contents   inside europa international special holidays cultur

international phantom universities (en) hodge-podge of dreams (en) università in lotta (it) kidnappers (en) 1st maya university (it/en) short news

HODGE-PODGE OF DREAMS How the US media struggles to explain the EU constitution to the Americans    | Brad Steiner (BERLIN). Since arriving in Berlin last fall, it has been interesting to watch the development and ultimate failure of the EU Constitution. Largely absent from the US media last year, my opinions have been shaped by the discussion that took place here in Germany. I was pleased then, to see some editorial page ink dedicated to the issue leading up to and after the French vote. I was disappointed, however, that the arguments made, while from an American perspective, failed to address many of the key issues and deep beliefs that underlie the European project. Arguments posted can be grouped loosely into three categories: political, economic, and ideological. It is mainly the conservative papers that focus on the immediate political implications of a failed constitution, often with the idea of and “old” an “new” Europe. Before the French vote, John Sullivan in the Chicago Sun-Times hopes for a “non,” reasoning that “America’s friends” will have more influence when France and Germany no longer dominate.    After the vote, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial flatly states “the constitution’s failure will make it easier for the US to fashion future coalitions of the willing.” Bret Stevens, again in the Journal, goes even further, stating that the “freedom” now enjoyed by the countries in Eastern Europe has less to do with ascension to the EU last year, and more to do with the Reagan legacy of bringing down communism. In a pre-vote oped in the typically liberal Los Angeles Times, Gary Schmitt worries that even if the constitution was to go through, with its “streamlined foreign policy bureaucracy,” the “consensus-driven process” underlying the EU would not change, and while the continent might enjoy a louder voice, “its words would be no different.”    Not surprisingly, papers across the political spectrum are nearly unanimous in their critique of the “European social-welfare model” versus “Anglo-Saxon” liberalizing reforms. The LA Times and left-leaning New York Times both state simply that the EU needs more reforms and less regulation. The right-of-center David Brooks dedicates a June 2 column in the NY Times to the failure of Europe to deliver jobs and growth over the past 10 years, arguing that “generous welfare measures” and “high protective tax rates” among other policies are “not flexible enough for the modern world. They encourage people to cling fiercely to entitlements their nations cannot afford and, far from breeding a confident, progressive outlook, they breed a reactionary fear of the future.” The conservative papers agree on all these points, but focus particularly on restrictive labor policies such as the 35-hour work week (often portrayed as lazy), and state subsidies which discourage the development of private-sector competition. They also point to, however, the positive impact the Euro has had on European integration, citing the advantages it has given to poorer, low-tax countries.    Most of the papers agree as well when it comes to ideological arguments against the constitution. Criticisms fall into two general categories: shortcomings of the document itself and skepticism of the process by which it was created. Few can resist a comparison with the drafting of the US Constitution, often pointing to its seven articles versus the 448 of its EU namesake. They also have fun mentioning some of its more obscure articles on reindeer husbandry, or the real-estate market in Malta. After the French vote, the Boston Herald condemns the “nearly 500-page hodge-podge that confused rights with hopes, dreams, and pointless expressions of sentimentality.”    When addressing how the document was drafted and “marketed,” the papers all draw attention to the perceived unaccountability of the elites behind the constitution to their respective citizens. Leaders from Czech president Vaclav Klaus to German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer are quoted bemoaning the “democratic deficit” between “the elite and citizens of Europe.” The Wall Street Journal even cites a French diplomat saying, “If they understood it, they wouldn’t vote for it.” These are damning accusations in a country with the current (though waning) zeal for “spreading democracy,” but no mention is made of the cultural diversity and current political compromises that define Europe. George Will of the Washington Post suggests the “founding fathers” of the US would “turn over in their graves” if the constitution were to pass, but without reflecting on the vast differences between colonial New England and present-day Europe.    Americans, through the prism of their constant desire to see new and innovative solutions combined with limited information about the political environment in Europe, were simply disappointed with what the constitution had to offer — on both sides of the Atlantic. Whether for these or different reasons, voters in France and Holland seem to agree. By this time, over a week after the “non,” the issue of deeper European integration is largely absent from the media and minds of most Americans. I suspect it will remain that way until another grand effort, with mostly new players, is made. I hope at that time more effort is made on the side of the politicians and the media, to explain it to the people it is bound to effect. | The complete text of the EU Constitution in all languages