Being an anti-American is an excersise in optimism. You must learn to be content with what little you have, and always look for the bright side of every tragedy. A few examples. Tragedy: All your predictions about the war in Iraq failed. Bright side: The warmongers weren't correct about everything either. Tragedy: The war was one of the cleanest and most efficient wars ever fought. Bright side: Some civilians died. Tragedy: There was no humanitarian disaster. Bright side: Baghdad was short of electricity and water for a while. Tragedy: Most Iraqis hated Saddam and were glad to be rid of him. Bright side: Some Iraqis liked Saddam, because he would let them beat up the other Iraqis. Tragedy: Saddam's rule was despotic. Bright side: The American administration is mildly incompetent. Tragedy: The Arab Street did not explode. Bright side: Al-Qaeda has arrived to blow up the Arab Street.

It's easy once you adopt the proper mindset. Sometimes the results are hilarious. Tragedy: The Bush administration went to war despite protests from the "international community", (ie. European countries with UNSC veto powers). Bright side: European pressure has now forced him to abandon the steel tariff. I'm not kidding - this is the angle newspapers have chosen here. The mighty Bush humbled, at last!

Aftenposten ponders the consequences of this historic event in an editorial:

[Bush's] retreat is a victory for the open, global trade the US professes, and which through more than half a century has contributed to give the world a greater increase in wealth than in any other period in history. [..] The case has been pushed hardest by the EU, which has solid experience with such trade policy poker games. [..] We've had an example of how much influence the EU can have over American politics, when its members stand together and use their full weight. This would probably have been true for other areas as well, such as Iraq or the Middle East. [..]

Yesterday the five year old Euro reached its highest exchange rate ever against the US dollar. Are we seeing the economic side of a decreasing level of trust around the world in the ability of the president and his advisors to deal with major international challenges in a sound way? The steel fight may hold a promise that something more than a mere tariff has changed.

The EU achieved this by threatening retaliatory tariffs aimed at likely swing states in the 2004 presidential election. That's a tactic I approve of, and it worked because the damage caused to Bush would have been comparable to the benefit he got from steel tariffs. (Whether he measured damage and benefit in voters or national wellbeing is something else.) Aftenposten suggests that similar tactics would have prevented the Iraq war, but what damage could the EU have done to the US that would have been comparable to the benefit of Iraqi democracy? Nothing, of course, or nothing realistic. So this is just posturing. And the hope that this signals a change of tone in Washington is just desperation. But for a mind trained in anti-American optimism, there's always a bright side to every tragedy.

Nettavisen - also in an editorial (steel tariffs are important!) - goes even further.

The US is happy to use force to get its way. But now the US has been forced into a humiliating retreat by an opponent with balls of steel. [..] [The steel tariffs] could hardly be seen as anything but pure protectionism to aid its own industry. But Bush refused to listen to European protests.

Ordinarily, this is a tactic the US gets a long way with, but not here. Because on Thursday the US had to abandon the entire tariff. [..]

The Europeans lay the US election map before them, and cherrypicked goods from key industries in states where Bush may win or loose the presidential election. It was about textile companies in Carolina, and agricultural products from the Midwest and California.

Faced with such a threat, even George Bush had to bend. In this particular case it obviously helped to have "balls of steel", and it hasn't happened often that the US president has been forced to make such a humiliating U-turn.

And I thought we Europeans were above national chauvinism. The language here - our balls of steel forced our proud enemy into a humiliating retreat - is no less macho than that used by Americans complaining of European sissies. It's inappropriate in both cases, but here it's also pathetic, when you remember what the respective peoples are macho about: Americans about having the most powerful military force in the world, Nettavisen about one successful trade battle. I suppose the macho instinct is always there whether there's basis for it or not, but trade wars are not macho. Expeditions to the Antarctic, mountaneering, wintersports, WW2 sabotage, fine, but not trade.

And then Nettavisen takes a walk into Hypocritistan:

This is good news for Norwegian interests and others who want free, global trade.

Did he mean to write ".. for Norway and interests that want free trade"? Of course it's good for Norway that we've avoided a trade war, and of course it's also good for us who want free trade, but I object to implying a correlation. How can you write about Norway and free trade and not mention that we have among the highest levels of agricultural subsidies in the world? This only shows that the subject here is not free trade. The subject is the humiliation of George W. Bush. It's the same subject as in this other Nettavisen article about a Google bomb where "miserable failure" leads to the White House bio of George W. Bush. I think I like these articles better when they don't pretend to be about politics.

(Update 9/12: Nettavisen's Gunnar Stavrum replies that he meant that free trade is in Norway's interest, not that Norway currently stands for free trade. "I am sadly aware that Norway is not a pioneer in free world trade". I don't agree that this meaning is clear from the words, but if that's what he meant, that's great.)

Hi Bjorn,

Pretty funny stuff. Even when Bush supported the steel tariff most everyone here knew it was a temporary expedient doomed to failure. Free trade is important. You do a good job of highlighting the differing attitudes which is a very valuable service. Thanks.

Another great post. By the way, I voted for you in Wizbang's contest for the "best foreign blog." I read and enjoy quite a few European and other non-U.S. blogs. Yours is so well written, gives good information, and is salted with interesting insights. You also attract a good group of commenters, who are quite articulate--even if I disagree with them.

Aftenposten was far behind in the hilarity contest of European commentors. The leftist UK Guardian was funnier by far, claiming that the trade dispute was the proof of a rise of European power.
There will be many funny renditions of this by some of the better US commentariate in the future, I am sure.

However, all is not funny on this. I'm on the record as approving of the retaliatory tarrifs, but you're wrong about the specific case of the European ones: they were made specifically to interfere with the US election cycle. That goes way too far, and the European Union should issue an apology for the arrogance of deigning to interfere in any election of the US. Like the French court telling the

I don't agree with the steel tarrifs, but we should be increasing them and adding new ones to punish the EU in general for having the arrogance to interfere in a US election. There is no excuse for aiming at internal US politics. That will be excusable the day Europe gives us the largest number of MEP's in the European Parlaiment. Other than that, it is an act of war.

Great blogging, Bjørn!

I laughed uncontrollably after reading these insanely comical European editorials on the steel dispute. The European newspapers seem now further removed from reality than Michael Moore, and that says a lot!

Even funnier, the Europeans actually HELPED Bush's re-election chances by doing this!

It's no secret that Bush and Treasury Secretary John Snow wanted out of the tariffs, having made an unwise campaign promise in to steel workers in Pennsylvania that caused more harm than good to the US economy.

But this EU trade war threat gave him the perfect cover:

He can tell the steel workers he did what he could, all while putting the blame squarely on the Europeans.

At the same time, he gets accolades from the free traders in the GOP and auto workers in Michican, another battleground state that Bush now seems poised to win.

I knew the EU is completely incompetent in its decision-making, but this must be the mother of all unintended consequences...LOL

James Versluys:

Yes indeed, the tarrifs were made to interfere with the election cycle. That was some of the power of the tarrifs. I don't see why this is wrong? It's a strategy which proved fruitfull.

Furthermore, if you really think slapping more tarrifs on Europe (and other countries) would have helped when the WTO already has ruled against you - you should be aware that that could've had Very Unfortunate Consequences with other trading partners too (Japan springs to mind).

A trade war where you are the single country is never a good thing.

As an American, I feel utterly awed at the massive onslaught of European balls of steel. It makes my own manhood seem ever so much smaller.

As a free trader, by the way, I must say that I don't think it'll do to go too far overboard with it. There are sometimes valid reasons--national defense and sheltering an important industry from a crisis--that short-term use of such a tool is justified. I just think such short-term uses are few and far between, and the temptation is always to extend them and extend them and extend them instead of doing the right thing and lowering them.

Still, America could ill-afford to let its steel industry completely collapse. This would be a mistake for any military power, just as it would be mistake for any military power to be dependent on offshare sources for most of its spare parts for its military equipment.

But I'm just blathering. I'm not really trying to defend Bush or the tarriffs.

Well, let's just hope that the Europeans will show the same respect for WTO rules and the international negotiating process when the WTO rules against their tactic of using bogus health scares to prevent the sale of GM maize, eh?

Martin

Well, I see bombing Oslo to achieve a breakthrough in our trade disputes works. Why not use it? See the problem?

The thing is, you're never supposed to do that. Europe has forgotten about this, and has gone to fiddling with sovereign nations in between yelling about America interfering with sovereign nations. It doesn't do to be that big of a hypocrite.

Plus, you can designate tarrifs. We can put one on Europe and not Japan. Europe will lose a trade war, guaranteed. You sell more. The seller loses.

Bjorn, thank you for the translations.

James, I understand your feelings about the threats, but I'm glad the tariffs are gone. If it makes you feel better, remember even a broken clock is right twice a day...

I wrote about this in more detail at: http://www.solport.com/roundtable/index.php?itemid=323

Bush should have dropped a retaliatory tariff on Volkswagen cars -- VW is headquartered in Gerhard Schroeder's home state -- and announced that it was to punish Schroeder for his opposition to the Iraq war, and meant to weaken his party in next year's German regional elections.

Well, OK, he shouldn't have. But such an action would have been the exact moral equivalent of the EU's threatened tariffs. Somehow I think it would have gotten a more negative reaction from the European and American leftist press, though. Something about unilaterally interfering with the democratic process of a sovereign nation, maybe?

Well, this is more complex than it looks. The stated reason for short term tarrifs, in economic terms, is actually a good one: for periods usually around a year, they can stabalize industrial output to put up "artificial weakness".

For instance, the Brits make widgets very cheaply and of high quality, but BritWidg is losing money from one of its subsidiaries, which happens to be an air carrier which is bleeding money. In the wake, there is a moderately less efficient giant American widget company, WidgeWorld, which is in good financial shape because they bought Microsoft when you could buy their stock with indian nickles and some gum you had on the back of your seat.

Now, BritWidge is a zillion bajillion Euros in debt, and is being forced to cut back on some new widget making technology, all the while needing money to fend off adances from that evil American WidgeWorld corporation. Since both companies are the sole makers of widgets in America and Britain,
the destruction or buyout or (most likely) dismantling of the British widget manufacturer means the destruction of widget making in Britain. Because of the high cost of widget machinery, it might mean that a profitable widget business might go out in Britain forever. In this instance of the widget business, which is such an important part of the British economy in crappy economic North England, Gordon Brown would be right to slap a temporary, six month to two year import tarrif on the business to allow it to stabalize.

Now, just because there is a rationale that could be used doesn't mean that it's true for any particular business. The Bush government used that rationale. There is some reason to believe that it was true that there was some artificial weakness due to the particular holdings of American steel manufacture, but all in all I don't think the case was made. And, if you'll remember earlier, I said I was glad the tarrifs were got rid of.

My answer, despite the steel tarrifs, are "so what?". It was none of Europe's business to be fucking with US elections under any circumstances.
Big responsible Western governments get upset when another government does something so minor as to express any preference at all for the victors in an election. This was far larger a forbidden fruit, and amounts to an unprecedented attack.

And, to be truthful, I don't think EU pressure did anything. US governments rarely act under that kind of pressure. Like Rome of yore, large, powerful empires amost never react to anything except internal constituencies. Where the steel tarrif problems came from was almost solely internal: steel is a manufacturing and union concern, and Bush was trying to buy off intense union backlash in the next election.

But because union concerns are normally intensely Democratic, his inroads into the union vote were very weak. Not only this, but it also upset some of his core intellectual constituency on the Right that dislike all tarrifs, and especially dilike .

So Europe bought probably nothing. But they did manage to really piss off the entire governmental structure in the United States and took further inroads into making the American intellectual stratum deep and abiding enemies. This is something new: unlike anti-Americanism in Europe,
very rarely has there been extended anti-Europeanism in the American intelligentsia. It used to be short term in scope, but now these medium sized annoyances and unfairnesses are building a permenant class of intellectuals deeply suspicious of and antagonistic toward Europe, especially among us younger ones. Are retaliatory tarrifs really worth it?

James Versluys makes a good point about Europe creating enemies. My view of Europe has always been: What a great place to visit! I want to see every country! Europe is full of culture!

I never paid much attention to recent European politics until the run-up to the war in Iraq. Then I started paying attention.

I'm not a government worker or policy maker, but I believe I'm not alone in thinking that Americans need to be much more critical of European policies than we have been in the past. I'm also taking a much closer view of the EU than I ever have before.

I mention this because this is a European blog, and Europeans should be aware of what "average Americans" are thinking. The anti-Americanism that has always been around since forever never seemed important before. Now, however, these reflexive attitudes seem (1) childish, and (2) dangerous.

By "dangerous," I meant (1) dividing us when we should be united in the war against Islamofascism, and (2) creating animosity when we should be friends.

Umm, Guys? He who laughs last, laughs best. Remember, it took over 20 years for US to get apples into Japan, but we're in.

Have any of you paid attention to what's going to happen to frankenreich and Russia????

Read Instapundit recently???

"THIS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO ME:

The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

The next question is whether Iraq will repudiate its odious debts contracted under Saddam. I'm guessing that it will. Check out this statement from President Bush, on James Baker's appointment to deal with this matter:

The future of the Iraqi people should not be mortgaged to the enormous burden of debt incurred to enrich Saddam Hussein's regime. This debt endangers Iraq's long-term prospects for political health and economic prosperity. The issue of Iraq debt must be resolved in a manner that is fair and that does not unjustly burden a struggling nation at its moment of hope and promise.

Call me crazy, but I think that French, Russian and German holders of Iraqi paper should be more than a little worried."
----

And go read Merde - franken's not looking too pretty:

"Those goose stepping French. Over 22% of the French agree with the platform of the National Front. Since the polling institutes regularly underestimate the electoral strength of the National Front you can add a few percentage points to that. On the 'Tout le Monde en Parle' show, Arlette Laguillier of the Workers Struggle Party, who used to get banged by cop killers in her youth, appeared with her sidekick poodle Olivier Besancenot and stated that once in power her red-brown-green alliance would confiscate anything that doesn't already belong to the government, lower salaries to the level of a 1968 auto worker, and expropriate all bank accounts judged to have excessive credit balances. The Laguiller-Besançenot duo is doing over 10% in the polls. After the 82% election victory worthy of an African Emperor Dada, almost 40% of the French are ready to sign up with the worst kind of totalitarian trash."
----

And to 2nd James, you're starting to piss off the younger crowd, your future tourists and protectors. Do you really think the future will want to spend their tax $ on ingrates?

Re anti-Europeanism: I understand where this comes from, but I would like to remind you all that this is bad, for the same reasons anti-Americanism is. And I'm thinking especially of the anti-French mood in many blogs. It's ok to criticize Europe and France, as I'm sure you'll agree it's ok for Europeans to criticize the US. But make sure you don't make the same jump from criticism to anti-Europeanism that Europeans have made from criticism to anti-Americanism. It will happen, of course, in fact has already begun. The question is will _you_ take part in it, or will you object to it when you see it? The credibility of American criticism of Europe depends on this. You all see what anti-Americanism has done to European intellectuals. Will you let the same thing happen to your own?

To a certain extent, anti-Europeanism is bad, I agree, but I don't say that wholeheartedly. America is on the recieving end of a ferocious amount of hatred, and to this end it doesn't work to have Americans ignorant of the fact that most of the European political and intellectual classes see the US as an enemy.

Irrational hatred vis a vie antiAmericanism is a bad thing, I agree- but that is not the same as calmly recognizing the European Union is a political entity that does not see the US as a friend or even a competitor.

Quite frankly, I have fallen into rather savage dislike of the European upper classes in general and the political classes in particular. Yet I don't think there is much to fear about this. One, my critical faculties still exist when thinking about the other. This cannot be said of the European intelligentsia. Two, I don't much like many people anyway, and am a bit of a "curmudgeonly" (not my term) type, so it's not all that out of place.

I don't think this anti-EU attitude needs to be on the worry list yet, at least not in the larger context. However, if te acrionious general relationship appear on the horizon for a couple more years, then your fears will be realized.

The adoption of a permenant antipathy is the worry, of course, but I don't see the same psychological underpinnings existing in the United States that exist in Europe. On the one hand, the American electrate doesn't hold the uneasy feeling of inferiority that seems to plague the European one. Also, the American intelligentsia also quietly and a bit smugly thinks it's more intelligent than the European educated classes. This is in direct contrast to the loudly proclaimed European intellectual superiority, which suggests a frantic quality to it. The US upper classes simply don't have the same insecure approach, which I think will blunt ruling class dislike over the long run. It seems that the US mental attitude naturally detracts from intense hatred, whereas the EU one adds to it and feeds it.

Great post, Bjoern. Voted for you too, btw.

Hans: Thanks - and I hope you find time to revive your own blog soon.

Anonymous: I use anti-Europeanism in the sense of irrational dislike of Europe - in the same way that anti-Americanism is irrational. So there's no good anti-Europeanism, just good criticism. Don't get too focused on envy as the cause of anti-Americanism - groupthink is a basic human phenomena. You people invented modern political correctness, not Europe. Anti-Europeanism will not likely become the _defining_ belief of entire movements, but I see no reason why Americans would be immune to it playing a significant part in their worldviews. You don't have to be envious to be stupid, (and the connection between envy and anti-Americanisn is at best very vague.)

James,
Many thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I disagree :-), but you have given me food for thought. My response was too large for the comments, so I posted it at http://www.solport.com/roundtable/index.php?itemid=327

Josh,
Your VW example was very apt. However, I am glad we were not that heavy handed. I expect a new party to come into power in Germany in 2006 without our resorting to such tactics.

"You people invented modern political correctness,
not Europe."

Aak, Bjorn, you are right! I am one of those individuals who invented and promulgated it, and now I am paying the price! Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind, etc. etc.

Anyway, now that the new Iranian winner of the Nobel Peace Prize has used her 15 minutes of fame to blast Israel and the United States, I would love to hear any of your thoughts on the Nobel Peace Prize.

The various science and economics awards always seem reasonable to me (based on no knowledge--just ordinary newspaper accounts). But the Nobel Peace Prize has actually turned into a joke. What happened? Is there something odd about the committee? Any thoughts that you would like to share? If so, thanks.

Anyway, I apologize for political correctness. It was one of those good ideas that turned into a nightmare. ;)

-- I use anti-Europeanism in the sense of irrational dislike of Europe --

It's not an irrational dislike of Europe - as long as your mouthpiece isn't frankenreich.

It's been a rational dislike of phrawnce for decades, it's just out in the open. Their history precedes them. You had another post a while ago about this, and at least 2 Americans who haven't posted here recently said the same thing, we're not taking it any more, we're going to give the comments right back. The effects are starting to be seen.

Are any of us really surprised???? Via Edge of England's Sword:

"It's no wonder that public support for the EU is collapsing across Europe when even a dedicated Europhile like Gisela Stuart, Labour MEP, who was involved with the drafting of the proposed EU Constitution, can condemn the document in no uncertain terms:

"Consensus was achieved among those deemed to matter, who made it plain that the rest would not be allowed to wreck the fragile agreement struck", she writes.
"Some members of the secretariat showed particular irritation with my insistence that documents be produced in English. On one occasion a redraft of articles dealing with defence mysteriously arrived just before midnight. They were written in French and the authorship was unclear. Verbal reassurances were given that this was little more than a "linguistically better draft of the earlier English version". The draft was discarded when some of us spotted that references to Nato had mysteriously disappeared".

How sophisticated. The report goes on:

She finishes the article by saying that if some EU governments fail to ratify the Constitution, it will not matter as the EU can survive without it.
"Should a country, or several countries, fail to endorse the constitution, the EU will not collapse - the previous treaties remain and the accession of new countries still goes ahead.

"The [UK] government does not have to accept it", she urges."

I think you forget that not all Americans agree with what bush is doing. Your hatred of America should really be hatred of Bush's cabinet and the Republicans who cunningly run the country…and, the dumbasses who want to vote for the moron in 2004.

The Norwegian Government is for free trade?

I'm rolling on the floor laughing!

Norway is one of the major price-fixers in the global markets. It collaborates with OPEC price-fixing cartel to set prices and ration spoils.

But rationality and self-examination is antithetical to Anti-Americanism, or any bigotry.

Dallas, what weed are you smoking? The hatred of W is like the hatred of Ronnie. We've been down this road already. It's just more out in the open, the difference is we're actually answering back this time.

Some pricey stuff, if I may so myself. And who’s Ronnie? All I was saying is that there are a small minority of people who hate what is going on. And your hatred for America doesn’t mean shit to Americans. Most of them don’t even know it or care too. So you’re not “answering back” to anyone.

Some pricey stuff, if I may say so myself. And who’s Ronnie? All I was saying is that there are a small minority of people who hate what is going on. And your hatred for America doesn’t mean shit to Americans. Most of them don’t even know it or care too. So you’re not “answering back” to anyone.

Umm, Dallas, while I do answer back to the moonbat LLL, my point was Americans aren't going to take the Euro elitist chattering class comments sitting down anymore.

------

Found this comment at Edge of England's Sword - this is going to get interesting:

I don't know how true this is,but has anybody looked at any other colleteral damage from the EU Constitution
"With the European Union, they said they will look into whether the U.S. is breaking trade rules by barring critics."

In a later development, an addendum was added to the EU's 1200 page constitution by that Union's unelected council, making it illegal for the United States to discriminate between countries in contract deals.

The International Court (ICC) has vowed to uphold the legitimacy of the addendum should the United States be brought before it.

by HitNRun on 2003-12-10 21:59:16

HEY!! Leave Dallas, TX alone! That's a patriotic american there. We need someone in the White House who doesn't ignore the Soviet Union and pretend it doesn't exist as American presidents have for the past 12 stinking years. We need someone who will reach out to disgruntled KKK members and show them that their voice counts too. We need someone who considers all angles of an issue - even if all sane people would reject them as crazy conspiracy theories. All the best people want Bush out and Dean in!!

And Dallas, Ronnie Reagan - 1983 missile deployment in Germany. Quite the brouhaha. Thought RR was a cowboy - of course, they also think cowboy is an insult.

Bjorn:

By the by- I was the "anonymous" poster. Sorry, it was meant to be a response to your question as to my hatred of the Europeans. On to your question:

"Anonymous: I use anti-Europeanism in the sense of irrational dislike of Europe - in the same way that anti-Americanism is irrational"

Then I'm clearly not fitting into your idea of anti-Europeanism. This is not to say my dislike for large sections of the European intelligentsia and people doesn't exist, but it's most certainly not a mostly visceral, but an intellectual dislike. I am rather tolerant and amiable toward Europeans in person, but considered as a whole, I find much to dislike.

"Anti-Europeanism will not likely become the _defining_ belief of entire movements, but I see no reason why Americans would be immune to it playing a significant part in their worldviews. You don't have to be envious to be stupid, (and the connection between envy and anti-Americanisn is at best very vague.)"

Then we agree. You're probably right that will possibly be a significant worldview. It is becoming as we speak, and I explained why that was so. But I do not think envy is quite the overarching explanation fot the European side, and never said it was. I said inferiority complex, which is different in significant ways.

I think this exatraordinary hatred of the US is multi-causal in the truest sense of the term. Yes,
I do believe envy plays a role, and in fact I think it plays a role in the way you describe it: as a vague sense in the largest psycological meaning of the term. And also from my previously described inferiority complex, which comes from other mental rootes. But that's not all, and not by a longshot- there are a lot of irritants for the Europeans that do not have broad psychological roots. I think there are a lot of reasons Europeans don't like Americans, not just those. I think there are also ideological roots, cultural roots, and displacement roots. It's not simple and I never claimed it was, I just gave an example.

And, to be frank, some of the reasons Europeans hate us are good reasons. Although I do not consider myself a patriot, I feel I must apologize on behalf of all Americans for: rap music, wrestling on television, casual dress run amuck, Arkansas, multiculturalism, extremist feminism,
Madonna/BrittanySpears/assorted-teen-whores, and Jimmy Carter. I guess just general political correctness is our fault, and hell, I wouldn't blame you for shooting at us for that one. Oh, and that whole "selling the whole eastern portion of Germany out to murderous, rapist Soviet hordes" thing. D'oh.

---

And yngwei, stop it! Your wit, it's too great. Argh. You have cut us with your rapier tongue so that we see the absurdity of our political views and are now reassessing things. See? Cause Bush is right wing, he must like the KKK! Oh, the wit.

Bjorn, while I do understand your concern about growing American anti-Europeanism, I'd like to perhaps point out another angle to look at it: America and Europe should stop pretending that they share the same values.

America is all about individual initiative, while Europe still clings to the notion that the state embodies the collective will of the people. This fundamental difference is heightened even more now that the Soviet Union is gone.

As far as I'm concerned, the wider the gulf between America and Europe, the better. Let's see if Europe succeeds in harnessing the power of society better than the US. My bet is that the US will always win, because out of all the social systems in the world, this is where individual initiative is given the greatest amount of opportunities and encouragement.

I don't give a rats ass what the kkk says, but they have the right to say whatever they want. Plus, I'm a minority; they would sooner burn me at the cross before hearing that I support their freedom of speech.

and just because I support the left wing party, doesn't mean I'm a crazy loon.

I'm not a big fan of Dean. And my support of him decreased when Gore endorsed him.

Sandy, that crisis was before my time.

Another great post, interesting insight into media mindset in Europe.

I think rivalry and competition are good things in moderation... and within a capitalist framework. My real concern is how much capitalism is either supported or hated in Europe. Is it? Or rather is it a conscious informed position or by and large just the 'ethos'/zietgeist.

By the way what's the best time of year to visit Norway as a tourist?

Markku: I'm always interested in people who ride across the pond. Are you here in the US to stay? I went to Europe and found there was always a story with people who left wherever they were from, and came back and found the people that came here were even more interesting, in a general sort of way. I can only assume you recently hailed from Helsinki: what's your story?

Jim

Hey Dallas! Whom do you support? John Fuck Kerry? Or Gen. "Fired from NATO" Clark? Did you hear that he has a new imaginary friend? Yeah, this one is a bureaucrat lurking in the shadows of the Pentagon whispering dark rumors? Remember the last one? He started off IN the White House, then Weasley (under questioning) moved to AROUND the White House. Then Clarke (under scrutiny) packed him off to Canada. I think he finally ended up being from Belgium and not even remotely connected with the White House. I wonder what declension the new one will follow?

BTW, a propos of what are you a minority? I mean, does that win the debate chez toi? No more reason to quibble - after all, you're a minority. Case closed - only thing left to do is grovel at your feet and lick your toes! Just out of curiousity - how does that work? I mean, how can one person be a minority? Are you an ablino Eskimo-Pygmie mix?

And my dear James, who is it that lacks wit here? My KKK comment referred to Dean's wanting to capture the Stars and Bars redneck crowd and not at all to Bush. Even Dallas was perceptive enough to pick up on that! And, for Heaven sakes, spell my name right!!!

Having to defend myself from "right" and left, I forgot what I originally wanted to write. It actually is pertinent to the posted article.

I find it hilarious that the Left, who hates the USA because it is the world's greatest free-market society, now gets giddy because the WTO has forced America to further liberize its economy. The Left hates the globalized economy but they cheer a victory for globalization. This means that they now hate America (and Bush) so much that they have forgotten why they hated it in the first place.

James: Actually I'm a Finnish-born American citizen. We moved here in 1968, when I was 9, and I basically grew up in New Jersey.

But I still speak Finnish, and go there often, due to extensive family connections. Last year - for the first time in my life - I spent 6 months living in Finland. Thus I came to realize how much I loathed Finland, Scandinavia, and Europe, because of the sheer hypocrisy of their welfare states, and their conniving, cowardly free-loaderism when it comes to their relationship with America. I couldn't wait to get back home.

As a proud American, I have never regretted taking the oath of citizenship. For those of you who have never had to make a choice in this regard, just keep in mind that it is quite worthwhile to keep having faith in America. Such a faith, in my experience, is not misplaced.

Yngwie:

You've got it backwards. The left don't hate America because it is the world's greatest free-market society, they hate the free market society because it is perceived as American. Leftists don't stand for anything; they only stand against things, largely because of their feelings of failure and inadequacy when it comes to making a worthwhile contribution to a free market economy.

I would love for you to lick my toes, but I wish I knew what the hell you were talking about! Please tell me how the kkk would not kill me bc I'm a minority. Explain that again! I’ll admit all those lynching stories have me scered.

I hate Clark with a passion, and Kerry looks like he's about to keel over any second from malnutrition. I support Kucinich, and I know he won’t win; when it comes down to Dean and Bush, I'll vote for Dean. But what’s the likelihood that Bush wont win?

Well Markku, that wasn't quite the story I'd thought, but I am interested that they made a boy take a loyalty oath- isn't there a way to get around that for young'uns? Oh well, such is the harvest of life. Yep, I went to Scandanavia too- I find it very easy to imagine how our ancestors made that jump over the pond.

Ah, Yngwie, apologies. I thought you'd made the argumentum ad redneckum. Since you were making fun of that line of nonsense, I think you can understand how I made the mistake and forgive the jump.

And sorry, I am not allowed to spell your name right. It's part of my contract: because of my last name, the gods have decreed I don't have to spell any other name in recompense for no one ever spelling my name right. Isn't that right, Bijoriyann?

James, actually, to clarify my comment: nobody, - not the US government, nor my parents - made me take the oath of citizenship. I did it of my own free will, at the age of 23. And, once again, I've never regretted it, though some confused Americans would like to think that there is some sort of a shame in being American.

To those Americans I would say: go and study the other socio-economic systems in the world, and keep in mind that, - if they are affluent and modern - every single one of them is still sustainted by the fact that the US worker-consumer has the after-tax spending money to spend on their exports. The significance of this economic reality cannot be minimized: the European welfare states are completely sustained by the American worker-consumer. Shoud they lose access to export markets (and the US is the only significant export market for the whole world), then their welfare-state economies would collapse into a depression.

But don't think that you'd hear any voices of gratitude from Europe for America. They've fine-tuned freeloaderism into an art form. When Americans come close to understanding the meaning of the real economic equation, Euros simply trot out the standard anti-American "hegemonic" arguments, making it seem as if it's America's fault they're buying European product. Europeans - especially European socialists - have been doing this for so long (five decades), that it's become an art form: in fact, there are a lot of Americans who buy their sort of argumentation, crappy as it is.

There is absolutely nothing that the European welfare-state model can teach America, since it is completely dependent on the fact that the non-welfare state American model continues to tax its worker-consumers at a drastically lower rate than the European worker, thereby giving the American worker more spending money to spend on - and sustain - the European welfare state.

The European worker, on the other hand, continues to be taxed at such a high rate that their respective countries are never able to develop enough domestic demand to make a difference. The crucial difference - the difference that makes their "ideal" welfare state work... is the fact that Europe has enjoyed an export surplus to American worker-consumers (who, ironically, do not enjoy the same welfare state protections)

Take away the economic lifeblood of Europe (access to the less-taxed American worker-consumer), and the European voice reveals itself not as a voice of multicultural social refinement and learning, but rather as the ranting of a pathetic freeloader, forever attempting to bum off of the efforts of others.

I too, am an American who has come to utterly despise the cultural, economic and political ruling classes of Europe. Markku, excellent post regarding Europe's piggybacking onto the US's economic productivity. Although, your post left out the other half of the equation: not only piggybacking on our economic productivity, but also on our defense capabilities.

Before 9-11 Americans had no clue about the deep hypocrisy of the European ruling classes; smiling in our faces and accepting 60 years of our defense shelter, while encouraging their institutions to sow anti-American hatred behind our back (and the anti-American hatred pumped out by the Euro media doesn't only impact Europe, mind you, but the whole world. Radical Islamist websites love to quote Pilger and Fisk.) However the last laugh will undoubtedly be on Europe, which may find out how dangerous its childish double game has become in the age of the Internet.

When Atlas shrugs, Europe will be the first to fall off the maps.

It's funny how 9-11 changed so much thinking for so many people, including me. Who could have guessed that my political views, my attitudes toward Europe, attitudes toward the UN, toward the military, the EU, and so on could change so much in one day.

The funny thing is--I spent the first part of 9-11 hiking in the Alps. Such a lovely and peaceful day, at first. Anyway, Markku, your post is extremely interesting, and I'll start trying to understand better the economic relationship between the U.S. and Europe.

One interesting point. The tariffs atarted at 30% and declined to 24% then 18% three years. So they were at 24% this year.

The euro has risen more then 30% against the dollar in the 18 months since the tariffs were put in place.

Next year in November 2004 Dick Cheney will no longer be the VP candidate for the Republicans. It will be replaced by current Secretary of State Colin Powell, and since Bush will probably be re-elected Powell will be the first Black Vice President of U.S. history.
On January 1, 2006 Bush will resign, so Powell will become the first Black President of the United States.
And 2006 will be a very important year for Norway. It's by now clear that Norway hides the WMD not found in Iraq, thanks to Ansar-Al-Islam chief Krekar and his allied of Turkish-Pakistani Mafia (supported by Italian gangsters emigrated in Norway).
Probably Norway will be invaded, unless it accept to let U.S. forces enter the country to find and destroy those weapons.

Hei Bjørn

Fin liten side du har her, litt merkelig, men det plass for alle her i Norge. Jeg har ett spørsmål til deg: hvor stiller du deg i det politiske spektrumet? Du virker litt forvirret synes jeg, litt som vår egen Carl I. Nuvel, nok om det, her til min EGENTLIGE kritikk. Du skriver jo (nesten) utenlukkende om NORSKE aviser, HVORFOR å HVORFOR skriver du da på engelsk??????? Jeg mener jeg ser jo at det er mange Amerikanere og andre som skriver innlegg her, men det virker liksom litt stakkarslig. F.eks. hva nettavisen måtte mene om ståltarriffen burde ikke bety så mye for en industriarbeider i USA. Derimot har INTERNASJONALE nyheter en viss appell, for alle, med unntak av de 200 mill amerikanerne som IKKE leser aviser tenker jeg. Så derfor, hvem er målgruppen for denne bloggen? det er jo ikke nordmenn hvertfall. Og forresten, hvorfor er det en hatt med stjerner og striper på navnet ditt, SAMMEN med riksløven. Er det gjort med overlegg eller? Vel, skal ikke kritisere deg mer, som sagt i nummer to, no personal attacks. Men det irriterer meg at du without impunity ikke henvender deg til OSS nordmenn.

Forresten, jeg er enig i mye du skriver her. Selv om jeg savner en mer nyansert debatt. Men linjen din åpner ikke akkurat for dette.

PS feel free to criticise me and my opinion(s) as much as you like. I guess I have to write a couple of lines in English to make sure that you understand me.

Oh yeah, I'll post a reply as well to one of the pundits on this blog I guess. Hey Markku, How are you? you seem a bit belligerent. Your rant about European dependence on the American worker-consumer is funny in a sort of sad way. What is your intention with said comment? Is it a comment on European taxes (I agree they are high, but are they incentive distorting? economic theory tells us this but the pigouvian option is even less successful), is it an attack on the European welfare model? Is it an attack on Euronomics? Or is it an attack on Europe in general? Which is fair enough, everybody is entitled to an opinion. But you seem to forget one crucial fact (at least) USA and Europe are MUTUAL trading partners. Andalthough the US has a lerge internal market, your post is just to simplistic. And to paraphrase your next president: some questions are complex, it is not ALWAYS easy to give a hard and fast answer. After all we cannot all be resourceful and never stop conjuring up ways of attacking our own country.

So in the words of our illustrious blogmaster, don't waste our time.

You may find it interesting to check the sites about http://www.online-gambling-4u.net/ http://www.online-gambling-4u.net/ online gambling http://www.onlinegambling-4u.net/ http://www.onlinegambling-4u.net/ online gambling http://www.flowers-4u.net/ http://www.flowers-4u.net/ flowers ...

Just to mention it. I was against the war on Iraq. This far I've been proven wrong on two points:

1. I believed the actual invasion would last shorter.

2. I believed chemical and / or bacteriological weapons would be found.

On every other accord I have sadly been proven right - terrorism has not decreased, and in Iraq it has largely increased, the Arab street has turned even more against the States, Iraq has been thrown from an era of a totalitarian and extremely repressive dictatorship and into an era of violence, blood, etc. Tens of thousands - some say more - died in a relatively short time.

I sincerely hope I will be proven wrong on one point. I hope Iraq will become a democracy. Some thinks are promising; for instance a free press. Other things are not that promising.

I think this statesman had a point:

Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

("Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" - George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, Time Magazine 2 March 1998)

Both the word "perhaps" and the word "barren" is important to note. As a Chinese official once stated when asked what influence the French revolution had: - This we do not know yet.

Øyvind

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/564

Dar-al-harb, the house of war: Being anti-american, December 13, 2003 12:54 AM

Bjorn Staerk has a great post about media reporting in Europe in general and Norway in particular. Being an anti-American is an excersise in optimism. You must learn to