World Forums

The frog and the ox

Jun 2nd 2005
From The Economist print edition

THERE is a nice variant of one of Aesop's Fables which goes like this. A tiny frog shares a field with a giant ox. The frog tries to get the ox's attention by puffing himself up. The ox fails to notice the frog. The frog puffs himself up some more. The ox continues not to notice him. The frog finally puffs himself up so much that he explodes. But the ox still doesn't notice him.

Something much like this happened last Sunday. Many of the supporters of the European constitution nourish dreams of creating a United States of Europe. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the constitution's leading light, frequently spoke of his admiration for the American constitution. But the American reaction to the French non vote was a giant yawn. The news networks gave as much priority to the simultaneous vote in Lebanon, and both elections seemed less important than the result of the Indy 500.

Most of the excuses for ignoring the French vote are perfectly understandable. The results were released in the middle of a sunny Memorial Day weekend. The constitution is a turgid document that few Europeans have read, let alone Americans. Supporters like Jacques Chirac claimed that it was a bulwark against American-style capitalism; opponents like Jean-Luc Melenchon that it was “the law of the jungle turned into a constitution”. Eurocrats, implausibly, claim that they will continue to ratify the constitution whatever the people say.

There is a widespread feeling in America, too, that Europe doesn't matter any more—or at least that America doesn't have a dog in Europe's internal fights. The polite version of this sentiment is that Europe is a problem that has been solved. The continent is peaceful, prosperous and civilised. America's vital interests now lie elsewhere—in tackling terrorism and managing the emergence of China. The less polite version is that Europe is a spent force, with slow economic growth, death-spiral demographics, unaffordable welfare states, simmering Muslim populations and little ability to project power abroad.

Europe is clearly not as important as it thinks it is: that would be impossible. Yet America's indifference to it is wrong. It remains America's biggest trading partner and closest ally. Two-thirds of America's foreign investment since 2000 has gone to Europe. For all their problems, the EU and America work closely together in steering the world's economy: China is too undeveloped and Japan has failed to assume a leadership position. Since coming to office in 2001, George Bush has spent more time in Europe than anywhere else abroad—44 days, compared with 13 in Asia. And since being re-elected in 2004 he has put heavy emphasis on repairing the European relationship. For good reason: American action abroad is easier if Europe approves of it.

Which makes it all the more striking that so many of the people who did pay attention to the European result, including some close to Mr Bush, were positively gleeful. Many conservatives broke their self-imposed embargo on French products to pop the champagne. The grand non didn't just mean the humiliation of Mr Chirac, the grand fromage in the Axis of Weasel. It meant the humiliation of a political class that has been a thorn in the side of America since the second world war. Right-wing blogs crowed about the imminent collapse of Eurosocialism. One even produced a map of the “red” parts of France that had voted “no”—and noted its similarity with the 2004 map of the “red” parts of America that had voted for Mr Bush.

It would be churlish to deny the White House some pleasure. But that does not mean following those conservative mapmakers all the way to their eccentric conclusions. The no vote was driven by the most backward forces in France—the enemies of globalisation and Americanisation. And Mr Chirac promptly gave the prime ministership to Dominique de Villepin, an exponent of anti-Americanism in its most self-indulgent form.

The only serious justification for Americans to delight in the EU's plight would be if last weekend had frustrated the emergence of a European counterweight to American power. Yet that was always surely a fantasy, given both the continent's refusal to spend a significant amount of money on defence and its unstable relationship with other possible members of a “counterweight coalition”. In reality, a weak Europe is much more of a threat to America's interests than a strong one. The no vote not only guarantees several more years of Eurodithering and introspection: it also makes it much less likely that Europe will be able to absorb Turkey, let alone Ukraine, anytime soon, if ever.


Why America needs a stronger Europe

The most sensible American response to Europe's failure is to see it as an opportunity. An opportunity that is fraught with risks, to be sure, but one that would allow Europe to start down a more sensible path, and would let America nudge it in a more Anglo-Saxon direction. Bill Kristol, a leading neo-conservative, likens the French non to the rise of Ross Perot. Perotism was noisy, confused and full of unpleasant elements. But it showed that people were no longer willing to tolerate the old order, and it prepared the way for the rise of Bill Clinton on the left and Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani on the right.

There are signs that a similar revolution is stirring in Europe. There is a good chance that Mr Chirac will be replaced in 2007 by Nicolas Sarkozy, who claims to be more of a fan of the free market; and an even better chance that Gerhard Schröder will be replaced this September by Angela Merkel, a woman who backed the invasion of Iraq. The shake-up gives America an opportunity to find new friends and collaborators in Europe.

Yet the paradox of America's European policy is that it only has a chance of influencing Europe if it is seen to be doing nothing. America needs to do what it can to make sure that the frog doesn't explode again. But in public at least, the ox needs to give the impression of being indifferent.

There are those who believe in an ideology and a political message, and there are those who are in it for the lust of power.

May I suggest a third: Those who wish to serve their community ... selflessly. Now, there's a novel proposition!

And for the ideologist, changing your platform as the wind blows is not an option

That's what you read, but not what I said. Read carefully.

Peoples concern's are not like the prevailing winds. Are yours? Why should thiers be? Do you think you know better than they do? Then you may be in the wrong profession. Become a journalist, open a blog.

Unemployment is not a "prevailing wind", it has been around for decades. Neither is sustained growth in the economy. Neither is an autoroute that would make a community closer to a larger labour market. Nor a "nursery" that will care for children whilst mothers work. Neither a high-tech park that offers cheap office facilities to start-up companies for an initial period. There are hundreds of such concerns, all of substance. Any community has its particular set.

I'll stand for my own opinions, and if people disagree, they can vote for someone else.

Your "own" opinions matter little since they reflect your sentiments/notions/ideas, which, if out of synch with the community, will get you nowhere. That of the constituency matter quite a bit, since their elected officials are their representatives.

But basically, building your platform exclusively on the wishes of those whose vote you seek, is what an administrator would do. A politician, however, would present a platform and ask people to vote for it.

Politicians do not present "thier" platform, but propose that of the constituency they wish to represent. They mold thier platform in a fashion giving it content, pertinence and credibility for thier community.

Never mind. Learn for yourself.

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the constitution's leading light, frequently spoke of his admiration for the American constitution.

His admiration? Then, what happened? The EU constitution has about as much resemblance to the American as ... a frog does to an ox.

Valery, this intellectual aristocrat, was so pushed around by the members of his "conclave", that what came up was the best possible version to suit the most. It was a cludge, that barely escaped a ludicrous chapter about Christianity being the preferred European religion.

Next time, they should give the project to someone who takes a course in "making a constitution" and is not an ex lifetime-politician looking for a bit of glory ("father of the constitution") before being put out to pasture definitively.

Europe Ponders What to Do Next

By JOSEPH SCHUMAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE


The post-referendum gloom over the future of European integration may be reaching a crescendo, as Continental leaders come to terms with the French and Dutch rejections of the constitutional treaty and the debate evolves from the blame game toward what the European Union should do next.

The peak may have been reached this morning when Italian Welfare Minister Roberto Maroni suggested in the daily Repubblica that Italy -- which had already ratified the constitution -- should hold a referendum on whether to quit the euro and go back to using the lira. As translated by Reuters, Mr. Maroni called European monetary union "inadequate in the face of the economic slowdown." The euro subsequently fell further against the dollar. But Mr. Maroni's Northern League party has in the past fought to split up Italy -- as well as the EU. And most members of his government are more likely to agree with European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, who yesterday compared a euro-zone country's abandonment of the euro to California dumping the dollar. The euro later strengthened against its U.S. counterpart to more than a cent above the eight-month low of $1.2160 it reached earlier this week. Still, as The Wall Street Journal reports, the new fears about the EU's ability to unite politically are reigniting doubts about its high-stakes experiment in economic and monetary union.

Mr. Trichet, who saw the issue overshadow his news conference on monetary policy yesterday, is one of two top European officials promoting a new public campaign to explain to people why their countries need radical economic change -- and the constitution, the New York Times reports. Joaquin Almunia, European commissioner for economic affairs, attributed the hostility of voters in France and the Netherlands to a basic communications gap between the public and its leaders. "Public opinion has not received a clear explanation of why the reforms are necessary, and why you can expect that in a normal period of time, there will be positive results," he said. The problem, Le Monde explains, is that Europe doesn't have a "plan B" to fall back on now that the constitution is dead. Thus, European leaders are divided over how to move forward. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder yesterday launched a round of diplomacy aimed at urging other EU members to proceed with ratification, even as U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair began a rival push to put the procession on hold, the Financial Times reports.

Some perspective may be found in the opinions of Max Kohnstamm, a 91-year-old Dutchman whom Newsweek describes as one of the EU's founding fathers for his role in the creation of the European coal and steel community five decades ago. The French Parliament's rejection of a proposed European Defense Community in 1954 provoked a conference that led to the Treaty of Rome and to the Common Market, he notes. "So you see, if you've been there from the beginning, you are used to setbacks," he says. "Thus far, every setback has led to further steps forward, and I am absolutely sure that this process will go on. But it will be slowed down."

Synthese:

May I suggest a third: Those who wish to serve their community ... selflessly. Now, there's a novel proposition!

No, that's an administrator's job.

Then you may be in the wrong profession.

Profession?

Politicians are businessmen, teachers, farmers, doctors, fishermen, lawyers. Politics is not a profession, it is a battlefield for ideas.

Your "own" opinions matter little since they reflect your sentiments/notions/ideas, which, if out of synch with the community, will get you nowhere.

Well, it's not as if my ideas are completely out of synch with the general population. But it's not as if I'm looking for winning a majority anyway. Should I come first on my party's nomination in my constituency at the next election, around 4% would be enough for me to win a seat in parliament. And to be frank, I'd much rather represent 4% who agree with me rather than 50% who dictate what I should say and do.

Politicians do not present "thier" platform, but propose that of the constituency they wish to represent.

Populist politicians do that. In Norway, that's what the Progress Party do. People don't like taxes, so they propose to cut them. People like roads, so they propose to build more. People don't like to pay for roads, so they propose to remove toll booths and slash petroleum taxes. People don't like paying for ferries, so they propose to make them free. People like good hospitals, so they propose increased hospital funding. People like high pensions, so they propose to increase them. People like lower kindergarten costs, so the they propose imposing maximum prices and higher subsidies. In short, pay less, get more. Who wouldn't want that? As a result, the Progress Party has grown into the second biggest in the country. But the responsible mainstream parties manage to keep the Progress Party's influence to a minimum, and that's the only reason this country is not headed downhill.

Never mind. Learn for yourself.

I appreciate your well-meant help, but if I was only going to say what others told me to say, they might as well have put a parrot in my place. What's the point of being in politics if you don't have opinions of your own?

Synthese:

His admiration? Then, what happened? The EU constitution has about as much resemblance to the American as ... a frog does to an ox.

Again, the Constitution was a carefully drawn compromise. The Convention had more than a 100 members from 28 countries, hundreds of thousands of suggestion were sent in by "ordinary people", national politicians, think-tanks, etc. And the final draft had to be approved by a unanimous European Council, where each of the 25 heads of government had their own unique agendas.

The end result was the Constitution which the French and Dutch have now rejected. Now the best we can hope for is a watered down version which, I hope, will not go the full way in accommodating the French and Dutch naysayers' wishes for the Constitution to include social policy, a clause against Turkish membership, erection of barriers to the free movement of Eastern Europeans, and a clause saying Chirac and Balkenende should not hold government office.

No, that's an administrator's job.

Good luck in politics, because you are going to need it.

You've had the final word. Do you feel better now?

An opportunity that is fraught with risks, to be sure, but one that would allow Europe to start down a more sensible path, and would let America nudge it in a more Anglo-Saxon direction.

The funny thing is that the Economist actually believe that the French 'no' creates an opportunity for a more Anglo-Saxon Europe. They really ought to brush up on their French if they missed that the main argument of the French no camp was that the EU is too Anglo-Saxon, too capitalist and too ultra-liberal already.

to include social policy, a clause against Turkish membership, erection of barriers to the free movement of Eastern Europeans, and a clause saying Chirac and Balkenende should not hold government office

.

And that Norway should pay a tenth of all oil revenues into a fund to educate Europeans as to constitutional ways and means.

"Politics is not a profession, it is a battlefield for ideas."



"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

Europe is an assemblage of predominantly collectivist cultures. This means simply that collective values predominate over individualist values - the community first, the individual second.

The French are particularly proud of their collective culture. Their government delivers services that the French esteem highly: One of the best medical systems in the world, which offers an age span of one of the longest as well, and an education almost free up to doctorate levels. This is no mean achievement.

I suspect that similar traits are found in the German culture and that, given a referenda, much the same results would be produced - and Germany would vote like France and not Holland.

The problem in many European countries is that state expenditures have got out of hand. They are literally between a brick wall (falling tax revenues) and hard place (large and popular entitlement programs as mentioned above.) The economic conjuncture has placed them in a difficult position of rising expectations and lowering possibilities.

The GATT reduction of the 1990s in trade tariffs unleashed the Chinese tsunami of cheap products on the world. These products are unbeatable in price due to working conditions that, in the West, would not be offered to a monkey. The result, in a liberal world economy, is that jobs migrate to the country with the lowest labor costs, meaning China or India and other Far East countries. Even if this is happening to a small percentage of jobs in any particular nation, it is a worrisome menace to the rest of the labour force.

There is NO economic theory on earth that can explain to an individual who has lost their job to dislocation, that what happened is fair and not arbitrary. The jobless economic renewal stateside may be simply another manifestation of the same phenomenon, though on a lesser scale.

Let's not go overboard about individualist Anglo-Saxon cultures. They suit Americans and, for some reason, the English-speaking peoples (with the odd addition of the Dutch). Any society that generates wealth accumulated by a very distinct minority has its own set of problems, particularly as regards fairness and equatability. A plutocracy is not necessarily the best form of society simply because it is the opposite of communism (which is an intensely collective structure with an added dash of barbarism.)

The truth is somewhere in between. I have hopes that Europe will find it there.

Makes lots of sense to me.

Do you all think, a European constitution would have had better luck when the EU was smaller (and more Western) say at the time of Masstricht (early 90s)?

Has the time passed?

Not sure, Bineaz. Personally I'd say it wouldn't have had better luck being passed in the early 90s, as the two countries to say "no", were founder members of the EU...

As Synthese rightly points out, one of the main differences in Europe lies between more collective societies (France) and anglo-saxon individualist societies (UK, Ireland, Holland etc). So those problems would have been there without the expansion.

I must say, Synthese, that while there may be a happy medium, I do not want it. I'm quite happy with the way things are in Britain, and I would never vote for, or support anything that was a "compromise" between our way of doing things and the French. As far as I see, we can have our more individual culture, and the French can have their "social model". I wouldn't dream of interfering with the French, and they shouldn't with us.

All we need (for a functioning EU) is complete free-trade, common solutions to common problems (environment, terrorism and international crime), and perhaps some kind of defence union? I don't know how that would pan out though, it's not like most European countries spend a lot on defence. We have a pretty good alliance with the US anyway

All politics is circumstantial. Yes, Maastricht passed because Europe, though beginning its decline, was not showing the worst signs of it. It was an expression of support for the European idea, which was popular at the time.

Of course, Europe has had close to 10% unemployment for nearly fifteen years, so ...

Its problems are infrastructural and what most propose is a loosening of labor regulations. Of course, this is "too liberal", isn't it? Nonetheless, giving the labor force more flexibility is an absolute necessity to obtain productivity increases - along with increased work hours. There is no escaping these solutions.

Keynes wrote the following in 1936: The two most outstanding vices of the economic world in which we live are, firstly, that full employment is not assured and, secondly, that the repartition of wealth and revenue is arbitrary and lacks fairness

Seventy years later and we find ourselves in exactly the same circumstances. The Keynesian approach to exiting is through triggering increased demand by means of low interest rates and government expenditures. In Europe, this is prohibited by the "deficit treaty" preventing expenditures above 3%. This has to go, and Europe has to borrow massively to raise government expenditures.

The referendum was a sidetrack, and discussion regarding the above are already in course. The referendum succeeded in showing how deeply felt was the necessity to do something. And, government intervention by means of spending is just that.

On the issue of electioneering(?), I agree with Boye's stance. I don't believe he should start regurgitating the opinions of his electorate for the sole purpose of winning votes. Of course, every single one of us here knows damn well that's what many politicians do on a daily basis.

Mark Steyn wrote a great article about this a month ago. He was talking about "my" party in the UK, the Conservatives, and said the worst thing we can do is move toward the centre.

Let's just assume for a moment that the political scale is 1-9 (I know, I know that it's not quite so simple), and Labour are 1 and Conservatives are 9. Many within the party (christ I sound like a Chinese commie with such phrases as "the party") believe we should move toward the centre.

Let's say we move toward "5" on that scale and Labour remain where they are now. That means nothing more than the "centre" being moved to a "3". Thus we're simply changing the direction of British politics in a leftward direction. The very thing we DON'T want to happen. We should stick to our principles and try to move the centre ground towards us; NOT the reverse.

So, I have to concur with Boye in this debate. Boye should stick to his principles, no matter how unpalatable some people may find them. I respect Boye a whole lot more for that, and in time, his electorate will.

On a matter of interest, what kind of "Liberals" are your party, Boye? Are you leftists (truly unpalatable to me), or liberals in the true sense of the word? I suppose Lloyd George of the old Liberal party was both, but he's a great Welshman either way.

Synthese, not sure about Keynes. I've never liked him; I believe his theories have been debunked long ago. I'm more in tune with Hayek, but I'm no economist, neither do I have any real grounding in the subject, save for a few classes (law student) so I won't get into any debate with you over it

The very thing we DON'T want to happen. We should stick to our principles and try to move the centre ground towards us; NOT the reverse.

That's like pushing a ball up a hill. The center is the center, because that is where people (the majority) vote.

If Blair has found the words that make people vote for him (and Brown) at the center it is because he has touched the sentiments of the majority of his constituency. Some politicians are excellent listeners. And, Blair does not regurgitate all the drivel coming out of his constituency, just the bits and pieces that sound right.

If the conservative party wants to succeed, it must occupy that central ground, with the same words that are consonant with the same sentiments. How they do that is thier business. However, wanting the world (and specifically Europe) to move right is wishful thinking. It aint gonna happen.

Looking for a constituency that is consonant with YOUR definition of what is to be done is risky business, and works only in countries with a bent for populist movements - meaning the Latin countries; yes, the Dutch in this last election; or a tad of neo-Nazism in Germany. But, none of those movements have ever been able to launch themselves into power in recent history. They are all marginal.

Populism of the right or the left is simply responding to base instincts. It is not a party platform. But, it works and can sometimes be the spoiler- such as when LePen upset Jospin in France, which ushered in Chirac in a romp.

If France has the tyranny of the majority (with its leftist sentiments), then seeing such in Britain means that the Conservatives need to move back to center, off which Margaret pushed them decades ago. They have a long journey back.

Synthese, not sure about Keynes. I've never liked him; I believe his theories have been debunked long ago.

Economics is like religions, some factions go in and out of favor. But, Keynes has proven, like some religions, to be the touchstone to which one returns.

He got it right, the first time around, because he was iconoclast in his analyses of econmic illnesses and thier remedies. That which prevailed at the time was a fixation upon balancing budgets, which condemned the economy to high taxation and therefore low propensity to spend. He simply insisted on something that we all recognize today, an economy lives and dies on its ability to sustain consumer demand.

I've not seen the debunking, so I await your explanation of how that happened. He is still taught in any first-level course of university economics, along with Friedman, and the others who added to or refined his concepts. So, it must have escaped me.

I must say, Synthese, that while there may be a happy medium, I do not want it. I'm quite happy with the way things are in Britain, and I would never vote for, or support anything that was a "compromise" between our way of doing things and the French.

My reading of French politics shows that there are a good number of young politicians who are saying, "Look, it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white. What matters is that it catches mice."

This sort of pragmatism is alien to France, but in the current desperation, people like Sarkozy could come to the fore. It is certainly time for Chirac to attend to his apple orchards in the Dordogne.

Italians voted for Berlu in hopes of having the same sort of business pragmatism that got him rich get them out of their mess. Berlu is a great deception and has no record of real achievement to point to. He will inevitably pass into the dustbin of Italian political history, already overflowing with such fakers.

Italy is badly served in politicians, unfortunately, due to a religious like support for the Christian Democrats (against the Communists) that went on for decades after WW2 - and led to generalized corruption. (Alla P2, "Tangentopoli" and questionnable Italian freemasonry antics.)

John Maynard Keynes

http://64.233.161.104/u/Mises?q=cache:v ... n&ie=UTF-8

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=891

http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch30.asp

http://64.233.161.104/u/Mises?q=cache:g ... n&ie=UTF-8

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail. ... rticledate

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1702

http://www.mises.org/journals/aen/aen20_1_1.asp

http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch108.asp

Mark:

On a matter of interest, what kind of "Liberals" are your party, Boye? Are you leftists (truly unpalatable to me), or liberals in the true sense of the word?

It's impossible to give you a short answer on that, so here goes:

The party is called "Venstre" (which simply means "Left") but is usually translated as "The Liberal Party" which is a more descriptive name for those who don't know that the origin of the party's name. When Venstre was founded in 1884, it was a formalisation of the group who sat on the left side in Parliament. The other group, who sat on the right, took the name Høyre ("Right", usually translated as "The Conservative Party").

Venstre's declared ideology is social liberalism, but the exact stance of the party is under debate. In fact, so much so that the party has a long history of internal strife and split. In its early days, the right-wing group of the party formed Frisinnede Venstre ("Freethinking Left"), and in 1972 the party split in two over the issue of Norwegian EC membership, with the pro-EC minority forming Det Liberale Folkeparti (DLF, "The Liberal People's Party"). Both splits were eventually followed by reunification under the name "Venstre", the last one being in 1989, when DLF and Venstre merged after having driven each other to near-extinction, falling out of the parliament in 1985. Venstre did not return to parliament until 1993.

Despite being a small party with a popular support of about 4% nationally, the party's still split in two main factions:
- the urban, modern and radical faction in the Oslo area and other urban areas in South East Norway, and Bergen. ("By-Venstre", "City Venstre")
- the rural, traditionalist faction, which is strong in the rest of the country but especially strong in the West ("Vestlands-Venstre" or "Bygde-Venstre", "West Country Venstre" or "Rural Venstre").

By-Venstre are considered more liberal than Bygde-Venstre. Interestingly, Unge Venstre (or "Young Liberals") are decisively more liberal than the mother party. While Venstre's declared ideology is social-liberal, Unge Venstre's declared ideology is just liberal.

But at the core, what unites the party, is the idea that "as long as you do no harm unto others, you can do whatever you want", though only to an extent: e.g. the party is against legalising drugs. Yet, the party is the most libertarian one in Norwegian politics.

On the issues, the party stands fairly united behind a platform of:

- flat tax with a high standard deduction (about 100K NOK tax-free, a flat tax on all earnings above that level)
- higher taxation on consumption combined with lower taxation on income
- environmental taxes to internalise pollution cost (polluter pays)
- high funding for public transportation
- congestion charges
- increased funding for education
- higher student grants
- simplification of the welfare system by replacing various social benefits with a guaranteed minimum income (about 100K NOK) to be paid to those who do not qualify for unemployment or disabled benefits
- market incentives for research in environmental-friendly technology (e.g. no road tolls for zero-emission cars, zero-emission cars can drive in bus lanes in rush hours)
- privatisation of all government-owned companies that do not serve a public service purpose
- differentiation between service obligation and service provision for public services (e.g. health services covered by national insurance can be carried out by a private hospital even if it is the government that pays)
- separation of state and church
- unbiased religion education in schools
- local self-government (subsidiarity)
- gender-neutral marriage and adoption laws
- relaxation of anti-immigration laws
- removal of transitory restrictions on the freedom of movement from new EU member states.

Where the party is split is on issues of international cooperation (the majority is against EU membership, a large minority are in favour), the limits of liberalism (e.g. the majority are against legalisation of any type of drugs, a large minority favour legalisation of cannabis, a very small minority favour full-scale legalisation), farm subsidies (the majority favour gradual reform; a small but vocal minority favour radical change), the monarchy (the majority are royalists; a large minority are republicans), free trade (everyone is for free trade in principle, but the 'hypocritical majority', as I like to call them, want restrictions on trade with agricultural produce), property taxes (the majority don't want property taxes, the minority want to introduce property taxes and reduce income taxes)

Curiously, I'm in the minority on all those issues. On most of those issues, however, no other party agrees with the Venstre minority so there's little danger of defection. And, obviously, in an election campaign, you have to remain loyal to the party's manifesto. At least to the extent that you don't campaign against the manifesto, though not actively promoting the parts of it that you disagree with is fair game. Internal strife only benefits the other parties.

That being said, the EU issue is a special one, and the Akershus branch of the party will campaign on a pro-EU platform. A vote for Venstre in Akershus is a vote for EU, even if the national party is against. That position, I must say, is in no small part thanks to me.

Anyway, to sum up, Venstre consists of all kinds of liberals, from the left-leaning social liberals who are sceptical of market liberalism to the radical social and market liberals like myself and finally to the odd libertarian who question the morality of collecting taxes, although reluctantly accepting the necessity of doing so.

On aggregate, Venstre are a social-liberal party with a relatively high degree of market liberalism. On the left-right axis, it is usually placed in the centre, sometimes slightly to the right of centre.

It currently sits in a centre-right government with the Christian People's Party and the Conservative Party. It's a testing relationship when it comes to traditional liberal values such as keeping government out of private life and religion vs. big-hand Christian conservatism, but on economic policy the distance between the parties is small.

"Politics is not a profession, it is a battlefield for ideas."

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

Well, yeah, there are enough prostitutes in politics. But Reagan was not one of them. If anything, he presented a platform he believed in, won the voters over, and carried it out.

Thanks for explaining, Boye. I would say where I stand on some of those issues, but people probably would be able to guess already.

Have you (or anyone) seen this gem from Bill O'Reilly from around 3 months ago? He seems to be saying that if it weren't for France, we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq Calls it a fact, not an opinion too. Take a look; funny stuff.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,30409,00.html

Couldn't link directly to the video, but click on Bill O'Reilly's face on the right-hand side of the screen

If anything, he presented a platform he believed in, won the voters over, and carried it out.

And, slept through most of his term.

C'mon, get real.

Fox news is decidely not funny. It is biased, shrill and wholly undeserving of the lable "journalism". It is populist pap for the masses, and a tremendous profit spinner.

So, buy Fox News shares but watch CNN.

By-Venstre are considered more liberal than Bygde-Venstre.

What do you mean by "liberal"?

You're right, Synthese, in so far as Fox News is biased, shrill and not worthy of being referred to as "journalism".

However, I must disagree with "not funny". It is absolutely hilarious to me, especially O'Reilly and that story in particular. Unintentional comedy is sometimes the best kind

I'll grant you that the story was humourous. If these self-righteous nitwits can confuse Playboy with pornography, then they have thier heads screwed on backwards, which would surprise no one.

In fact, Marko, and as an aside from EU politics, which is not half so exciting, the article sparked my interest to see how Playboy had changed over the years _ so I gave a look at their site.

I see that Hefner is still alive and not been relegated to Playboy Heaven for 24/7 screwing a bevy of bunnies. I see also that the girls are the same luscious, siliconed creatures that their mothers never were in a centerfold.

So, one must come to the conclusion: "If your not born with it, get it siliconed". That's about all that is changed, since selling sex seems to have not been altered one iota in 500,000 years since man has walked on this planet as a biped.

One of the most cherished myths Euro-morons sincerely believe in is that Ronald Reagan slept for 8 years while in the White House.

You wish that your own losers slept as successfully as he did:)

Synthese:

If anything, he presented a platform he believed in, won the voters over, and carried it out.

And, slept through most of his term.

Well, from that I assume you saw very little change when Carter handed the presidency over to Reagan. That's an interesting position.

What do you mean by "liberal"?

The word "liberal" is derived from Latin "liber" which means "free". The core value in liberalism is individual freedom, free from big-hand government moralism. In general, liberals believe in neutral government, representative democracy, secularism, civil rights, equality before the law, and the non-interference of government in private lives and private decisions.

When I say By-Venstre are more liberal than Bygde-Venstre, it is because By-Venstre are more consistent with the liberal ideology. The republicans, for example, are mostly found in By-Venstre, and even royalists admit that the monarchy, even if it is only constitutional monarchy, is inconsistent with the liberal ideology. The most radical proponents of free trade are also found in By-Venstre, as are the most radical supporters of freedom of expression (at the extremes within the party, one camp favours restrictions on racism, homophobia etc., while the camp at the other extreme draw the line at incitement of murder). And although only a small minority favour drug legalisation, the few who do are almost exclusively found in By-Venstre, and, on the other hand, the few who are against decriminalisation (of drug addicts) are almost exclusively found in Bygde-Venstre.

Mark:

I agree with you on unintentional comedy, but the tragic part is the there are people who take him seriously.

Well, from that I assume you saw very little change when Carter handed the presidency over to Reagan.

The two presidencies were very different, and not just from political outlook but in their management discipline.

Reagan delegated much responsibility to his cabinet and did not really care how programs were implemented. His "initiatives" were not his own, but baked by others. He presented them, however, with dramatic distinction, earning himself the label of "Great Communicator".

Take an actor, put words into their mouths, and it will come out with great dramatic effect. If this helps win or conduct a presidency, that's OK - the constituency inevitably will decide the value.

However, and for example, the only memorable "ideas" to have come out of that presidency is the "Laffer curve" that explains taxation maximization and the trickle-down effect by which if the rich get richer it will "trickle down" to lower levels.

The Laffer Curve is no longer a current idea and the trickle-down effect is laughable as wealth analyses have shown just the opposite for the US: The rich get richer and the poor can go to hell.

Carter, an engineer by training, was a hands-on President. Just like his Governorship, he enacted interesting ideas in terms of budgeting. For instance, he insisted on "midnight budgeting", which is the concept of justifying a budgeted program for the duration of the budget period (365 days and terminating at midnight) then being obliged to re-justify it for further funding. This means that programs that were not producing the desired results were cut immediately, and thereby saved taxpayer dollars. The concept is interesting, but it takes more than one presidency for it to be proven effective - which was not the case.

Unfortunately, just months before the election, Carter calculated disastrously, and the Iran hostages destroyed any chance of re:election. He was also weakened, however, by the fact that there was rather high unemployment at the end of his presidency.

The presidency has a "management science", just like the business-world.

Yes, the concept of runaway inflation, 20% mortgages and Soviet communists taking all over the world was quite interesting.

LOL

Why don't you talk about your fellow European socialists, degenerate? Leave Ronnie alone - he's beyond your IQ not exceeding the speed-limit in a school zone.

So there once was a country, where people worked hard, had a great currency - Deutschemark - and a great economy. Then they became French poodles, began treating capitalism as a foul word, bungled the unification with their Ossie brothers, and commit many other blunders.

Now they have 12% unemployment, the rise of Nazism (no surprises there, eh?), hatred of America, etc.

Discuss your fucking Schwabian swines and leave America alone, cretin.

Go away, you silly little boy. Back to your sandbox.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/ ... balist.php

Globalist: On the road to unity, Europe loses identity

Norwegians turn more Euro-sceptic

Following the French and Dutch 'no' votes against democratic reforms of the EU, Norwegian opposition to EU membership has surged from 41% last week to 59% this week.

In brighter news, Switzerland have approved the Dublin and Schengen accords in a referendum today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20050 ... tibrussels

They're not anti-EU, they're anti-Brussels

Even an American newspaper gets wind of European sentiment. Brussels must be trembling.

The notion of subsidiarity, though part and parcel of EU regulations in certain matters, seems destined to be the central issue for the coming years as the EU finds a way out of the fix it has got into.

Just as "states' rights" was a concern for the early signers of the American constitution, the only other acceptable reference in this matter, then the same is bound to be a focus of attention in Europe.

The shame of it all is that subsidiarity gives to the EU states far more independence than American states have from federal powers. Taxation, for instance, and what Bolkenstien was underscoring in the Services Directive and which was totally distorted by the media.

In fact, the true victim of this fiasco is referenda. I doubt that EU citizens will be given the choice of a vote in the future, the political establishment having seen the havoc it may wreak. Which is simply another reason to have it written into a future constitution. What other way is there to make sure that the Talking Heads in Brussels/Strasbourg are listening?

Despite what the leaders of some EU governments are saying, this version of the Constitution is as dead as a doornail. It remains an ideal, however. Let's get it right next time around.

By keeping it simple, there is no reason that a constitution cannot be voted by the 25 member states. To think that the last cludge would get by that number of approvals was not only wishful thinking, but dreaming.

Guys

I have been being there and have been doing that.



My work schedule is brutal as of late and I haven't had so much time to read these threads. Looks like I have some catching up to do.