|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 1, 2005 / 23 Iyar, 5765 The great reaction By Tony Blankley
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Everyone agrees that the French referendum on Sunday that
rejected the proposed European Union (EU) constitution by 55 percent was a
big event. But how big, for what reason, and whither it points Europe,
remains enclouded by a storm of ideological hopes and projections.
After every major election, its meaning is immediately subject
to mixed explanations. After our 2004 presidential elections, President
Bush's victory was attributed to the gay marriage issue, Mr. Rove's amazing
get-out-the-vote mechanism, Kerry's ineffective campaign, the public's
disinclination to change horses during a war, Democratic Party urban
secularism, rebounding jobs, Swiftboat Vets for Truth, the sheer likeability
of George W. Bush, the sheer unlikeability of John Kerry and every reason in
between.
Not only is objective truth probably not discernable in such
circumstances, but most of the commentators and players had vested interests
in pushing one explanation or another.
Even before the French vote, certain public attitudes were
undeniable. The French were loudly concerned about losing their control over
their cushy labor and welfare entitlements. French socialists — and
others — didn't want to compete in "anglo-saxon" free markets.
Another version of this concern has been the failure of Jacque
Chirac — in office 10 years — to even begin explaining to the French that
they cannot forever enjoy high social benefits as they become ever less
productive and hardworking. Beyond his specific shortcomings, Chirac's
current unpopularity, stories of corruption and his famous verbal sneakiness
combined to make him a poor salesman for the constitution.
Although not directly related to the constitution, the
anticipated admission of Muslim Turkey into the E.U. was broadly mentioned
as a concern. But it was not clear to what extent the "Turkish question" was
driven by the fear that Turkey's low wages and relative poverty would send
Euros to Turkey, or by the fear that Turkish entry would send more Muslims
to Europe.
Some French commentators were quick to note with distress the
high percentage of younger French voters who opposed the constitution. This
was alternatively analyzed as either young people not understanding the
importance of the great post-WWII European centralization project, or that
they simply take it for granted. Those different explanations point to
starkly different — almost opposite — long-term implications of the vote.
If there is a consensus in the aftermath of the vote, it can be
found on the lips of almost the entire European governing class, as
epitomized in the words of the Belgian Prime Minster Guy Verhofstadt: "The
result should not be considered as a vote against Europe. The French voted
against this text of the EU constitution. The motivation of a lot of
opponents shows that the French do not want less but more Europe."
Similarly, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero
proclaimed: "We must take note of the discontent expressed in this vote and
redouble our efforts to explain that this constitution enshrines the rights
and freedoms of Europeans as our social model."
Meanwhile, the remorselessly hopeful Italian Foreign Minister,
Gianfranco Fini, defended the constitution, offering the odd assertion that
the now-vetoed document is "still an efficient instrument." I suppose it is
such cheerful blindness to grim reality that has given the Italians their
beautiful souls.
The European elite simply refuse to consider the possibility
that the peoples of Europe, when given a rare chance to express themselves
on the topic, simply want to keep the European continent of nations for
which they have been living, fighting and dying for more than a thousand
years.
In a similar, if more classically stated, vein, George Will
sees the election as "salutary because the constitution would accelerate the
leeching away of each nation's sovereignty [which] is a predicate of self
government." I hope they are both right.
But I think the Washington Post's intellectually suave David
Ignatius probably caught the most certain implication of the election when
he wrote that the vote "was, most of all, a noisy protest against the
disruptive, leveling force of economic globalization." It may well be that
in their reaction to globalization, Europeans will seize George Will's
sovereignty or Bill Kristol's democratic new ideas.
But globalization and its reaction are the big facts of our era.
The Islamist insurgency and terror is part of that reaction. Pat Buchanan's
protectionism and American Firstism is part of that reaction. And Europe's
vote Sunday is another form of the Great Reaction to globalization. In ways
either benign or malignant, peaceful or violent, conservative or radical,
the peoples of the world are beginning to defend their cultures against the
cold, soulless intrusion of the globalizing leviathan. The struggle is only
beginning. It will, in the end, transform our ways of life.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, Creators Syndicate |
Mitch Albom | |||||||||||
