"A moralist in the White House"
Finally, an editorial in the S?sche Zeitung in which realism trumps idealism. Wolfgang Koydl's "Ein Moralist im Weiߥn Haus" makes clear that Europeans who call President Bush a "cowboy", a "Rambo" or plain "berserk" are missing the point of what's happening in Washington today. Koydl says they should accept instead that Bush is a "revolutionary, a visionary and a moralist." Naturally, many of the paper's anti-American readers will have spilt their morning coffee in outrage upon reading this, but Koydl sets out convincing reasons for his interpretation of the situation.
Bush the revolutionary? Take just three of his stances that Europeans have greeted with hand wringing and head shaking, says Koydl. The ABM Treaty? A relic of the Cold War. Away with it. Yasser Arafat? Yesterday's man. Deal with someone who can think in future terms. The Biological Weapons Convention? Useless. The danger today is not from states possessing these weapons, but from terrorists who plan to acquire and use them.
The actions of Bush and the radical right now shaping his dynamic presidency make for an interesting contrast with those of the parties that contested last Sunday's German general election, believes Koydl. Both the winning SPD with their Green partners, and their conservative opponents, could have campaigned using Konrad Adenauer's famous slogan "Keine Experimente" and it would have suited them perfectly, such was their lack of ideas. It's different in Washington, though, Koydl writes. Powered by a belief that we inhabit a world of good and the evil, Bush's worldview is inspired by a moralistic-missionary edge that deserves to be called "visionary". Many Europeans may find this appalling but what have they got to offer as an alternative? What are Europeans willing to fight and die for, asks Koydl? Beer or Brie? The five-day week?
The Bush doctrine of preemption is a concept that's going to make the world more dangerous before it is more secure, argues Koydl, but at least it is a concept and Europe will have to live with until it can provide an alternative.
Koydl concludes by saying that if Europe wishes to prevent another American Century it must do something other that whining about the "sheriff in the White House".
Comments
Great post on a very perceptive article, but....
to say "Bush and the radical right" is WRONG.
Bush does not represent the "radical right"; that would be Pat Buchanan.
If anything, Bush is a centrist or a moderate Republican.
There is a very weird trend--which needs to stop!--of the Liberal and EUropean press to label any politician whom they don't like and whose platform undermines their preferred and prevalent one of TransnationalProgressivism as being on the "radical right."
This was done to Pym Fortyn of Holland, Le Pen in France, Belusconi of Italy and now Bush, among others--and except for Le Pen, does not seem very true.
EUropeans will not "see the light" about the virtues of free market capitalism,democracy, and constitutional republicanism until their leaders and their press use different language and tone in their idealogical dialogues with their "peoples."
Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro | September 30, 2002 5:08 AM
Thank you Jennie! This braindead labeling says a lot more about the labeler than it does the labelee. Speaking as one of the 40%+ of Americans Eamonn sees as "radical", a better term might be the "conservative intelligentsia" to describe the worldview expressed in places like The Weekly Standard, National Review, WSJ, Washington Times, as well as The New Republic. "Radical Left" though, could easily describe the New York Times these days, as well as Reuters, ABC news, and the BBC.
Posted by: Lloyd Albanol | September 30, 2002 7:47 PM