Of Guns and Men

In “Bowling for Columbine“, Michael Moore made the case that the number of guns and the availability of guns is not causal in the number of gun deaths, There are plenty of examples where a country has as many if not more guns per capita than the US (e.g., Canada) yet they have nowhere near the rate of gun deaths.

So if the proliferation of guns isn’t the cause; violent movies are not the cause; and bloody video games are not the cause, what then is the cause of the gun violence that puts America literally off the charts?

Michael Moore believed it was fear: rampant fear and fear-mongering on the part of the media and the culture. Gun sales spiked in 2008 following Obama’s election. Why? FEAR. More and more women (including Adam Lanza’s mom) have guns for “personal protection.” Why? FEAR.

“Snake bites mom” was the headline that Moore used as typical of the fear-mongering news stories. But there are millions of examples. The terror “threat level” (remember that?) was a government-sponsored fear machine. Talk about mushroom clouds, WMD and so on ginned up fear of Iraq … the US is constantly awash in various floods of fear. The so-called “stand your ground” laws are a culmination of this fear principle. People are urged to carry guns in order to use “deadly force” if they even feel themselves threatened by a perceived danger from another person.

It is not the guns themselves. It is the idea that guns may be used by “Good Guys” to kill “Bad Guys.” This idea that using a gun to kill Bad Guys permeates US culture. And so it is no wonder that mentally unstable or even just purely evil people, who feel themselves threatened or aggrieved by society or their peers, turn to gun violence to “get even” or wreak vengeance on their perceived enemies, whom they feel are “Bad Guys.” No one who goes on a rampage does so with the idea that THEY are the Bad Guys. People who are stockpiling military-style weapons and ammo do so because they really believe that the US Government is tyrannical, and hell bent on “stealing” their wealth, their property and/or their freedom. WACO, Ruby Ridge, and other tragedies are viewed as reverential proof of a government whose “jack-bboted thugs” are running roughshod over the populace, and so they feel they must protect themselves. FEAR is the motivating factor.

Minorities, immigrants and other groups are portrayed in the media as dangerous and destructive – more reasons to not only keep arms but use them. Remember Willie Horton?

This is the big difference between the US and other industrialized Western countries. The massacre on the island in Norway and other tragedies in Europe are stark in their anomalous nature. In general, people in Scandinavia (where gun ownership is almost as high as in the US) as well as Canada (where even more people have guns) feel safe and secure; they are not living in constant fear and so they are not “trigger happy.”

If more guns make us more safe (as the NRA argues) then America would already be one of the safest places in the world. This is obviously not the case. In order to curb gun violence in the US, the US must first adopt a different cultural view of the individual and their relationship with society. The idea of “rugged individuals” who must take responsibility for their own protection has a dark side that manifests itself when people – to use a hackneyed but relevant expression – “take the law into their own hands”. Once Americans accept the fact that they live in a civilized society, and come to view not only themselves but others as active participants in that society, gun violence will retreat.

In the meantime, the best course of action is to take the very small step of making it harder for people to obtain weapons that have massive killing power, so that these tragedies, which are still “inevitable” (according to the NRA) will be of a smaller scope, with fewer dead bodies piling up in each killing spree.

Posted in Culture, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Takers” versus “Makers” in Today’s GOP

I have been thinking about the GOP – and especially the Romney/Ryan – arguments about “makers versus takers”.

We all know about Romney’s views on “the 47%” . You may have also heard Ryan’s remarks in a similar vein: he puts it at 30% of the US population that are “takers”, dependent on Government and who reject the American ideals of free enterprise and personal responsibility.

In the case of this ticket, and in the case of GOP talking points in general, it is the “risk takers” that are praised – those who, in Romney;s words, “take a chance” and “borrow money from their parents” if they have to, and start a new enterprise.

The Right is never short of praise for these people who are willing to take a risk. And they defend tooth and nail the right of those that succeed to keep as much of their “reward” (money) as possible. These people, we are told, are the heroes of our society, they make America great. Their courage, their skill, their enterprising nature and their willingness to face the potential of failure make them special, and worthy of our praise.

But in the end, aren’t they just “lucky” ? I mean, doesn’t “taking a risk” automatically imply that there is a chance of failure, and those who do succeed in spite of that chance of failure are – to varying degrees – simply “LUCKY”?

The GOP Convention was built on the very disingenuous theme “We Built It” – implying that successful people are alone responsible for their success. Forget about the education, infrastructure, loans and other help they received along the way – is there any one of those entrepreneurs who would NOT describe themselves to at least some degree as having taken a risk?

And yet, the GOP message would not have these successful risk-takers consider themselves to be fortunate. The GOP (under Ryan/Romney) tells them that they are the “makers” and the others are “takers”.

Moreover, they are told to believe that ANYONE could succeed like them, and those that have not succeeded are somehow lacking, somehow inferior. Romney’s stump speech to students exhorts them to all – each and every one – become entrepreneurs, start a business, “take a risk.”

And yet data shows that 34% of all new businesses fail in the first 2 years, and 54% fail in the first 4 years. Faced with statistics like these, is there any way that people with successful businesses should not consider themselves “fortunate” at least to some extent?

This is not open to consideration in today’s GOP. There can be no pity for the poor, the unfortunate, for to do so would mean that they should support social welfare programs. The old Protestant maxim about “there but for the grace of God go I” is seemingly lost in today’s Republican Party (although God remains in prominence). Given the message that the modern Right is spewing (Ayn Rand Objectivism) is it any wonder that we have people like Ryan and Romney putting forth such ideas when they think they are behind closed doors, and speaking to fellow “fortunates” who also deny the role that Lady Luck, Divine Providence, birthright or simple chance have played in their own success?

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Dispatch from Barcelona – First Takes

One of the first things that one notices in Barcelona is the public cleaning and care-taking of the city. Throughout the city, throughout the day and night, an army of cleaners, clad in green and yellow hi-visibility uniforms, patrol the streets, sidewalks, parks and other public spaces, sweeping and washing their way through the barrios. Electric trucks roll down the narrow calles, accompanied by personnel collecting curbside garbage and emptying the sidewalk waste cans (which are ubiquitous – you are never more than 30 metres from a nice trash can with a cigarette stub-out plate attached to it). Here there is no such thing as “trash day” – you can put out your trash any time, any day, and it will be picked up in a timely fashion that same day/night.

Barcelona is an extremely dog-friendly city, one sees all breeds and in all sizes, accompanied by their masters, loping contentedly, stopping to greet other dogs. There is rarely an altercation – all the dogs seem exceedingly friendly and well-mannered (much like the Barcelonians themselves). Dog-poop is, by and large, immediately picked up by the owners, and in the case of those anti-social exceptions, the caca is picked up or hosed away by the aforementioned army of street cleaners.

The parks in Barcelona are also beautiful, and beautifully maintained. On my early morning walks I always see squads of landscapers and gardeners snipping, raking, pruning and watering. Parc Ciutadella, in the Ciutat Vell (Old City) is especially enjoyable not just for the lawns and diverse flora, but also for the gardens, the statues, and the immense Cascadas fountain.

All-in-all, Barcelona is a majestic and wealthy city, and with its broad boulevards and cafe culture, it resembles Paris for sheer beauty. But it is a Paris with better weather, more palm trees, beautiful beaches, affordable rents and much fewer Parisians. And Barcelona is thriving: Everywhere new businesses are opening, the stores and restaurants are full, and the public services exemplary (beating all other European cities I have seen). When you are in Barcelona it is hard to believe that Spain is supposed to be on the verge of economic collapse.

Posted in Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

About the Occupy Wall Street “Movement”

You know, the Republicans have been dividing up people, slicing and dicing the demographics, for quite a while now. And the Americans, God bless ’em, have been surviving on little more than McNuggets and optimism for a long time.

I have often made the point that a ridiculous number of Americans consider themselves to be “middle class”. The household income of Americans describing themselves as “middle class” ranges from $20,000 to $300,000. When Bush praised that poor woman who had three jobs as “great” and “uniquely American” … well …. there you have it.

No wonder politicians invoke the expression of “middle class” so often – they could reach that huge group that self-identified as such – whether they lived in a McMansion in Jersey or a double-wide in the Ozarks. The Republicans have for years been able to trick blue collar workers and rural poor into thinking that their own economic priorities were the same as the wealthy, and that what was good for the wealthy was also good for them.

But – when you make a stark distinction between the 99% and the 1%, that is easier to assimilate. Especially when people see how strongly “the market” has rebounded, and how the economy is growing, etc. etc. – and of course those big, fat, bonuses being handed out at a time when so many are destitute – well, that drives it all home, doesn’t it? Someone is doing well, and it ain’t me.

America is a land of riches – and those riches have been accruing more and more to the very top. We have already spoken here about the pragmatic attitudes of Citibank and others toward the American “plutocracy”. Well, guess what — that whole revelation (or simple recognition of fact, whatever you choose) has now, finally “trickled down” to the point where everyone – and I mean everyone except that 1% – gets it.

Maybe I have watched too many Frank Capra movies, but I think everyone in that 99% sees themselves as Jimmy Stuart or Gary Cooper struggling against some Lionel Barrymore character. Maybe things have become that desperate. Maybe there will be a movement, maybe people will come together, and maybe America will change direction.

Living abroad, I see how many people here are just now waking up to the wealth distribution scenario, and the failure of Capitalism as it has been practiced over the past 30 years. I dare say that it all started in America, and I also dare say that many – including myself – look to the US to help fix the mess they got us into. This OWS movement, combined with what has been going on in the streets of Athens, Madrid and Dublin, may be related in a deeper way than we had thought possible. There is an entire generation out there now with little opportunity, and, to paraphrase an old wag, they have “more heart than mind” when it comes to their political proclivities.

I would like to see the US take the lead on this one. The source of the trouble (Wall Street, IMF, etc.) is physically closer to home for them, and the situation is more desperate (Europeans at least have a safety net, health care, etc.). But after a while, McNuggets and optimism will not suffice. As we demonstrated in WWII, once the US public is rallied from its slumber, it can do mighty things. I hope this another one of those times.

Posted in Culture | Leave a comment

The Great Divergence, Part II: Religion

Another, second aspect of what I am calling The Great Divergence between the US and Europe has to do with religion … or I should say, religiosity. Since 1980, Europeans have been moving steadily away from religion, whilst the USA seems to be moving steadily towards a more religious public society.

Latest figures show that 91% of Americans believe in God, which puts the US on par with Turkey. The belief figure for most European countries is less than 50%, with some countries like France having almost as many avowed atheists as true believers (33% versus 34%). But before you dump on France, realise that the UK is not far behind, with only 38% of Brits believing in God, and a proportion of atheists ranging from 20% to 33%, depending on which study you read.

The rise of Evangelical Christianity, the Moral Majority and other right-wing conservative religious movements had been a source of bemusement to Europeans. At first, during the 80’s, they were seen as a fringe constituency that helped propel Reagan to power, but one which Reagan and Bush I quietly ignored once in power (Roe v. Wade still in place).

Matters such as the banning of stem cell research, or teaching Creationism in schools, make Europeans scratch their heads, but they often see these things in the context of overall US history, and thus part of the uniquely varied American landscape – and after all, if the US wants to cede whole areas of technological innovation, then so much the better for them. More recently, however, the influence of religion on public policy has become perplexing and, in a way quite scary for Europeans.

For a continent that saw a long and bloody history of religious conflict (30 Years War, 100 Years War, Crusades), the idea of politicians wrapping themselves not only in flags but in scripture is a dangerous thing. They have been there and done that. The many “misquotes” from Bush and his generals, which put a religious spin on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are seen as counterproductive, and feeding into the Jihadists diatribes.

Religious politicians in the US have always leaned heavily against conservation and the environment, believing that God gave the land to Americans to use as they see fit. Now we have leaders in Congress who do not believe in global climate change because of God’s promise to Noah after the Great Flood. For a European, to ignore all the data and simply believe that God will not let the Earth be destroyed is, quite simply, incomprehensible. Even European religious leaders embrace the ideas of stewardship and husbandry of the Earth and its resources.

Social policy is another area that Europeans prefer not to leave in God’s hands. G.W. Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism”, which relied on religiously funded private organisations to provide a wide range social services, is something that would be a non-starter in most European societies. Indeed, in Europe it seems that the greater and more successful the social welfare state, the lower the rate of belief in God. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and France, who have arguably the strongest and most successful socialised systems in the world, all have populations in which two-thirds of the people do not believe in God.

On the other hand, the countries currently giving the EU the most trouble – Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Greece and Italy – are all on the other side of the coin, with over 70% of their people believing in God.

Those countries should realise that nowhere on any Euro note does it say, “In God We Trust.”

Posted in History, Politics | Leave a comment

Obama a Disappointment for Europeans

I was asked recently about the perception of Obama in Europe.

Short answer: promises broken – or at best unfulfilled.

BO started out strong, embraced by the Europeans more than anyone else as the “anti-Bush”.

Unfortunately, from a European/international standpoint, little has changed under Obama. The new President is keeping with the Bush strategies and plans for Iraq, and has doubled down in Afghanistan. He has not closed Guantanamo. He has continued the renditions and the “black” CIA holding facilities. He has refused to rescind what Europeans perceive as the excesses the Bush era, especially in arrogating rights of sovereignty and exceptionalism regarding the ICC and other issues. He has failed to lead/execute on important legislative actions, from global warming to START.

Obama has also failed to address what Europeans see as the crimes of the previous Administration, and the latest revelation, that the Obama administration pressured the Spanish government to prevent the (independent) Spanish judiciary from pursuing indictments against 6 Bush Administration officials is seen as not only arrogant and improper but counter to international law. Nonetheless, charges were filed against the “Bush Six” in 2009.

Europeans believe Obama has done next to nothing to address the out of control corruption on Wall Street, and despite the rhetoric, Europeans can see that the Obama Administration is rife with characters that helped bring about the “global” financial crisis, and they are aware that is it already back to “business as usual” in the US economic sector.

Make no mistake: Europeans (and others) blame the US for the global economic meltdown, and they see the US government’s systematic dismantling of regulations as the cause. European markets are, as you know, heavily regulated (Ireland and to some extent the UK are notable exceptions), and so Europeans bear no small amount of enmity toward the 800 lb. Gorilla that is the US financial services industry, for they see this gorilla as totally out of control.

There is an old saying: “when America sneezes, Europe catches a cold”. The EU has been struggling mightily to change that relationship, but it still holds true to a large degree. Europeans have learned to live with this dynamic, however this time it is different: The economic crisis of 2008 is seen by Europeans as the US “catching a cold” because they were running around in a blizzard wearing nothing but their underwear. IOW, the whole thing could have been avoided by better regulatory control (there is also a perception of America in the grips of a culture of greed, but I won’t get into that).

In sum, the Europeans see Obama much as the far Left in the States see him: running on change and delivering not much change at all – at least when it comes to global/international issues.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

The Great Divergence

The US and Europe are two advanced cultures that have very different ways of viewing the world. It is widely accepted in America today that what works in Europe cannot and should not work in the US. A prime example of this is Health Care. The Republicans in Congress are often railing against Obama’s alleged efforts to impose “European-style socialism” on the USA, and the Democrats pathetically attenuated legislation to address America’s health care problems was repeatedly likened to European and Canadian models, even though the idea of single payer, nationalised health care is nowhere to be found (sadly) in Obama’s Health Care Reform as it was passed.

But there was a time when the US was drifting more toward the European/Canadian culture (or better said, the rest of the developed world). There was a time when America was moving toward energy conservation, small cars, fuel efficiency, solar and wind power – and even moving to adopt the metric system.

This period was known as the Carter Administration.

Jimmy Carter tried to put America on a path to join the rest of the world. Realising that the USA, with 5% of the world’s population, could not continue to use 25% of the world’s energy. He created the US Department of Energy to address America’s energy problem, which he perceived as one of lifestyle and attitude. He tried to “wake up” America to the fact that they could not keep squandering energy, creating suburban sprawl, relying solely on the automobile and forsaking public transport. He even addressed the nation about this problem in a television broadcast that later became known as the “malaise” speech (even though he never used the word himself).

Well – we all know what happened then. Americans, like spoiled children, would not stand to be lectured and told that the world has finite resources, and it is not possible or practical to keep gulping energy the way we do. Americans do not want to hear that they have to lose weight by watching their diet and exercising – they prefer to be told “Eat all the foods you love and lose weight”, or “lose weight while you sleep”. These are the American answers to problems – heads in the sand or else crazy schemes that sheer common sense indicates cannot work, but which Americans are happy to accept, as long as it comes from a “trusted” source like the TV – or a politician.

Enter Ronald Reagan.

Reagan rode to power on wave of anti-government sentiment. He had long been a critic of government in general, claiming famously that government is not the solution to America’s problems, but rather that “government is the problem.” Average earnings for US workers reached their peak under Carter, and yet many blue collar “Reagan Democrats” were happy to vote for someone who told them that they did not have to eat their vegetables, that “the government” was wrong, and they were right – they could continue to live the way they were, with no consequences. Government, according to Reagan, had to “get off their back” and “get out of the way” and let the great American Way prosper.

Reagan promoted and extended the idea of “American Exceptionalism” in many ways: gone was the talk about moving to the metric system – that was for the rest of the world. Gone was the idea of conservation – Americans could drive bigger and more gas-hungry vehicles without fear of the consequences. Gone was the idea of fiscal responsibility – only “losers” and “pessimists” like Carter worried about deficits. Dick Cheney would later claim that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

Indeed, “Reaganomics” posited that cutting taxes for the wealthy would result in increased jobs and prosperity for the lower and middle classes due to something called “trickle down economics“. Reagan even claimed that Americans could pay less taxes and it would actually result in more revenue for the government. It seems that Reagan’s idea of American Exceptionalism provided the US with immunity even from the laws of physics, geology, economics and simple arithmetic. But such laws are stubborn things – ignoring them does not make them go away. Reagan oversaw a huge increase not only in the size of government but in the deficit and the national debt.

This was the moment in which the US and Europe diverged. Since 1980, Europe has proceeded in one direction, the US in another. Europe sought to increase their social safety net, the US dismantled theirs; Europe implemented more regulation of everything from workplace safety to pollution, the US deregulated everything it could. Europe built more mass transit and public infrastructure, the US allowed theirs to languish.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that the election in 1980 was a huge turning point in American and world history. Reaganism, with its focus on reduced government, deregulation, crony capitalism, and stunningly flagrant disregard for fiscal responsibility changed the way America grew, led to staggering income inequality, increased pollution, and a financial system that was allowed to run wild, acting in criminally irresponsible ways.

Europeans continue to be stunned at the lack of responsibility in America: the chicanery practiced on Wall Street mirrors the general irresponsibility among Americans themselves: the rise of the SUV, zero-down mortgages, the explosion of personal debt, the short-sighted, quarter-driven strategies practised by US corporations trying to maximise share prices by whatever means necessary, all stem from the giant change in mentality that Reagan facilitated. Americans are like the 300-pound homebound obese person, gulping down Big Macs and fries, but clinging to the belief that drinking Diet Coke and taking Sleep ‘n’ Slim will make everything OK.

All of this puzzles and frustrates Europeans – not least because many of the ideas they have put into practice originated in the US. As Michael Moore pointed out in his movie “Sicko“, the great social compact that exists in Europe is mostly based on Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” – the Economic Security measures he sought to put in place in the US. Roosevelt presented these measures to Congress in 1944, but they were never implemented. They were, however, made part of the Marshall Plan and subsequently incorporated into the constitutions of those European countries that America rebuilt after WWII.

More recently, Europeans have embraced, improved and expanded US innovations such as unleaded fuel and solar and wind power, as well as legislative initiatives to ensure clean air, water, and so on.

Americans’ hopes for true economic security, a cleaner environment and a sustainable society died when Reagan won. Jimmy Carter was excoriated and is still mocked as “the worst President ever” when he was actually one of the most productive (certainly in terms of international policy), and sought nothing more than to put his country on a more stable, just and equitable path.

The rejection of Carter’s admonitions and the rise of Reaganism marked the moment in which America started moving way from the rest of the developed world in terms of public policy as well as fiscal and environmental responsibility. The huge economic problems facing America are 40 years in the making, and from a European perspective, are all self-inflicted. XX

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Welcome

Welcome to the EuroYankee blog. Stay tuned for news and views on Europe and the US from a unique perspective.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment