blatantly anti-American campaign. It was not the fact that he opposed the war against Iraq that won him the election. He won because he managed to mobilise his party base with outright attacks on US President George W. Bush. The same is happening again, only worse. Franz Müntefering, the chairman of Mr Schröder’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), has managed to combine the three big As in a single campaign for the forthcoming state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s largest state. He compared foreign financial investors to ‘locusts’ — the kind of language that the Nazis used to describe Jews. This was no slip of the tongue. He repeated it. Even worse, he drew up a list, the ‘locust list’, of financiers of mostly Jewish–American origin, whom he accused of making exorbitant profits
full of wishful thinking
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism Looking back at the 1960s and 1970s, when I grew up in Germany, one of the most striking things was that everyone talked about work and money. The country was infuriatingly materialistic. The old West Germany felt more like an economy than a country. It used to have a proper currency, the Deutschmark, but it lacked a proper political capital. At a time when the British believed in incomes policies, capital controls and state ownership, Germany was as laissez-faire an economy as you could find anywhere in Europe. The Germans were the Americans of Europe, as a friend remarked at the time. Everyone was brimming with confidence and the superiority that comes with the belief that you are running the world’s most superior economy. The 1970s were the heyday of Germany’s social market economy, the economic equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Unification was supposed to make Germany even stronger. The opposite happened. The country’s political leadership mismanaged unification through forcing monetary union too early, at the wrong exchange rate, and on the basis of West Germany’s high social costs and bureaucratic rules. When I returned to Germany in the 1990s, what surprised me most was not the poor performance of the economy — this I expected. I was most shocked by the extraordinary loss of self-confidence among the political and business elites, combined with a poisonous cocktail of the three big As: anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism. Until then, post-war German politicians had been adept at keeping such sentiments hidden from public debate. This changed in 2002, when Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, won a general election through a blatantly anti-American campaign. It was not the fact that he opposed the war against Iraq that won him the election. He won because he managed to mobilise his party base with outright attacks on US President George W. Bush. The same is happening again, only worse. Franz Müntefering, the chairman of Mr Schröder’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), has managed to combine the three big As in a single campaign for the forthcoming state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s largest state. He compared foreign financial investors to ‘locusts’ — the kind of language that the Nazis used to describe Jews. This was no slip of the tongue. He repeated it. Even worse, he drew up a list, the ‘locust list’, of financiers of mostly Jewish–American origin, whom he accused of making exorbitant profits
Tomaž Štih wrote: Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism Anti-semitism? BS. Tomaž Štih wrote: They oppose Anglo-Saxon capitalism, foreign takeovers, liberal markets, low corporate tax rates Don't forget Chirac is a right-wing conservative. He favors all this, even if he's saying the opposite as the good demagogue he is. Tomaž Štih wrote: and most of all they dislike Mr Bush Outside of the US, who doesn't? Tomaž Štih wrote: The Franco–German alliance never came naturally to either country Town twinnings, occuring since the 60's, made people from both countries closer: nowadays, more than 2,200 twinnings exist between France and Germany. The Franco-German alliance was perhaps initiated from the top, but it became a much more popular event the author may think, especially when thinking the two countries waged 3 wars against each other in 70 years. The author focuses on fear of ultra-liberalisation to explain why a "no" to the constitution may happen in France next Sunday. Of course, this argument is valid, and this fear isn't that irrational[^]. Nonetheless, it is far to be the only reason why many will vote "no": there is also the fear of Turkey entering the EU, the fear of farmers (mostly right winger BTW) to lose their european subsidies, fierce nationalism/euroscepticm (cf Pasqua, De Villiers), and also mainly to punish Chirac and his right-wing government which leads the country to an economical and social disaster. There are many points in the debate[^], focusing on economy only is a mistake
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 169 -
Claudio Grazioli wrote: the social democratic party plans elections for the national parliament this fall (one year earlier than the regular schedule). I read a small story about this and the whole concept seems odd to me as an American. Why would the results of a local/state election cause the re-scheduling of a national election? :confused: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Why would the results of a local/state election cause the re-scheduling of a national election? It's all about democracy and legitimity. When a government has reasons to believe it is not representative anymore (by failing local elections for instances), it sometimes trigger new national elections to try to regain legitimacy. It happens from time to time.
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Why would the results of a local/state election cause the re-scheduling of a national election? It's all about democracy and legitimity. When a government has reasons to believe it is not representative anymore (by failing local elections for instances), it sometimes trigger new national elections to try to regain legitimacy. It happens from time to time.
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778Seems like a very unstable practice. Losing a few local elections seems like a pretty minor event to trigger something as major as altering a national election. Without fail, when it comes to election schedules, here in the US we live (and die) by the rules and schedules laid out ahead of time. Why do so many people believe that the entire government MUST be dominated by a single party to be effective? IMO that lessens some of the advantages you have with a multiparty (more than 2) system. K(arl) wrote: It happens from time to time. I can't imagine the circumstances in the US that would possibly warrant such an event. :omg: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Seems like a very unstable practice. Losing a few local elections seems like a pretty minor event to trigger something as major as altering a national election. Without fail, when it comes to election schedules, here in the US we live (and die) by the rules and schedules laid out ahead of time. Why do so many people believe that the entire government MUST be dominated by a single party to be effective? IMO that lessens some of the advantages you have with a multiparty (more than 2) system. K(arl) wrote: It happens from time to time. I can't imagine the circumstances in the US that would possibly warrant such an event. :omg: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems like a very unstable practice But it's quite democratic in a way (even if it is in fact a bet to keep the power), a government must be representative of the people, so when most of the people disagree with it, can we still say it is representative? Mike Mullikin wrote: Why do so many people believe that the entire government MUST be dominated by a single party to be effective? IMO that lessens some of the advantages you have with a multiparty (more than 2) system. Benerally our goverments are made of coalitions (I'm speaking about France, I believe it is the same in Germany), but it is globally a right/left affair. The multipartism enables to "adjust", to "tune up" (for instance many votes for far-left parties would lead a left-wing government to be more socially-oriented, many votes for the far-right would lead a right-wing government to be tougher on immigration and security), but in the end, it is Right vs Left.
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems like a very unstable practice But it's quite democratic in a way (even if it is in fact a bet to keep the power), a government must be representative of the people, so when most of the people disagree with it, can we still say it is representative? Mike Mullikin wrote: Why do so many people believe that the entire government MUST be dominated by a single party to be effective? IMO that lessens some of the advantages you have with a multiparty (more than 2) system. Benerally our goverments are made of coalitions (I'm speaking about France, I believe it is the same in Germany), but it is globally a right/left affair. The multipartism enables to "adjust", to "tune up" (for instance many votes for far-left parties would lead a left-wing government to be more socially-oriented, many votes for the far-right would lead a right-wing government to be tougher on immigration and security), but in the end, it is Right vs Left.
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778K(arl) wrote: But it's quite democratic in a way (even if it is in fact a bet to keep the power), a government must be representative of the people, so when most of the people disagree with it, can we still say it is representative? True, but while better than American media - French media (like all western media) can still be reactionary and hype oriented. The public can easily be mis-lead and develop a "mob" mentality. Not exactly the best situation for forcing out a government. In the US our constitution sets the timeframe for federally elected terms and generally the public respects the constitution and thus feel like they've made a commitment for that term. Only in rare situations will an individual congressman be impeached or forced out of office - never an entire party. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: So to be in a posision to really rule the contry in an efficient way the majority of the members in both chambers should be from the same party as the chancellor... Well, that's just what they think in Germany. That's not my personal opinion. Mike Mullikin wrote: I've always felt the best US governments occur when the POTUS and the congress are of different parties. Spending slows and compromise is forced. Basically it provides a balance not there when one party dominates a government. My country has a complete different system. Our federal council consist of seven members. 2 are from the Social Party, 2 are from the Christ Democratic Party, 2 are from the Liberal Party (liberal in the original meaning) and 2 are from the very Conservative Party. And the two chambers of the parliament are as well mainly constituted from members of this four parties. So in my country, most things the government does has a wide acceptance by the public because the four most important parties already agreed on it (and thus it's a compromise everone can cope with). Ok, sometimes things are a bit slow because they have to find all those compromises, but I like it. Claudio Claudio's Website Hommingberger Gepardenforelle
Claudio Grazioli wrote: Our federal council consist of seven members. 2 are from the Social Party, 2 are from the Christ Democratic Party, 2 are from the Liberal Party (liberal in the original meaning) and 2 are from the very Conservative Party 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 7? :omg::omg: Claudio Grazioli wrote: four most important parties already agreed on it Is that really democratic? Sounds rather like some kind of elit decides for the people :suss:
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
K(arl) wrote: But it's quite democratic in a way (even if it is in fact a bet to keep the power), a government must be representative of the people, so when most of the people disagree with it, can we still say it is representative? True, but while better than American media - French media (like all western media) can still be reactionary and hype oriented. The public can easily be mis-lead and develop a "mob" mentality. Not exactly the best situation for forcing out a government. In the US our constitution sets the timeframe for federally elected terms and generally the public respects the constitution and thus feel like they've made a commitment for that term. Only in rare situations will an individual congressman be impeached or forced out of office - never an entire party. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: The public can easily be mis-lead and develop a "mob" mentality 'We' have this kind of mentality. Why do you think there were revolutions in 1789, 1830, 1848, 1870, 1968? :-D Mike Mullikin wrote: the public respects the constitution and thus feel like they've made a commitment for that term. 'we' haven't the same attachment 'you' have to the Constitution, maybe because our political organizations wer emuch less stable (since 1789: 5 republics, 2 empires, 2 monarchies and one dictatorship). It's funny how 'your' people I consider as so pragmatic can be so stuck to the letter of the Constitution. I wonder if 'your' revolution wasn't in fact a conservative reaction rather than a will to change the society?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
Claudio Grazioli wrote: Our federal council consist of seven members. 2 are from the Social Party, 2 are from the Christ Democratic Party, 2 are from the Liberal Party (liberal in the original meaning) and 2 are from the very Conservative Party 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 7? :omg::omg: Claudio Grazioli wrote: four most important parties already agreed on it Is that really democratic? Sounds rather like some kind of elit decides for the people :suss:
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778K(arl) wrote: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 7? ok. The Christ Democratic Party has only one member in the council. K(arl) wrote: Is that really democratic? Sounds rather like some kind of elit decides for the people No, the oposite is true. We have the council with the seven members. You can compare that to Mr. Bush and all the other guys like Rumsfeld, Cheney and so. Than we have the parlament with two chambers (together more than 200 members). So quite the same as in other countries. This are the differences: While Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice etc. are all from the same party, or in Germany Schröder, Fischer etc. are all from the left wing, in our country they are from left and right. Liberals, Socialists, Convervativs all together. And the biggest difference compared to most other countries: In our country every really important change to laws or any other really important decisions (like building new nuclear power plant or buy new aircrafts for the army) is decided by public polls! We have public polls 4 times a year so the people have to decide about 20 really important things a year by themselfs! It's not the government that decides. Compare that to other countries. In a lot of European countries the people are not even asked about the new European constitution! Their government just decide! So our system is really very democratic! Claudio Claudio's Website Hommingberger Gepardenforelle
-
K(arl) wrote: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 7? ok. The Christ Democratic Party has only one member in the council. K(arl) wrote: Is that really democratic? Sounds rather like some kind of elit decides for the people No, the oposite is true. We have the council with the seven members. You can compare that to Mr. Bush and all the other guys like Rumsfeld, Cheney and so. Than we have the parlament with two chambers (together more than 200 members). So quite the same as in other countries. This are the differences: While Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice etc. are all from the same party, or in Germany Schröder, Fischer etc. are all from the left wing, in our country they are from left and right. Liberals, Socialists, Convervativs all together. And the biggest difference compared to most other countries: In our country every really important change to laws or any other really important decisions (like building new nuclear power plant or buy new aircrafts for the army) is decided by public polls! We have public polls 4 times a year so the people have to decide about 20 really important things a year by themselfs! It's not the government that decides. Compare that to other countries. In a lot of European countries the people are not even asked about the new European constitution! Their government just decide! So our system is really very democratic! Claudio Claudio's Website Hommingberger Gepardenforelle
Claudio Grazioli wrote: We have public polls 4 times a year so the people have to decide about 20 really important things a year by themselfs! Yeah, that's the thing I like in Switzerland. Question is, with 4 polls a year, is the turnout sufficient or are the people 'bored' to vote?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
Claudio Grazioli wrote: We have public polls 4 times a year so the people have to decide about 20 really important things a year by themselfs! Yeah, that's the thing I like in Switzerland. Question is, with 4 polls a year, is the turnout sufficient or are the people 'bored' to vote?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778K(arl) wrote: Yeah, that's the thing I like in Switzerland. Question is, with 4 polls a year, is the turnout sufficient or are the people 'bored' to vote? Let's say it this way: On average the turnout is under 50%, around 45%. But this 45% really are interested in politics and prepare for the votes by studying all the information in newspaper, tv, leaflets from the different parties, etc. And every mathematician can proof that 45% is more than enough to be representativ. When we vote on very important topics, like when we voted for joining the UNO or when we have votes on special contracts we have with the European Union, than it's over 50% sometimes over 60%. But of course it's not the same turnout as in other countries where you have one election every four or so year and maybe one local referndum per year, where you often have turnouts of over 80%. Claudio Claudio's Website Hommingberger Gepardenforelle
-
Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism Looking back at the 1960s and 1970s, when I grew up in Germany, one of the most striking things was that everyone talked about work and money. The country was infuriatingly materialistic. The old West Germany felt more like an economy than a country. It used to have a proper currency, the Deutschmark, but it lacked a proper political capital. At a time when the British believed in incomes policies, capital controls and state ownership, Germany was as laissez-faire an economy as you could find anywhere in Europe. The Germans were the Americans of Europe, as a friend remarked at the time. Everyone was brimming with confidence and the superiority that comes with the belief that you are running the world’s most superior economy. The 1970s were the heyday of Germany’s social market economy, the economic equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Unification was supposed to make Germany even stronger. The opposite happened. The country’s political leadership mismanaged unification through forcing monetary union too early, at the wrong exchange rate, and on the basis of West Germany’s high social costs and bureaucratic rules. When I returned to Germany in the 1990s, what surprised me most was not the poor performance of the economy — this I expected. I was most shocked by the extraordinary loss of self-confidence among the political and business elites, combined with a poisonous cocktail of the three big As: anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism. Until then, post-war German politicians had been adept at keeping such sentiments hidden from public debate. This changed in 2002, when Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, won a general election through a blatantly anti-American campaign. It was not the fact that he opposed the war against Iraq that won him the election. He won because he managed to mobilise his party base with outright attacks on US President George W. Bush. The same is happening again, only worse. Franz Müntefering, the chairman of Mr Schröder’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), has managed to combine the three big As in a single campaign for the forthcoming state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s largest state. He compared foreign financial investors to ‘locusts’ — the kind of language that the Nazis used to describe Jews. This was no slip of the tongue. He repeated it. Even worse, he drew up a list, the ‘locust list’, of financiers of mostly Jewish–American origin, whom he accused of making exorbitant profits