Democracy and Religion?

I realized yesterday that we have half a year left to spring now in Sweden. First week of April is a common spring initiation around here. Took a walk today in the early fall with fresh leaves fallen on the ground. The smell of fall was evident in the air. The lawn has slowed down.

Reading a book about Religion in America by a French author, Denis Lacorne from 2011. It is originally written in French in 2007 but contains an afterword that comments on Obama’s “Faith-friendly Secularism”. Lacorne talks about the American civilization and makes some corrections on Tocqueville’s Democracy in America from 1835. He does not think, like Tocqueville, that democracy took off from the Puritans in New England but rather had a secular origin from the Founding Fathers.

Lacorne thinks evangelism was the religious origin of the national walls of America and suspected atheist Jefferson was elected 1800 with the help of evangelical votes that objected to the bullying of the then established churches. The romantic American historian George Bancroft did however also point at the Puritans as a source of democracy and religion in the US like Tocqueville.

What I think is interesting in this context is that Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Independence Declaration and the third President of the US, had three favorite historic persons in mind when he acted namely: Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton. Maybe he pictured a future country in the name of science more than he pictured it religious even if he probably was realistic enough to feature a religious context for his country. Jefferson was a lawyer like Bacon.

The question then is if Americans have become, or always been, so different from the Europeans that we can’t keep Atlanticism going? The relative success so far on the Libya mission of NATO will of course help for a while. Economically France and Germany have started a battle against Anglo-America. They, for some reason, don’t think you should make money on money. A Tobin tax is the latest aim in suppressing the City of London.

The US is more religious than Europe currently. It has been possible to assume that this could give the US its higher growth rate, although I have not ever seen that in writing. However, the non-religious China is doing fine on growth even if this growth to a large extent so far is a proof of the success of Western globalism. Some Chinese academics say that the lack of Christianity was what made the West stronger and there are attempts right now to restore Confucianism, a new Confucianism, as a moral precept for the masses. Marx would probably turn in his grave. Marxism is still the official dogma of the Chinese communist party.

Tocqueville thought democracy needed religion to function. Contrary to his contemporary American historians he advocated Catholicism as the optimal form of Christianity. He viewed the multitude of more “enthusiastic” Protestant sects as having a divisive effect on government. In other words he thought of religion as a societal stabilizer just like China is searching for right now. Without democracy, however, religion is a competing organization and with Poland in mind Catholicism probably has a hard time in China. I understand that the Party is appointing bishops.

Today I read about the Swedish Church in Svenska Dagbladet. They have to start getting rid of church buildings for economic reasons. Many are standing empty and demand heating and maintenance. The Christian Democrat party in Sweden is in jeopardy not to make the 4% level needed for entry into Parliament in the next election and their larger brother in Germany is also losing votes. I can’t help asking Tocqueville’s question: is democracy in trouble in Europe? Angela  Merkel is losing power being the most important person to hold the EU together. The obvious follow up question is if it is good for democracy if the Euro and thereby, as Merkel is fond of pointing out, the EU will fall?

Is it possible with a single goal for mankind?

Plato's The Republic envisions a philosopher that is coming out of a dark prison cave to see the light. He is then supposed to return to the cave and tell his fellow prisoners about this light. According to Svante Nordin, a professor of philosophy at Lund University, Max Weber (1864-1920), the German philosopher, says that today's scientist has to be more modest. "he cannot tell us how we ought to live, he cannot lead us out of the cave. People who think this mix the role of the scientist with that of the prophet, and is on a dangerous path".

A hundred years later people in Sweden are mostly concerned with their health and with the concept of peace on Earth according to a yearly poll from the SOM-Institute in Göteborg. Thus, due to a tremendous development of medicine, today's scientists are guiding people in their main concern--how to live a healthy life. There are of course also spiritual guidance of non-scientific character. Living a healthy life supposedly gives people a feeling of happiness.

I find thee above very interesting because I have said that my goal in life, and also my belief for the main goal of mankind, is to find out more with the help of science. Like Francis Herbert Bradley (1846-1924), a Hegel-inspired English philosopher and contemporary to Weber, I do not believe in the search for happiness as the guiding principle. Instead people set noble goals and occasionally they are rewarded with success and happiness but pleasure is secondary.

Not unlike Plato I am then envisioning scientists searching for the light and educating people about it. Not unlike priests in the Middle Ages but on a road of progress. Today we can expect, based on the history of science, that it will answer to our needs for the environment, for example. Unlike Weber I also have realized that science continues to enlighten us and because of this enlightenment I see differently on the qualities of our lives. Weber was concerned with the bureaucratization of mankind. A depersonalization. A drift from our values. I rather see life potentially more interesting today for most people than a hundred years ago. Biology and psychology are indeed helping us find out more on values as well.

So on how a dangerous path am I? I know some people are very skeptical about what science can tell us and sees potential ethical problems mostly. However, due to the evidence of scientific pursuit during the last 500 years where progress have fueled improvements for man that in turn has led to moral progress, a prerequisite for John Stuart Mills Liberty Principle, it is fair to say that the positives are greater than the negatives.

Indians, does an equivalent exist today?

I have been called an Indian, ie an American Indian, from the unfortunate culture that was decimated extensively by the Europeans. The Europeans came along with their superior learning and technology and if you look at the United States today, my feeling is that Indians should have been encouraged to integrate into the Western society. It is of course a sensitive issue since both cultures have value. Did they for example have a different morality?

Does this mean that I am an Indian equivalent today when I was excluded from certain aspects of learning and technology of today during my upbringing? The school failed to teach me the new ways. There ought to be a lot of Indians in this case. Following the reasoning above, the new culture could have a new morality that would be superior to mine from the old world. However, if the new ways would be using the same morality, I would not have any problems integrating.

I don't know about you but I have a feeling that I am too similar to be the equivalent of an Indian that has been pushed to the reservation, or the outsideship. I would also pose the question if the old morality is not superior to the new rules. Since morality to a large extent is genetically defined, I don't suspect that there should exist a new one. What I fear, as I have detailed elsewhere, is that the new ways are immoral?

I think I mentioned this earlier, but if I'm right in my assumption, the load of the so defined Indians might be what is holding the economy of the West down right now? Increased transparency for the technology might therefore have a beneficial effect on the economy?

Europe 1859 and now?

On Liberty/Chapter 3 - Wikisource: "The modern regime of public opinion is, in an unorganized form, what the Chinese educational and political systems are in an organized; and unless individuality shall be able successfully to assert itself against this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents and its professed Christianity, will tend to become another China."

John Stuart Mill writes this in 1859 in his book On Liberty, still in print today, and the book of office of the Liberal Democrats in the UK. It bothered Mill that Europe seemed bent to become ruled by the tyranny of mediocrity, the masses.

Today we have acknowledged that the masses did not turn out to become tyrannical but understanding as to the need of innovation. Even the Chinese speak of it but does not agree on how it should be fostered. Furthermore the masses are not considered mediocre since politicians, even if they are not eccentric or exceptionally high IQ, have a political intelligence important for resonance with the masses. We speak also about the wisdom of the masses.

What is interesting though is the almost spastic talk about innovation today in the "modern regime for public opinion". My question would be if it is possible to increase innovation in the West? We can perhaps increase the per capita education but do we at the same time increase the per capita innovation? If I am right we would be able to increase our ability to capitalize on innovations but not increase their numbers in a given population. People are nervous these days because China and India are bringing in more people from poverty and are thus increasing their innovation per capita.

What can we do then to stay competitive? Well, if Europe will become another China, as Mill feared, he meant static for centuries, we will start treating people non-individualistically. We would start locking people up in collectives. We would prevent free discussion, something Mill also warned against. We would prevent freedom of thought and like the Catholic church rely totally on dogmatic tradition.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a contemporary of John Stuart Mill and he famously said "gather from far every ray of various genius to our hospitable halls". This is why America today is more competitive. They import talent to increase their per capita innovation. Just increasing the amount of money you spend on innovation is not going to do the trick. Europe must become hospitable to foreigners and empower the individual.

Smart foreign policy

Women are at the heart of US foreign policy Hillary Clinton - Times Online: "Advancing women’s equality is at the heart of the foreign policy of the United States. We believe that women are critical to solving almost every challenge we face, and that strategies that ignore the lives and contributions of women have little chance of succeeding. We view the subjugation of women as a threat to the national security of the US and to the common security of our world. So we are integrating women throughout our work around the globe."

Clinton is getting many sour remarks for this policy in the comments to the article but this is not feministic gibberish this is smart foreign policy. I revolted a little against the use of the word smart to describe a foreign policy in the beginning because if you say you are smart it would imply that others are not so smart. However, it can also mean that something is smart which is the situation in this case.

It is interesting to note that the above would mean that men and women are not identical, although equal, something people engaged politically in gender lore probably would disagree on. A woman is not just another man.

Talking about the Weather?

On November 3, 2009 Angela Merkel appeared before both houses of Congress something a German Chancellor had not done since 1957 when Konrad Adenauer performed.

In the first half of December 2009 the German ambassador to the US, Klaus Scharioth performed the yearly poll on the US-German relationship. Numbers were up, but not as high as before the Iraq war. 48% of participants had a "good" or "excellent" general impression of Germany. It was particularly good among College students. During the 2003 war with Iraq the corresponding number was 27%. In 2001 the number was 65%.

Only 12% of participants thought Germany had an impact on the American political landscape. Which places Germany as influence on fifth place behind the UK, Canada, China and Japan. This is in line with Eurobarometer data where some 80% of Germans don't want to share a foreign policy with the US.

During her talk Angela Merkel stressed climate change as something worth future collaboration. It was probably realistic but President Obama probably had the sight more on collaboration with Iran and in Afghanistan. That's right, let's talk about the weather. There is still hope but Afghanistan, for example, looks like something the Germans are going to complain on having been engaged in.

So, what Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac did in 2003 was to make Europe focus on a future with Russia. Natural gas from Russia rather than from the Middle East, although Europe at the time had a higher percent of oil coming from the Middle East than did the US. Both center-right Europe and Social democratic Europe said no to the US. As the numbers indicate, the wound might never heal.

After having gotten tired of talking about the same thing with 27 European heads of state, President Obama turned down the EU-US summit this spring. The EAS is currently not looking as something that on short term is going to improve the relation. The French, the Germans and the English are all a little bit sour on Lady Ashton, EU's first High Representative for foreign affairs. That leaves conventional bilateral relationships instead.

Without the EU, what is then our relationship with the US? Since George W. Bush, we are also talking about the weather. The former US ambassador to Sweden focused on green technology as the glue to forge the two nations together--"One Big Thing" he called it. Sweden is also collaborating with NATO in Afghanistan. The current US Ambassador to Sweden Matthew Barzun recently launched the Swedish American Green Alliance together with Maud Olofsson.

In the Arena

Politiken bärs av idéer Kulturdebatt SvD: "Röpke tecknar en helgjuten ideologisk motbild till ett kollektivistiskt högskattesamhälle som Sverige. Han talar om en ekonomi som borde vara genuint decentraliserad i det att resurserna har förts nedåt i samhället, från stora centrala system, till de enskilda hushållen. Detta inte främst av nationalekonomiska skäl--utan för att det civila samhället brister under trycket av en alltför resurskrävande statsmakt."

I understand this, but at the same time I don't understand it. KD seems then to be 'Nya Moderaterna' with Catholic subsidiarity. I have earlier understood that KD was intimate with the CDU in Germany but Germany has 16 "Länder" which account for their subsidiarity where Sweden is in the size of a "Land". CDU politics and KD politics is organisatorically religious, thereof the epithet 'Christian'. I don't think Sweden has to be broken up further. With modern communications, it should be governable as is.

The state is naturally a resource for the individual and the family in that it can provide information. If you want to subsidiarize a small state like Sweden, it is necessary to organize the country in domains which replace the need for high quality information about the world and about science and arts. It is not reasonable that a multi-system Sweden would be able to recreate a sufficient number of centers of learning which would mean that the otherwise 'lagom' country size Sweden would lose its relative enlightenment, losing successively its main newspapers and SVT edge.

Wilhelm Röpke was apparently important for the development of the German state but CDU has lost voters recently, just like KD. Could it be that building a state is different from operating a state. If CDU is organisatorical, there is not much left to organize and new talent has to be enlisted? On the other hand Germany has gone from a social democracy to a center-right environment and thus copied Röpke's personal natural history towards conservatism.

Personally, I believe that we have entered a new 'enlightenment' with the Internet and that moving towards a traditionally steered domain is premature and counter productive. Earlier discussions by Göran Hägglund, where he, like Erik Wallrup suggested, withdraws from our new and experimental environment, are understandable from the point of view displayed in the current article. Such a localization scheme would, contrary to what Hägglund seems to want, remove the debate from the main arena.

What I miss in this new era of enlightenment is a discussion of Anglo-American freedom. Especially freedom of thought, rather than "the lid on" mentality. You don't want to push the debate down to the kitchen table, where a Catholic patriarch is presiding, but rather have it all out in the arena.

Jealousy?

Dick Erixon — I hjärtat rebell: "Sveriges Radios vetenskapsredaktion rapporterade nyligen om ny forskning i USA som visar att viljan till jämlikhet är biologiskt inprogrammerad i våra hjärnor. “Man har hittat ett fynd i hjärnan som tyder på att det finns ett basalt, inkodat motstånd mot ojämlika fördelningar, i det här fallet pengar”, sa Martin Ingvar, professor i neurofysiologi på Karolinska Institutet till Vetenskapsradion."

I should be fairly easy to prove this on people who are jealous. A non virtue character. Is this problem accounted for? Furthermore I don't think you can use the complicated word "jämlikhet" to discuss these data.

It would however be interesting to ask the question if it is possible to divide Alliansen and the Red-Greens into people that are not jealous and jealous, respectively. People differ in the degree to which they are jealous and in all probability this is a genetic trait, although it might be complicated inheritance with many genes involved.

They have had a discussion on SR.se OBS where the leaders of the political youth organizations have discussed the pros and cons of economic equality. If people work and get money for their work it is not the same as tested in the study above. If Bill Gates makes a discovery that many people like, he is not regarded as a person stealing from others. A healthy person rather become impressed.

Politics is more psychology than philosophy

Filosofi har inte med saken att göra Kulturdebatt SvD: "Filosofin bör hållas utanför politikens banaliteter. Detta bör konservativa intellektuella klargöra, skriver Roland Poirier Martinsson i debatten om högerns tankar."

Reading up on the recent debate on right wing political philosophy: Den upplysta konservatismen; Höger i röd kostym; Några förslag för en tänkande höger; Upplysningstiden som (konservativt) ideal; Upplysningens och konservatismens dialektik; Högeridéer missförstås avsiktligt; Högern har fel filosofer; Rätt konservatism, Rätt upplysning.

Well, it is clear from my perspective that political philosophy in fact started, for example Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, in their discussion of state of nature, as evolutionary psychology in its embryonic form. It could then be argued that Magnus Eriksson's article 'Högern har fel filosofer' might instead read 'Högern har inte tagit till sig tillräckligt av psykologin'. Ayn Rand is for example truly dreaful to read for a 'socialliberal' like myself which perhaps could be regarded as center-right.

If the right consider more psychological aspects, they would find that it is not possible with full employment and that all people cannot handle their own situation although evolutionary aspects tell that individualism must be permitted unbound for fastest possible progress. With a development perspective I would argue that science and religion will fuse first. Then they will both fuse with political science. There will however always be art and I sincerely hope that art will be allowed to develop from 'photography' to more experimental vistas.

When political philosophy has become psychology, and social liberalism the center-right, the "högern" is represented by those unwilling to change very much, "det var bättre förr" kind of guys. Such individuals are by definition in my humble experience are politically not very intellectual which is discussed in the articles above.

The center-left starts with the recognition of economical equality and to fill in on Poirier Martinsson's discussion of Johan Norberg's position, I have no idea why Norberg talks about voting for the social democrats.

Breakfast with the Chinese Ambassador to the EU?

Gunnar Hökmark: "En dag som började med ett frukostmöte med den kinesiske ambassadören till EU som menade att Europas fasthållande vid demokratiska värden skapade problem i relationerna och var ett uttryck för bristande förståelse för Kina."

I was turning pages in the UN declaration of human rights yesterday and couldn't help interesting myself of the problem faced by Hökmark this morning. It is of course necessary to have an opinion that is built on strength during such an accusation. So yes, our democratic rights have served us well over the years and that we have many hundred years of successful trade with various nations before People's Republic of China. So much for the past but what about the future? What is our plan compared to that of China?

However, I would have spared the good ambassador these comments and instead answered that we honor tolerance, an old venerable virtue from the 17th century, and we hope that China would not require us to change our ways in order to do business together. But what happens when Geely buys Volvo Cars? Clash of cultures in Göteborg? Is it possible to have China as a player in the West or is just the opposite possible since our ways are more free?

The next question one would have is if showing an understanding of China's situation really is in one's interest. Apparently they operate their country in another way, they stake different claims in the world. They are for example good friends with Iran. Basij kind of guys! Knowledge of their ways is of course valuable but showing interest perhaps not. I actually find it very intriguing that so many want to do business with Russia and China. It must be very profitable but definitely risky. A new type of warfare?

What should the school teach?

Sverker Sörlin: "Jan Björklunds skolpolitik leder till ökade klyftor." - DN.se: "Björklund talar heller aldrig om vad kunskap är bra för. När han skall säga något om individens frigörelse eller kunskapens glädje är det som om han hade stenar i munnen."

Well, it seems to me that Björklund wins this debate since Sörlin is mixing up practical knowledge and learning with theoretical ditto. Both of course gives satisfaction to the student. Sörlin is attacking Björklund again today in DN (not ONLINE). Sörlin says that the teachers only should decide what is to be taught. This lead to a debate that has not been in the open: whether Alliansen is having a politically steered school and that teachers would transmit more apolitically.

The first thing that comes to mind is how much we are willing to sacrifice on the altar of nationalism? Natural science topics are given but problems arises when we want to discuss subjects that form the Swedish citizen. Sörlin says that there are 200 hours taught the nine first years. The question then is what this 5 week course is going to teach? Sörlin points out that the average kid spends a lot more time on the internet and it is then important to note that the English Wikipedia is both larger and better. It is of essence to internationalize the students early with knowledge in English.

There is a lot of people that want students to discover their roots and learn about how Sweden became what it is today. That is not forward looking. However, given a certain amount of time it might be more important to teach the course about how mankind came to be and that Sweden represents 2% of the EU population and 1% of the trans-Atlantic world. To be honest, we don't have that much influence as some people seem to wish.

The maintenance and establishment of something Swedish seem to me today a waste of time. Environmentalists would not agree of course. But trying to moralize in this direction might lead to more trouble than solutions. Nationalism, the belief that on nation is superior to others, is probably not a winning concept on too small a scale. The scale today is given by the giant China.

Should the students learn Chinese instead? Some people I have heard wish we would. That is typical. Some Swedes have had a penchant for large totalitarian countries before. However, nationalism could be replaced by the same type of awe that we give to athletes. Give credit where credit is due. A good company etc. If the EU is not going to become a home for the Swedes, then the language group of English speakers might. After all we are deeply involved in its cultural output.

So teach the five week course on the development of the Western civilization. Our historic time from the Sumerians and forward. Speaking for myself I belong in the English language group. Swedes learn English early so I would have many with me. There will always be those who are fascinated with Swedish history that will carry this forward as a pastime. Swedish history has had relatively little impact on the world. It is good to know when you are abroad.

The leading foreign policy of Sweden

Fredrik Malm: Utrikesdebatt idag: "Vänsterpartiet håller i oppositionens taktpinne: Oppositionen presenterade idag en överenskommelse om utrikespolitiken. Men frågan är vad de egentligen har kommit överens om. Där nämns ingenting om EU. Där nämns ingenting om Afghanistan. Orsaken är att S, V och MP inte kan enas."

Let us hope that Obama's and McChrystal's strategy works in Afghanistan. This would be good for most people. However, if it fails and the death toll continues to increase also this year this would mean that the "Red-Green mess" will clarify most eminently.

Based on available data the prospects for a happy ending are low. Hopefully there are things we don't now. The spin for the moment looks beneficial.

Hope then separates us from a new era in Swedish foreign policy with the return of a neutrality politics. A type of isolationism.

Congress?

Democrats Reel as Senator Bayh Steps Aside - NYTimes.com: "What was most striking about Mr. Bayh’s announcement was the deep disillusionment he expressed with his place of employment, a feeling reflected in recent polls. In a New York Times/CBS News poll last week, 75 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the job Congress was doing; just 8 percent said members of Congress deserved re-election."

Tea Party members talk about a revolution and the Real Clear Politics job approval for Congress is down to 20.4%. It fell 3% just recently. I have discussed the role of the Presidency itself. President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately but it can of course be argued that much of his problem is from the system itself. Bayh's willingness to serve is not gone it is his willingness to serve in Congress that is diminished. Bayh said that the system used to work, eg, when his father was a senator. This would assume that changes has been made that no one talks about.

Dagens Nyheter is also noting the event. PJ Anders Linder and Ulf Bjereld discussed the Swedish election process yesterday on the program Studio Ett on the radio. Nya Moderaterna is having a hard time after some cheating in the election process was discovered. Linder advocated election of MPs via direct election whereas Bjereld wanted the party to nominate candidates according to the present system.

It is possible to argue for both types of candidates but what remains is what nasty tongues call "röstboskap", ie, MPs only function is to push that voter button. Some say that the Riksdag should be removed because it is outmoded. It is however hard to find data on the popularity of the Swedish Riksdag but is in all probability larger than that of the US and Great Britain. After recent scandals in Britain their approval rate must be below 20%.

That would be the same argument that the American polls indicate. They use a system of election to personal tickets and seem to have the same type of problem. Dick Erixon often brings up this question and have the argument that a directly elected candidate would represent the voters only. That, however, is the crucial question because it seems like people have other authorities than politicians today. The US and British system are constructed in this way and they are less popular. Party memberships are dwindling.

Considering the direct election of candidates a person like President Obama should perhaps not have been considered due to the fact that he had not run a state. Perhaps governorship should be a prerequisite? I have discussed this before. Running a campaign is not the same as running the US. In Sweden, a smaller place, 'kommunstyrelsens ordförande', a mayor position, should perhaps be better than party leader? In the US party leaders are small fish. It should be remembered though that Sweden has both a more popular leader and a more popular parliament than the US.

Someone said that we don't elect people for what they have achieved in Sweden but for what they say they will do. I think this is particularly foolish in the upcoming election where the recumbents have performed well but lag in the polls all through their term. Shouldn't there be accountability at the same time as there should be a vision of the future?

A vision of the future is difficult when part of the EU which is claimed void of consensus for visions. Sweden is operating quite well at the moment. There is not much to complain on. The vision that is claimed is that of a 'föregångsland', ie, a country that is leading the way in perhaps environmental concerns. Sweden tops the EU in environmental concerns. I would rather like to see that Sweden became a 'föregångsland' on transparency in the governing system.

What then about the governing system in Sweden? Are Anglo-America ahead of us despite the presently more popular system in Sweden? Probably they are. Our system might start to fail when the parties disappear. Something is going to become evident then. The quest in the Tea Party movement for no leadership is very interesting. Do they actually mean that everyone is going to be equal or can't they for some reason don't talk about their clandestine leaders?

In Sweden, clandestine leaders can't become public leaders and legislate without puppet MPs, as the system is currently operating. "Röstboskapen" are taking orders from below instead of from above perhaps? Well, do people know about this? According to the poll in the cited article above people don't want their leaders to be reelected. That would mean that they have not agreed to the system. Not good!

Heja Charlotte Kalla!

I find it very interesting that it is so stimulating when a fellow Swede takes a gold medal in sports. There is a tacit translation in my mind, probably, that makes me think we are good as a group because she is good. Thank you Charlotte Kalla for your pixie dust.

However, this feeling of ours is a problem when it comes to Europe as such. When I first engaged on the EU problem I was directed to an EU web site, Debate Europe, where I quickly learned that there was no EU. We just do business together. I refused to listen, for good reasons, but now I am convinced, we are diverging.

I guess it is time to focus on Brazil and Mexico, although there is very little information about these places for the average Swede. I have said it before, therefore I try to focus on what is interesting for Anglo-American press, even if they apparently are out to destroy the Euro, if I'm to believe the Spanish. There are 600m English speaking individuals. It is a good start and deserves a continuation. So even if the pixie dust still works I'm decidedly Anglo-American.

Paul Krugman on nytimes.com today gives EU the verdict that moving forward would mean further political integration but he immediately claims this is not going to happen any time soon. My current feeling is that this is never going to happen. It will be interesting to see how the ECB will try to prove him wrong.

I guess what I just have been discussed played out here in Sweden recently when the position of EU-minister was up for repossession. Many did not think we needed one. We do and we don't, I guess. We need one for promoting the business. To site a Romanian fellow on Debate Europe: EU is just about economics.

The Swift Treaty II

Nej till Swiftavtalet - DN.se: "Dessutom har USA, enligt DN.se:s källor, gjort klart under förhandlingarna att om det skulle bli nej till det tillfälliga Swiftavtalet är man inte intresserade av att förhandla om ett långsiktigt avtal med EU"

It seems like Fredrik Reinfeldt and his colleagues last fall, all elected in elections with higher turn-outs than the EU parliament election, had agreed to a temporary treaty that would increase our defense against terrorism.

Now our MEPs and others in the name of democracy tries to hide this anti-Americanism. They claim victory as if they were in Afghanistan.

An American view

European Visions?

Former European Commissioner Günter Verheugen: The EU 'Has No Vision of Where We Are Heading' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International: "Germany's outgoing European commissioner, Günter Verheugen, who just spent 10 years in the Commission: 'There seems to be no vision within the Union of where we are heading. There is no consensus over where the borders of the EU should lie in the future, and there is no consensus over how we should define our role in the world.'"

Verheugen thinks further expansion or not is the most important issue facing the EU. Apparently the German public, like myself, is pleased with the present status quo. However, Verheugen thinks stopping expansion would be a fatal mistake. It generates good markets for especially Germany.

Apparently Joschka Fischer, who published an article on DN.se the other day, is for further integration, and thus think differently than Verheugen, they however have the same idea of expanding eastward to Russia. Verheugen uses the argument that we are already in competition with China and Latin America who are larger than us and given time they will become potentially larger in their economies as well.

This vision of a Europe that reaches the Pacific came a little as a surprise to me I must admit. I guess it would mean that Russia is succumbing to the European economy and joins the EU. I wonder if Joschka Fischer meant the same without spelling it out? One point makes sense to me and that is that it is difficult to envision Russia by itself between the EU, China and Japan. They will be hard pressed and their population is actually decreasing.

The thought of having Russia as a European Texas has been aired in this blog before but ruled out due to their own attitude. However, Russia is buying arms from France currently. A France that Fischer thinks is out of the picture. Verheugen have lost the UK in approximately the same fashion.

We apparently have the same problem in Europe as they have in the US. The Mainstream think local and non-hierarchical whereas the Elite, or Political Class, have visions. They talk about The First Pacific President and about EU the Pacific. And the gap is widening. I wonder, however, if it is not very wise to follow the Mainstream when the Political Class is in doubt. Is it for example possible, even, to call it a "vision".

Govern without Government: Is America heading in the direction of Europe, rather?

75% Are Angry At Government’s Current Policies - Rasmussen Reports™: "The divide between the Political Class and Mainstream voters, however, is remarkable. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Mainstream voters are angry, but 84% of the Political Class are not. Those numbers include 57% of Mainstream voters who are Very Angry and 51% of the Political Class who are not angry at all."

65% of voters nationwide now hold populist, or Mainstream, views of government. That is up from 62% in November last year and from 55% last March. Göran Hägglund, with his "verklighetens folk" probably sings: wish I was there. Mainstream people tend to trust the wisdom of the crowd. Those who trust the political class are only 4%.

Bettina Bibiano, a 47 year old film maker from Los Angeles, said the Tea Party movement does not need an iconic Obama figure. "It is hard for us to unite behind anyone person," she explained. "We are not a cult." They might however be a cult of the Independence Declaration and the literal interpretation of the Constitution. The Tea Party movement is about 40% so they have plenty of room to grown in the populist domain.

This should be contrasted with all the complaints about non-charismatic EU leader Herman van Rompuy. Is the organization of the EU a step ahead of the Tea Party movement or are we talking about two quite different things?

What I don't understand is the outright quest for equality which differs quite a lot from the acceptance of the successful, the idol of the American dream, someone to rally behind. The American Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths for self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Apparently, at the same time they are against European equality. It is apparently trumped by the Freedom in their rights.

At the same time as the Asians talk about forming a union of Asian nations, with billions of inhabitants, the US is talking about ridding themself of a central authority and Europe in principle going against the Lisbon Treaty leaving the charismatic leader and one phone number aside. Autonomous smaller units seems to be the the solution. Even smaller than the states. No wonder the interest in foreign policy is way down at the same time as states starts to act, France by selling battleships to Russia and Germany by talk of a European Army.

Everything global might take a beating in these circles. This would not be good for global poverty reduction.

Ungovernableness?

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - America is Not Ungovernable: "Recently, some analysts have suggested that the lack of major policy breakthroughs in the last year is due to the fact that America has become ungovernable. Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America's 'political instability' was making people abroad nervous."

The author argues that the US is governable but Obama has failed.

Here is another take on the Obama story. Unlike The Economist who asks whether Obama has failed or not they ask whether the US is governable or not. However, I found the following book summary statement:

"I conclude that networks are now a pervasive feature of service delivery in Britain; that such networks are characterized by trust and mutual adjustment and undermine management reforms rooted in competition; and that they are a challenge to governability because they become autonomous and resist central guidance". Replace Tea Party groups as networks as an experiment.

If you end up with a country organized mainly in this fashion, ie, with these kind of networks, the presidency just float on top. It will be especially evident if the government is not most informed. A typical example was George W. Bush who was utterly lame duckized. Will Obama follow? According to David Brooks 41% are organized in the Tea Party format. The movement is already larger than each of the parties.

I read all the articles written about the Tea Party Convention this weekend and there were statements that they were not looking for leadership. Like if they wanted to govern without government. If I understand this correctly it will become a sort of coexistence that then still would require some form of a minimal government. The revolution Sarah Palin is talking about might be how to replace government with a new minimal government?

Is there any similarity with Obama I and George III?

Sarah Palin assails Obama at 'tea party' gathering - Yahoo! News: "Catering to her crowd, Palin talked of limited government, strict adherence to the Constitution, and the 'God-given right' of freedom. She said the 'fresh, young and fragile' movement is the future of American politics because it's 'a ground-up call to action' to both major political parties to change how they do business. 'America is ready for another revolution!' she told the gathering."

When David Brooks wrote of is contempt for the Tea Party movement I called my post The American Revolution 2.0 because it sounded like this. Now Sarah Palin, a perhaps informal leader to this movement, says this herself. It should be noted that they are against both political parties.

At the time of the American Revolution there was a leadership of a few enlightened men and a rabble that set out to defeat the undefeatable. It is apparently the elites of today that seem to be the problem. What I would like to know is whether or not the same people were against George W. Bush? Is it the American Presidency they are out to bring down. They talk presently about not in essence having any leader!? That would make them like the EU.

With the public approval of Congress edging towards a new low of 23.5%, it is conceivable that a complete overhaul of the ruling establishment is being wished for? The Economist is running a new debate where the position of the house is that Obama is failing. The result seems to be that about half of the people think so. However, as the defendant claims people have not yet started to get personal like with George W. Bush who had below 30% approval.

The question I would like to ask the Tea Party movement is whether they are not asking for the return of a lost "way of life"? Fareed Zakaria wrote in his book the Post-American World that American government is outdated. Sarah Palin stand for a very conservative religious world view and makes a point above that it is the God-given rights that matter which seems to rule out that atheists have human rights as indicated by the Independence Declaration.

The question I would like to ask the "elite" is what the replacement of the current American Government should be?

Weapons of the past?

Remarks By Carl Bildt at the Global Zero Summit: "But from my particular European perspective I would urge for an agreement on further limits on strategic arms to be followed by talks aimed at reductions also on sub-strategic nuclear weapons."

The citation is from a thoughtful speech by Carl Bildt from a couple of days ago. Apparently President Obama does not think we will remove nuclear weapons during his lifetime and Bildt adds that this will not happen "tomorrow". I don't think nuclear weapons, by all means, is the last murderous weapon Man will invent. There will be more to come. However, for terrorists nuclear weapons can't be judged a "weapon of the past". They seem instead to be the weapons of tomorrow.

We could not prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't think we will be able to prevent Iran from this either. Bildt argues that when the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 was ratified there were five nuclear states. Now there are at least four more. He adds that we are now at a critical point and I can't agree more. This can be seen in the international press in the discussions around Iran's nuclear program. It is rogue and labile states that now are acquiring nuclear weapons with resources to start producing terrorist grade ones.

With due respect of the initiative from Bildt and Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, I believe that a progressive European perspective on the nuclear issue should be focused on the proliferation aspect. Yes, less tactical weapons might mean less chance of "broken arrows" but Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps clandestine organizations make their own gear.

North Korea and Iran are backed by China, who then does not show what the West mean by responsibility for the security of the world community. Most data speak in the direction of this meaning that we will have to live with "loose canons". It therefore seems like these weapons have to be stopped at the borders and that the discussion would have to be geared in this direction instead. After all we have the Kaliningrad and Kola weapons on our doorstep already.

Extrapolating from Chinese intent, they let North Korea through and armed Pakistan, it seems like they would not mind a Western town going up in smoke with the loss of moral this would entail. The questioning of Tony Blair, the former prime minister of the UK, recently aired the idea that the judgment of risk attached to Muslim fundamentalism allows for the destruction of 30,000 people or so. If Iran acts by proxy via Hamas and Hizbollah, it seems China is doing the same via North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. The Muslim radical being their wasser träger.

Europe could then act in solidarity with the US and not sell civilian air craft and weapons to China when China is threatening the US as The Economist suggests. However, the Chinese play tough and say that Europe should sell weapons to them now so that they would be able to buy from China in the future. This is the cross roads we currently are at. Backing the US against China or joining China in potential trade wars. What are our values? Well, there is a great difference between an American Republican and a Swedish Social Democrat. But if there would be anything to the talk of human rights in the West, we are miles away from the average Chinese.

Europe should then somehow sway Iran to their side a move that would block China's proxy fight. It is really important with a peaceful solution for this equation and it is very probable that Europe would win in fair competition with China in Iran. Interestingly, this would mean going China's way on Iran which is what China probably does not want the West to do. They gamble on conflict which suits them better. A friendly Iran means a friendly Turkey and friendly diasporas in Europe. It would make the Middle East more peaceful. Both Russia and China are trying to rule by divide in Europe. China sees itself starting a new Asian dynasty and would not mind a lower grade Eurabia, although I personally don't think there is a risk for this development.

However, due to a low interest by Europeans in the G1+G1 'affairs' and due to a problem of a disunited Europe, the EU should follow the lead of the US, while still acting alone. The problem is that if the elites of Europe realize this the average European is very local in her thinking, at least according to available statistics. Therefore I see a great need for an EU minister in Sweden that can paint up the greater picture for the Swedes in that they will become true Europeans. Without even a pan-European television channel and a common language, this is a very difficult job.