What a Post-American World means for Europe
In recent months, Europe has learned some hard lessons about its transatlantic partner. President Barack Obama triggered great hope when he replaced George W. Bush at the American helm. But a year later, especially following Obama’s failure to produce anything of substance at Copenhagen, Europeans are realizing that Obama is going to have a difficult time delivering on a new American agenda.
Why is Obama so unable to match his lofty speeches with concrete deeds? There are two major reasons.
First, despite his inspiring rhetoric, Obama is no social democrat or even a Franklin Roosevelt. He is a pragmatic Democrat with some progressive sympathies, but like Bill Clinton he will not allow his progressive leanings to get in the way of his pragmatism. Second, and partly the cause of his pragmatism, he needs votes from 60 out of 100 senators to get any major policy passed – meaning that the 40 Republican senators (who represent only a third of the nation), joined by a single conservative Democrat, can halt everything. It’s the worst form of ‘minority rule’, and as a result America can’t even get right something as basic as health care.
Obama is probably the best leader America can produce; yet even he can’t deliver because the American political system, rooted in its 18th century origins, is too antiquated and backward. This situation will not change anytime soon due to the difficulties of amending the US Constitution.
So the US will remain by far the largest per capita polluter in the world; it will continue to foot drag over re-regulation of the global financial system that it caused to melt down; it will resist badly needed domestic reform that would make it a manufacturing nation again instead of remaining a debtor nation; America’s leaders will continue to refuse to give families and workers the support and security they deserve; and they will continue to spend money the nation can ill afford on military escapades in the Middle East, as Obama prods Europe to join him in his folly. This is Obama’s America.
But Obama’s failures only continue the American slide that began at the start of the decade. A gradual shift in geopolitical power has been occurring, which some have called the ‘post-American world’. Even US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has acknowledged that American primacy is over and the world is suddenly multipolar. The United States is still a strong power, but this shift has been a shock to Americans, some of whom are still in denial.
So what should be Europe’s strategy in this post-American world? First and foremost, Europe must remain the beacon of social democracy, which can be defined as the attempt to harness the dynamic, wealth-creating engine of capitalism so that its prosperity is both broadly shared and ecologically sustainable. I refer to this as the European Way, a development model that is the most humane in history. If the European Way didn’t exist, we would have to invent it.
But as the world stares into the face of the twin challenges of the current economic crisis and global warming, the fate of this European Way hangs in the balance. To defend it, Europe needs to know what is precious about it, and what is worth defending.
First, the European Way is founded on a ‘social capitalism’ that has produced the world’s largest trading bloc, nearly a third of the world’s economy, almost as large as the US and China combined, with more Fortune 500 companies than even the US. Yet unlike America’s ‘Wall Street capitalism,’ Europe’s brand provides real support for families and workers. Hardly a ‘welfare state,’ Europe’s social capitalism is an ingenious ‘workfare’ framework that better supports families and individuals to help them stay healthy and productive in an age of global capitalism that, left to its own devices, would turn us all into internationally disposable workers.
A key to Europe’s harnessing of the capitalist engine has been regulations fostering a measure of economic democracy and control over corporations, resulting in practices like co-determination, works councils, cooperatives, public-private partnerships, and a vibrant small business sector, which provides two-thirds of all jobs in Europe. In addition, the European Way is founded on pluralistic political institutions that have fostered a vibrant multiparty democracy, including proportional representation, public financing of campaigns, free media time for parties, universal voter registration, a robust public broadcasting sector, and other important democratic advances. It has fostered the ‘green economy,’ deploying widespread use of conservation and renewable energy technologies, which has produced an ‘ecological footprint’ that is half that of the United States, even as it has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
These ‘fulcrum institutions’ are the very foundations of the European Way, and I am sometimes struck by how many Europeans take them for granted, apparently unaware of their uniqueness and value. Europe must defend them and not allow anti-democratic forces to wear them down.
Despite all its own imperfections and inconsistencies, and its soul-searching and doubts, Europe must recognize that it is now the key leader among multiple leading nations of the world. Europe now is what Ronald Reagan once called America – ‘the shining City on the Hill’, pointing the way amidst the darkness of the storm.
It is Europe’s time to lead. Europe, are you ready?
Replacing US hegemony with a European one is not really what we’re about. Remember Europe inflicted its own version of hegemony on much of the world from the 17th century onwards (if not from an earlier date). We’re not going back to that sort of unipolar-fetishism.
Americans and Europeans need to get used to a multipolar world where economic, political and military power is widely distributed. It’s a popular, political culture of international solidarity that we need, supported by a strong framework of international law and the institutions necessary to implement it.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity)
True Desmond. But this does not mean that one cannot have role models for particular things. And when I look around the world at the moment Europe has a lot going for it.
Stability, not sclerosis!
You are right, Dominic, and I’m sure we can both list a number of areas where the EU is far ahead of other countries, for example, in health and safety regulations for products, competition policy, environmental change, working time regulations, human rights provisions and so forth.
My criticism of Steven’s article was more to do with his application of an American worldview, i.e. that of superpower hegemony, onto the developing international role of the EU. This is not a model that will serve the interests of Europeans or of the global community as it takes no account of the widely distributed nature of economic and other power today.
Rather than seeking to resurrect an obsolete American-Soviet geo-political model, we should be seeking to strengthen international law, the international institutions that monitor and enforce it and the political culture that demands it. Such an approach, which incidentally is what the EU says it is interested in, takes account of the realities of a multipolar world as well as seeing the world not simply as a collection of competing national states but rather as communities of citizens.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity).
Dear Desmond, I actually agree with the basic tenor of your comments. The world certainly does not need a new hegemonic power. And I was certainly not proposing that Europe should become one. I think Europe can lead by example, by showing how a modern society can develop itself, take care of its people, foster “peace and prosperity partnerships” with its neighbors, peacefully project its vision and influence in the world, and do this all in as environmentally sustainable a way as possible.
The twin challenges of our time are how can the wealthy countries of the world allow China, India, Brazil and other “second world” nations (as my colleague Parag Khanna has called these aspiring nations) to come up in the world and enjoy a modern quality of life without burning up the planet in the process. This is the central challenge of the 21st century. In my recently published book Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age (www.EuropesPromise.org), I concluded that Europe has a great deal to offer to the world in this endeavor. But Europe should not try to impose its methods, institutions or practices on others, but instead should “lead” quietly, with humility and generosity. This must be a patient endeavor, even as we are in a race against time.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Steven Hill
Thanks for clarifying this and engaging in the discussion Steven. That is pretty much how I understood your article.
Thanks very much, Steven, for taking the tme to respond to my observations on your article.
I take your point that you were not advocating the repalcement of US hegemony with a European version of that malignant worldview. Indeed, there is much in your article with whch I agree, for example, your comment that Obama is no social democract. I was arguing exactly the same point a year ago when some of my more impressionable colleagues on the European & Irish Left were taken in by Obama’s soaring rhetoric of hope and change. The reality of Obama’s first year in office has served to remind us all that American politcs is not a mirror of how we do politics elsewhere in the democratic world. Social Democracy/Socialism is not a mainstream option in the US and no leading US politician is an advocate for it.
I also agree with your analysis of the inertia that is built into US political structures and the way that has impeded the transition of the US to a more equal, sustainable and cohesive social economy.
The difficulty I have with your article, however, is illustrated by your use of words like “beacon” (a frame word of US political culture that suggests a hegemonic worldview) and, in your later comments, the question of how wealthy countries can “allow” B(R)IC countries to develop in an unsustainable manner, which suggests that this is a process that “wealthy countries” can or should control. You also describe the current economic and social policies in the EU in unusually effusive terms and treat the application of these policies in the EU as a bloc with no account of the very different degrees to which such policies are implemented by governments of Left and Right across the EU. All of this suggests to me that you are tied into a worldview that overemphasises the power of “wealthy countries” to set the agenda for the rest of the world and that these “wealthy countries” must shoulder the burden of leading progressive change in the world.
Europeans do have a lot to offer by way of progressive economic, social and envrionmental policy when we do it well, but we continue to face huge issues especially in the areas of sustainable economic growth, social and gender equality, enduring multi-generational poverty and the quality and performance of our public services. Given the choice, as I was a number of years ago, I would still rather live in the EU than in the US, but while the EU offers a number of policy models that might be usefully examined by other countries, I would be very wary of overplaying these examples of European “leadership”.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity).
Hello Desmond, I will respond to a few of your points directly within your message. You wrote:
The difficulty I have with your article, however, is illustrated by your use of words like “beacon” (a frame word of US political culture that suggests a hegemonic worldview)
*** Perhaps it’s just a semantics of language, but I meant the term “beacon” as an evocative word, as in “a light within the gathering storm that helps to point the way forward.” I certainly did not use the word to suggest a hegemonic worldview. And being an American, I don’t see that word as automatically doing so within US political culture. The term “beacon” has been invoked by many U.S. writers and orators, political, religious and scientific, each using it within her/his own context.
and, in your later comments, the question of how wealthy countries can “allow” B(R)IC countries to develop in an unsustainable manner, which suggests that this is a process that “wealthy countries” can or should control.
*** Again, I believe we perhaps are separated more by a difference of semantics, of words. Certainly wealthy countries should not control the process, but wealthy countries ARE very much at the center of this process, and will remain so. The wealthy countries are not merely going to go away, but are going to act in their own national interest. We have to hope that this is not a “zero-sum game” where emerging nations’ gains come at the expense of the developed nations, otherwise the nations of the world will be pitted in a tragic and destructive game of “Survivor.” Every country has its own national interests to put forward — the question is, can we do this in a way that allows the emerging multi-polar world to be enacted with the appropriate degree of justice and equality among nations? In that regard, I think the skill set developed by European nations in forming the 27 nation European Union has the potential to be immensely helpful in this truly globalizing process. The goal of forging “peace and prosperity partnerships” among neighbors is one that the EU has pioneered. In part the EU took the American notion of the Marshall Plan and has taken it to another level. Can this orientation be extended to the entire planet? That is one of the real challenges today, it seems to me.
You also describe the current economic and social policies in the EU in unusually effusive terms and treat the application of these policies in the EU as a bloc with no account of the very different degrees to which such policies are implemented by governments of Left and Right across the EU. All of this suggests to me that you are tied into a worldview that overemphasises the power of “wealthy countries” to set the agenda for the rest of the world and that these “wealthy countries” must shoulder the burden of leading progressive change in the world.
*** Certainly there are differences within Europe — just as their differences within the United States from state to state. But it’s necessary to pull back and see the big picture, the overall trajectory. Moreover, it’s simply a reality — whether you or I wish it otherwise — that the wealthy and powerful do set the agenda to a certain extent. Every nation has its own self-interest that it WILL act to secure, that will assert itself. This is as true today as it has been for centuries. The question is, whether the wealthy and powerful nations — the developed world — can see that it is in their best interest to extend peace and prosperity partnerships in an ecologically sustainable way to the developing world. And in terms of wealthy countries “shouldering the burden”, the developing countries are already saying they must do so. For example, when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, the developing world has rightly pointed out that it is the wealthy countries that have choked the atmosphere with carbon, endangering the future. And so, they say, it is the wealthy countries that must indeed shoulder the burden to figure out a way to reduce their carbon, as well as to help the developing world to implement fairly expensive technologies that would allow the developing world to continue to develop without pouring massive carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The developing world is clearly looking to a degree of leadership from the developed world to develop these technologies, to implement them in a widespread fashion within their own societies, and to help them do so within their own developing societies.
Europeans do have a lot to offer by way of progressive economic, social and envrionmental policy when we do it well, but we continue to face huge issues especially in the areas of sustainable economic growth, social and gender equality, enduring multi-generational poverty and the quality and performance of our public services. Given the choice, as I was a number of years ago, I would still rather live in the EU than in the US, but while the EU offers a number of policy models that might be usefully examined by other countries, I would be very wary of overplaying these examples of European “leadership”.
*** I agree with much of what you say in the paragraph above. But perhaps our differences arise because I am sitting here in the United States, watching the Obama administration weekly bumping up against the severe limitations of the American system, and seeing that America is going to continue to be a foot dragger in so many important ways. To the extent that the US has been the leader in the post-World War II era, it is badly forfeiting that leadership. And this process is rather depressing and painful to watch up close from these bitter shores. So I and other Americans naturally look for other places that are doing things better. It seems that you and I agree that Europe is doing things better, albeit with major challenges pushing Europe. I am not unmindful of these challenges, in fact, in my book Europe’s Promise one of the final sections is titled, “Will Europe Survive?”
In terms of Europe’s direction going forward, in another post on The Social Europe Journal website I wrote the following which you might find of interest. I wrote this to address the question of what should social democratic parties and movements pursue:
“Second, work with ethnic minority/immigration rights advocates and organisations in Europe to push a civil rights agenda for integration. Like the Democratic Party did in the 1950s and 1960s, become the parties of equality and fairness for all. Doing this not only is the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, it also will maintain and extend ‘solidarity’, the crucial basis on which social democracy rests. And don’t forget that those minority individuals are potential voters. Embrace this, and they will vote for you for years to come, which will be particularly important as their numbers increase as a percentage of your population. This is a long-term strategy, and I have a hunch that greater swathes of the European electorate are ready for a credible integration agenda (Swiss anti-minaret referendums notwithstanding).
“Third, support women. Most European countries lag behind the US in terms of the numbers of women in the workforce. Having more women in the workforce will help address the ‘dependency ratio’ challenge presented by declining populations. Evidence also suggests that when women don’t have to choose between working and family, they are more likely to have children. And women also are voters. So supporting women will be good for Europe and also good for your political fortunes.
“Feminism and integration – a civil rights movement in Europe? What a concept! Those are values that can be translated into a real political programme, so that, when the pendulum swings back and it is your time, not only will these be the right thing to do but they might allow you to win elections.”
Desmond, this has been a good exchange, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Steven Hill
Thank you Steven for taking the time to compose such a thoughtful and detailed reponse and my apologies for the time it has taken me to respond. I think that we are both arguing essentially the same points, but this conversation has illustrated the dangers for misinterpretation in arguing those points across political cultures … and that’s between two commentators whose mother-tongue is English!
I look forward to reading your contributions to “Social Europe Journal” in the future.
With kind regards … Desmond.