|
Radnor Geopolitical Report
by Ken Feltman
Paris 'Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into.'
Eight decades ago the comedy team Laurel and Hardy created that simple, frustrated expression. Stan Laurel got the two men into a crazy, impossible situation. Oliver Hardy muttered the immortal words. The audience loved it. They clapped and howled. The good part was coming! The show went on.
This show - the Global War on Terror - may be closing. The Europeans see President Bush as Laurel, forever getting everyone in deep and then deeper trouble. They see Europe as the beleaguered Hardy, forever trying to extricate the hapless pair from problems created by the witless Laurel.
This is not a comedy. This is real. We all have a mess: A President's grand vision has come undone and soured Trans-Atlantic relations. Both Radnor's European and American Conflict Indexes show dramatic and concerning differences between the attitudes of Europe's leaders and U.S. leaders. The differences have grown in the past year. They are profound and will be difficult to overcome because many are rooted in national and cultural concepts.
Some differences can be explained by President Bush's failing Iraq policies, others because of different traditions and different meanings of words and expressions. Add Europe’s usual dash of anti-Americanism and America’s usual obliviousness to Europe’s viewpoint and you have a potent mix of problems. When Bush risked his presidency on the invasion of Iraq, he also put two continents at risk of a major falling out. In retrospect, most people around the world believe that the war was not a risk worth taking.
Terrorism: Something to be endured, not eradicated
Still, Bush battles on, sure that he is right and that his opponents are weak or unable to grasp the seriousness of the threat. Bush believes that opponents see terrorism as something to be endured, not something to be eradicated.
Make no mistake: Most Americans agree with Bush.
This report continues remarks made by Ken Feltman in Paris on September 4, Labor Day in the U.S.
In the September Inside Washington's Headlines, we included his remarks on the mid-term elections. The American Conflict Index projects a close result but sees the GOP remaining in control of the House and Senate.
That report is available by clicking here. |
Slowly, Bush lost the ability to lead. Now his plummet in the polls may mean that the bold vision that he hoped would be the cornerstone of his legacy will be swept away and possibly never revisited. That grand vision was Bush’s belief that the United States could make the world safer by fostering the creation of new democracies out of authoritarian regimes, especially in the Middle East but also in former Soviet Republics (Georgia and Ukraine) and elsewhere. He miscalculated in two ways. Obviously, the war in Iraq has been mishandled and, by itself, could have derailed the Bush presidency. But President Bush may have made a more fundamental mistake.
He seemed to assume that people everywhere would value freedom as much as Americans. In fact, for many across the Middle East, throughout Africa and in much of Asia, freedom is misunderstood and even feared. Based on our analysis of both European and U.S. decision-makers, we conclude that Europeans understand this fact more clearly than Americans.
Stability valued over freedom
Europeans also have a slightly different take on what freedom means. The European Conflict Index shows that Europeans tend to value stability over personal freedom. The terrorism surveillance techniques used in most European countries might not be permitted in the U.S. The welfare of the whole, the group, is central to many European value systems. The primacy of the individual and of the individual’s rights is at the center of the American value system.
As strange as it may seem, Americans value and celebrate a concept that they and many others do not comprehend. We call it freedom - or democracy, liberty and many other names. We trace this freedom back to the rights of Englishmen, which trace their lineage to Runnymede in 1215, when King John was pressured into signing the Magna Carta. Later, the French revolutionary concept of liberté, a surprisingly complex, emotional and elusive belief even for Frenchmen, was grafted to the colonial dream by the newly independent North American states.
The result is that Americans sometimes have an almost mystical view of their country and its role in the world. President Reagan was especially fond of evoking this vision of the new world as the shining city on a hill. Europeans notice. Statements made by Europeans during Decision-Maker focus groups show disdain.
|
Reagan is one of many U.S. leaders who, through the years, have alluded to John Winthrop's 1630 sermon 'City upon a Hill,' delivered to his fellow Puritan colonists before their arrival in Massachusetts Bay from England.
Winthrop was referring to a passage in the Sermon on the Mount when he preached: 'For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.' |
‘Their eyes tear up with patriotism,’ commented a Briton. ‘They are sentimental fools about ideals that no longer matter,’ said a Spaniard. ‘They really believe this,’ mused a Dane. Unable to understand the American attitude, Europeans are apprehensive of America’s potential to cause problems for everyone by being too idealistic about democracy’s potential to correct what’s wrong in the world.
Europeans are more cynical (they would say realistic) about their country, their politicians and their government. Realpolitik is the rule in Europe.
No wonder others have trouble understanding what we mean by freedom: We Americans are uncertain ourselves. We have asked dozens of American decision-makers to define freedom. You would be surprised. Many have trouble giving a coherent definition and others give a quick, simplistic one. The American Conflict Index uncovered this inarticulateness among American leaders.
Americans have a sentimental view
In truth, freedom means different things to different people. But to many Americans - including President Bush - freedom involves a heavy emphasis not just on individual (as opposed to group) rights but on religious freedom. This causes more concerns in Europe but Americans have a long history of assertive religion. Many of the original settlers in what is now the United States came for freedom of religion. The Pilgrims were followed quickly by the more rigid Puritans. The Quakers felt free to express their faith in many parts of the colonies. Roman Catholics and others settled in friendly colonies. Thousands came because they could not be secure in their faith in their native land. Because of this heavy emphasis on freedom of religion in early U.S. history, it is not surprising that religion would be a central part of our culture and our concept of liberty.
The U.S. is sometimes considered to be the most ‘religious’ of the advanced democracies, with Britain next but far behind the U.S. The English kings decided centuries ago that the clergy needed to be subjugated. Thomas Becket was murdered because King Henry II could not tolerate a co-equal before the people. Henry VIII beheaded Sir Thomas More in a church-state power struggle. It is said that More died saying that he was King Henry’s good servant, but God’s servant first. That sums up the whole of the problem: The king wanted the primary claim on More’s loyalty.
Americans claim to have separation of church and state. But the embrace of activist, politically involved, organized religion can cause some jarring misunderstandings. How can secular Europeans fathom our debates over creationism or stem cell research? How do Europeans reconcile the pro-life movement in the U.S. with their pro-choice attitudes? U.S. presidents, and especially this President Bush, invoke God routinely. President Jacques Chirac of France would be ridiculed for mentioning the deity.
Europe has moved to a post-Christian world view, with all its condescension, and many elites believe that Americans are hopelessly sentimental about religion. Never mind that most Americans hold views on religion that are very similar to those of most Europeans. Never mind that Europeans have rich religious customs and beliefs, just not so organized. The noise from the religious right has drowned out the reality that voters in the U.S. separate issues. They will support a politician even when they disagree with major portions of that politician's stands on some issues. This is the case with Bush today.
|
Attitudes toward terrorism
he typical European attitude may be captured in a comment by a Belgian: ‘Terrorism is like a broken leg. You need a cast and time will heal it. Americans want a miracle pill that they take and then, right away, they walk without a problem. That’s not the way it works.’' |
All this makes it harder for Europeans to take Americans seriously when they disagree. After all, as one focus group participant in Europe said, ‘Who would listen to someone who disavows evolution?’ From this basic cultural dissonance, our current misunderstandings grow.
Whiny Europeans?
Now, another problem confronts us. After years of scolding and derisive comments from European elites, American decision-makers are tuning out Europeans.
- Decision-Maker focus groups conducted across the United States found that American decision-makers agreed that ‘whiny’ was an apt description of Europeans. There was also general agreement that Europeans are ‘indecisive,’ ‘quick to blame the U.S.’ and ‘anti-American.’
The most important finding of the American Conflict Index may be that American decision-makers have stopped listening to their European counterparts.
This is the sharpest criticism of Europeans by Americans participating in Decision-Maker focus groups since the research started in late 2001. The regard with which Americans in decision-making positions hold Europeans has continued to decline in stages.
A few years ago, American decision-makers seemed generally puzzled and concerned about what Europeans thought. Now American leaders seem to have passed the point of trying to figure out why and are categorizing Europeans as whiners. This cannot help European decision-makers to get their message across to Americans.
For their part, Europeans are increasingly frustrated because Americans are not listening. Americans seem to believe that the burden is on the communicator to get the message through. Therefore, Americans are not trying to develop better listening skills.
Other significant findings:
- Europeans seem more frightened of terrorism. Americans are more resolved to eliminate it.
- Americans want to end terrorism and say with frequency that they want to eliminate it in their generation and not pass it along to the next generation. Europeans seem to believe that terrorism cannot be eliminated, only contained. They are much more willing to live with the threat of a terrorist attack because they believe that trying to eliminate terrorism will just make the situation worse.
- Businessmen in the U.S. are increasingly suspicious of the European Union. Some businessmen claim that they have even decided against transferring European executives to the U.S. or doing business with European companies if they can avoid it. They believe that Europe is not dealing fairly with the U.S.
Will we allow honest differences to create permanent divisions? American decision-makers seem to have decided that the differences have become too great to repair, except with the passage of time. How did we get to this point?
The horse and the camel
Perhaps this is all like the horse and the camel. Both animals are well adapted to their environment. Both have many positive attributes. But they may have a difference or two. In fact, have you heard about the horse that went wandering and met a camel?
The horse said to the camel: ‘You’re the funniest looking horse I’ve ever seen.’
The camel responded: ‘And you are the most handsome horse I have ever seen. But you are as dumb as a rock.’
‘What? Just what do you mean?’ demanded the horse.
Retorted the camel as he walked away: ‘You don’t even know the difference between a horse and a camel.’
They went their separate ways, never to meet again. The horse went away angry. The camel soon forgot about the horse.
Is the U.S. the horse or the camel? Does it matter?
Please click here to review previous issues.
copyright © 2006 Radnor Inc. |
