Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 00:18
How Is Going Backward “Progressive”?
David C. Stolinsky, MD
June 11, 2009
In recent elections for the European Parliament, center-right parties made widespread gains. To quote Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:
Note that right-wing incumbents in France (Sarkozy) and Italy (Berlusconi) survived the European elections unscathed.
Left-wing incumbents in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and of course Britain were either slaughtered, or badly mauled.
The author attributes this rightward swing to two “political time-bombs” − rising unemployment, and immigrants who do not assimilate. We in the United States have the first problem, but at least to a degree we have avoided the second.
Instead of Muslim immigrants from North Africa, the Balkans and Pakistan, we play host to immigrants from Mexico, Central America and East Asia, most of whom are at least nominal Christians − and most of whom raise their children to be Americans.
But whatever the reasons for the rightward move in Europe, the fact remains that Europeans have been immersed in socialism for many years. Socialism is no longer working. It seemed to work for a while. In the half-century following World War II, Western Europe enjoyed the benefit of American financial aid. In addition, American military power provided a protective shield that enabled Western Europeans to spend little for defense − less than half of what Americans spend, in relative terms.
Western Europeans were in the position of teenagers. They spent their earnings on themselves, while they depended on Big Daddy (America) to protect them, and they depended on Big Mama (their governments) to take care of them when they got sick. Like teenagers, they insisted that they were independent, while they depended on others for essential needs.
But teenagers eventually are forced to grow up, whether they want to or not. Europeans are having too few children for their society to survive. And more immediately, they are having too few children to support their top-heavy social-welfare schemes. With too few young workers to contribute to their pension and health-care funds, they are forced to import immigrants.
If their governments promise to take care of them when they become sick or grow old, and if America promises to protect them from external threats, Europeans no longer have practical reasons to have children. But there is a deeper problem. Most Europeans lost their religion. We can argue about the reasons − leftism, radically secular education, World War II and its aftermath, whatever. Still, the fact is that Europe’s magnificent cathedrals are almost empty. But its mosques are filled. The Muslim immigrants are having children, while native Europeans are not.
With a social-welfare system to take care of people, and without religion to give people hope for the future, why should they have children? Why not enjoy themselves while they can? There could be no stronger way of expressing lack of confidence in themselves and in their future than a refusal to have children. What greater vote of “no confidence” could there be?
Karl Marx sat in the British Library and wrote about capital and labor − neither of which he had any personal knowledge of. He came from an upper-middle-class family, but he was unable to support his own family. He thought about money constantly because he always needed it, so he narcissistically assumed that economics was everyone’s primary motivation. He was irreligious, so he narcissistically assumed that religion was unimportant. He sat and theorized, and his followers believe that his theories still are valid, though most of what Marx predicted did not happen.
American “liberals” hold up Western Europe as their model. The European socialist system seemed to work for about 50 years, but even Europeans realize that it is no longer working. Without children, they must import young workers to pay into the system, but the immigrants are not assimilating. Indeed, many are actively hostile to democratic values.
A century ago, progressives dreamed of a socialist paradise. Then the saw the hells that Stalin and Mao constructed, and still they dreamed. The Soviet Union collapsed in a heap, and China evolved into a system that is best described as fascist, and yet the dreamers dreamed on. But even dreamers awake when trouble bangs on the door.
Now that Europeans are finally realizing their error − perhaps in time, perhaps not − we Americans are moving rapidly in the opposite direction. Why?
The Europeans of the past were truly progressive − they were trying something new.
But what of Americans today? We are trying something that has already proved to be a failure. It failed in Eastern Europe. It failed in China. It failed miserably in North Korea. It is failing in Western Europe. In what possible sense is it “progressive” to adopt a system that is outmoded and a proven failure? On the contrary, our current economic policies are backward-looking, even reactionary.
True, the excesses of capitalism invited this relapse into socialism. The incompetent or corrupt bankers, corporate executives and labor leaders can blame themselves. But in response to incompetent doctors, we do not tear down the hospital; we fire the incompetent doctors.
Let us restructure the failing industries. Let us examine the curricula of business schools. Let us discover how men who never attended business school built great industries, while business-school graduates brought those industries to ruin.
Surely there are lessons to be learned:
· We can investigate how people who knew how to run a business and how to adjust a carburetor built General Motors and Chrysler, while people who knew Excel and Power Point tore them down.
· We can study how people who walked the factory floor knew what was going on, while people who sat in committee meetings lived in a dream world.
· We can consider that the same type of impractical dilettantes and theoreticians who ruined our industries are now taking charge of socializing our economy.
· We can analyze how produce dealer A. P. Giannini built the Bank of America by loaning money to men with calloused hands, while graduates of prestigious business schools brought great banks down by loaning money to people who couldn’t pay it back.
· We can recall that Giannini’s first name was Amadeo, meaning “love of God.” Perhaps there is a clue here.
But whatever we do, at least let us be honest. Let us not call moving backward to failed policies “progressive.” It is a sin to deceive others. It is suicidal to deceive ourselves.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at
[email protected]