Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

retsuki03 · 03-08-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I notice that many of the facts are culled from a book entitle "The European Dream". I admit that i know nothing about the book or its author.

Someone from amazon read the book:

Quote:

I found this to be a rather irritating book - primarily due to Jeremy Rifkin's highly biased treatment of his subject - the European Dream vis a vis the American Dream. However, the book does serve a useful purpose in that it might cause the reader to give more serious consideration to the issues involved.

In my opinion, it would be useful to have a book inverting Rifkin's failed attempt and providing a considerably more objective treatment of this topic.

Rifkin is an American social activist. To understand his biases in praise of the European Dream and disdainful of the American Dream, it is useful to know his background.

He currently is the President of a small non-profit foundation that apparently primarily consults for leaders within the European Union. Some of the organizations in which he has been a principal include President of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation, Head of the Beyond Beef [animal-rights] Coalition, founder of the Citizens Commission and organizer of the 1968 March on the Pentagon [both were anti-Vietnam War protests related to alleged war crimes] and Founder of the Counter-Culture Peoples' Bicentennial Commission [an activist alternative to U. S. Government plans to celebrate the Bicentennial].

In the author's view, the European Dream emphasizes community relationships, cultural diversity, quality of life, sustainable development, deep play, universal human rights and the rights of nature, and global cooperation. In direct contrast, he depicts the American Dream as emphasizing individual autonomy, assimilation, the accumulation of wealth, unlimited material growth, unrelenting toil, property rights, and unilateral exercise of power. In particular, underlying the author's view is his enthusiasm for European polices supporting redistribution of wealth. He clearly has a socialist viewpoint although, curiously, the terms socialist and Socialism seldom appear in the book.

The author is no stranger to invidious comparisons. The contrasts he draws between the European Union and the United States are sprinkled with pejorative adjectives. U. S. market capitalism becomes "unrestrained" market capitalism, the American Dream is "old" and "irrelevant," and so forth.

A review in the L. A. Times once referred to the author's writing style as "logical garbage." As a typical illustration of this, here is a sentence from the current book: - - "The birth of cybernetics, systems thinking, information theory, and the emergence of complexity theory and the theories of dissipative structures and self-organization have all contributed to the deconstruction and fall of the scientific orthodoxy of traditional Enlightenment science, while helping to chart a fundamental new path for science in the new century." Read carefully, this sentence lacks real meaning.

Here are a few [of the very many] areas in which I find myself critical of this book. I quote the book followed by my comment.

1. "The people of Europe have a common European Parliament with many powers previously reserved to nation-states, a European Court of Justice that supersedes the laws of the respective countries, and a European Commission to regulate trade, commerce and many other things which used to be handled exclusively by national governments....It has agreed to establish a common foreign policy, and with the ratification of its new constitution, it will have a Europe-wide foreign minister."

Looking ahead, it seems logical to consider that the concept of direct European taxation will eventually arise from Brussels - if so, that may be the point when a very sizeable crack will appear in the structure of the EU.

2. "Network commerce is too quick, too dense, and too globally encompassing to be constrained by national borders. Nations-states [such as the U. S.] are too geographically limited to oversee inter-regional and global commerce and harmonize the growing social and environmental risks that accompany a globalized world."

The implication of this statement is that the U. S. will be unable to participate competitively in network commerce against the EU. In actuality, what the EU is attempting to do is to stitch its nation-state members into a regional political and economic entity that emulates the U. S. and there is little evidence that this desired cohesion has been reached. Basically, the EU is striving to reach an integrated status that the U. S. reached long ago.

3. "The successes and failures of the EU are being watched in every region of the world as nation-state leaders rethink the art of governance in a global era."

This immediately brings to mind Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," a concept positing the eventual groupings of nation-states into regional powers based on their having similar cultural identities. However, the EU actually is gravitating toward inclusion of dissimilar members - not to mention the large and growing number of Muslims already in the EU whose basic affinity is typically not to the nation-state in which they reside.

4. "Although [the EU] coordinates and regulates activity that takes place within the territorial boundaries of its nation-state members, it has no claim to territory and is an extra-territorial institution." .... "The member states of the EU still control the territory they represent, but their once absolute power over geography has been steadily eroded by EU legislative encroachments from the bureaucrats in Brussels."

The first sentence states that the EU has no claim to territory. This statement is rendered meaningless by the second sentence that shows that the ability of nation-states to control their territory is being steadily eroded.

5. "The style of polycentric governance is characterized by continuous dialogue and negotiations between all the players in the many networks that make up its ever-changing economic, social, and political field of influence. The new genre of leader is like a mediator. Coordination replaces command."

This is management by committee - a practice that consistently had been shown to be always slow and inherently ineffective.

6. "....markets and governments are extensions of the culture. They are secondary, not primary, institutions. The civil society - along with the deeper cultural forces that underlie it - is pushing to reestablish its central role in the scheme of public life."

The clear implication of this statement is that academicians, philosophers, and consultants [e.g. the author] should be primary [rather than secondary] in policy decision making. Obviously, the author has no faith in government by elected representatives.

7. "Europeans have a very different idea in mind of what ought to constitute a superpower in a globalized society."...."It's not force of arms but negotiating skills and openness to dialogue and conflict resolution that are the distinguishing characteristics of this kind of superpower."

For rationality and cooperation to prevail in the resolution of differences, both sides need to be rational. In dealings with nations that have irrational viewpoints and only respect power, there is a necessity for force and sanctions to be available for use as negotiation tools.

8. "In Europe, intellectuals are increasingly debating the question of the great shift from a risk-taking age to a risk-prevention era."

Here we have an illustration of one of the major differences between Europe and the U. S. The European public pays far more attention to the "chattering class" who, although they may have no actual standing in government, seem to greatly influence public attitudes.

9. "The "precautionary principle" has become the centerpiece of EU regulatory policy governing science and technology."...."A proposed experiment, or technology application, or product introduction is subject to review and even suspension in cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain and scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, and animal health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU."

It is not difficult to imagine that the application of the "precautionary principle" will result in very serious delays in the development of new technologies and services - the delays all coming from the difficulty inherent in evaluating degrees of uncertainty and risk. The review process undoubtedly will be exacerbated by social activist critics [e. g. the author].

10. "The most likely candidate to follow on the heels of the EU is the East Asian community - with or without China's participation."

I very much doubt that any regional entity could emerge in East Asia without China being the dominant player.

11. "If we Americans could redirect our deeply held sense of personal responsibility from the more narrow goal of individual material aggrandizement to a more expansive commitment of advancing a global ethics, we might yet be able to remake the American Dream along lines more compatible with the emerging European Dream."

There seems to be little value in seeking to become "more compatible" with the European Dream considering its principal features of an overly-redistributive society and the inevitable consequent erosion of individual initiative and personal responsibility.

12. "When asked what values are very important to them, 95 percent of Europeans put "helping others" at the top of their list of priorities."

This seems at considerable variance with statements by the author which mention the overwhelming and still unresolved problems within the EU of anti-Semitism, rejection of further immigration, and failure to assimilate the Muslims already resident within the European community.

Finally, it should be noted that the last few pages of this book represent a rather major change in direction from its overall theme. The author abruptly changes his focus from an idealized depiction of the EU and, instead, introduces a set of reality-based doubts about the ability of the Europeans to implement their European Dream. The author also changes from his unrelenting negative depiction of American characteristics and beliefs and, instead, introduces a number of strengths that he finds admirable in the American Dream. It's just as though the author has realized, at the last moment, the extent that he has written an unbalanced, non-objective book and wishes to make amends for his negative remarks about his fellow Americans and the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filtherton

Something surprisingly interesting from a local weekly paper. Now, before the more simplistic of you brand me an america hater i just want to point out that i'm not the problem here.

Is your local paper the Austin Chronicle? Because that is where this article is from. This guy is a commie. No one I know in Austin reads that rag. It compares the EU and the US. It should compare NAFTA and the US.