Fiancial Times er fremdeles one of the best buys på lørdag. (20 kroner!). Ian Buruma, som reflekterer over en paneldebatt han var leder for i New York i høst, der temaet nettopp var at Atlanterhavet er blitt bredere.

Amerikanske Jane Kramer klaget over at skribenter i USA er var marginalisert i motsetning til hva som er tilfellet i Europa.

Occasionally during this evening I could not entirely suppress the feeling that this was not such a bad thing.

Blant deltakerne var Peter Schneider, Bernard-Henri Levy, katalaneren Carles Torner, og Tariq Ali.

Buruma gjennomgår påstandene om de store forskjellene, og finner at det ikke stemmer. Europa er blitt amerikanisert, og sekularisert, og har problemer med å sortere: Det har hengt seg opp i Bush sin retorikk.

Europa lider under noen alvorlige feilpersepsjoner når det gjelder amerikanske høyrepolitikk. Det er europeisk høyrepopulisme som er virulent, giftig, ja, dødelig. Den amerikanske er libertarian. Men også i dette etteraper Europa USA. Jörg Haider snakker stadig mer mot overformynderi, ikke for å overta staten og hive ut de uønskede. Bemerker Buruma.

Books Essay: Mind the gap

Oppe i all forvrengingen av hva USA står for, er det viktig å lese noen som kan opplyse. Forskjellene på amerikanske populisme og europeisk er ikke akkurat noen detalj:

And here, perhaps, lies one difference with Europe. American populism, from Andrew Jackson to Arnie Schwarzenegger, may sound coarse to our fastidious ears, but it has, on the whole, been more libertarian, even democratic, than European strains of populism.

The right to carry guns, the wish to keep the death penalty and the penchant for religious rhetoric are expressions of public opinion, and thus of American democracy. European (and some American) intellectuals might not all be anti- democratic, but they are for the most part anti-populist. This is enough reason to loathe America, or, some time ago, Margaret Thatcher, the closest thing to a European American.

European populism, especially of the Continental variety, as opposed to the more libertarian Anglo-Saxon kind, has very different associations.

It is tainted by fascism, national-socialism, and hostility to immigrants. There have always been racist, even Nazi elements in the wackier fringes of American populism, too, but they never became the 2_kommentarstream as they did in European history.

And even in those wacky fringes of white supremacy and vigilantism, talk is less of taking over the state than of getting rid of it.

European populism was also, ironically, almost always anti- American, hence Levy’s anti-anti-Americanism.

European populism, from the French Poujadistes to Jorg Haider, is not about getting the state off the backs of God-fearing individuals, but about using state power to exclude its purported enemies, usually ethnic or religious minorities.

It is almost impossible to imagine a European populist, who is an immigrant and speaks with a foreign accent, such as Governor Schwarzenegger.

President Bush, in spite of being the privileged heir of a political dynasty, has successfully sold himself as the folksy Texan who conquered the Washington establishment.

He is the most populist president since Ronald Reagan. His brand of swaggering, tax-slashing, gun-loving, bible-bashing zeal is no doubt irritating, especially to intellectuals who feel marginalised by it, and perhaps even dangerous, but it is not fascistic, as some Europeans claim. That is simply to apply the history of European populism to America, which is not a very good fit.

If these different European and American political traditions reflect clashing values, I would argue that the gap is actually growing smaller.

Not only are all European governments much closer now to Anglo-American liberalism than to pre-war authoritarianism, but even European populists are becoming more like the Americans.

Hva består da forskjellen mellom USA og Europa i, spør Buruma. Europa er blitt selvstendig, hva angår velstand og utdannelse, men har ikke modnet sikkerhetspolitisk og strategisk. Det har problemer med å stå på egne ben, og befinner seg i en slags pubertetsfase i forhold til USA.

Jeg finner sammenligningen noe haltende, selv om den ikke er helt uten poeng. Burumas styrke er hans kunnskaper om europeisk fascisme. Buruma har også noen skarpe ord om Bush by the way.

By using the understandable fears of many Americans of terrorist attacks to militarise US society and weaken its civil liberties, the Bush administration is doing as much damage at home as it does to its image abroad.

Ansvarsfraskrivelse
Nettutgaven har med et avsnitt som mangler i papirversjonen. Europeerne overlater verden til USA. Det fører til ansvarsfraskrivelse, også når det gjelder våre institusjoner, og det undergraver styrken i våre demokratier. Europa negliserer truslene som eksisterer utenfor dets grenser:

As the British diplomat and foreign policy intellectual Robert Cooper says: «We cannot just sit back and leave the rest of the world to America.» And not because of diverging interests, necessarily. The point is more political. Too much dependence leads to institutionalised irresponsibility, which undermines our democracies.