The Real Winner in France: Lou Dobbs

I once had drinks with a super-smart Macedonian economist who, after having helped influence the economic policy of her struggling country, was now working for international institutions trying to convince her own government to do what it took to join the World Trade Organization. "That must be kinda strange," I said (and these quotes, to say the least, are not exact), "lobbying your small country to join a body where small countries, compared to the larger ones, get screwed."

She shrugged. "What alternative do we have?"

That more or less sums up my lukewarm support for the European Union project, and my lukewarm dread over this weekend's rejection of the Constitution. (My wife, on the other hand, is furious at her fellow Frogs because she sees it as Bove-headed rejection of much-needed economic liberalization.) Supporters of the EU, like supporters of the WTO, have long tried to shoo away the contradiction that they're basically saying the ends (reduction of tarrifs and various barriers) justify the means (the erosion of sovereignty, reduction of democracy, and creation of mind-boggling bureaucracy). If the EU starts to unravel or just sink (which isn't necessarily very likely), we won't need to look hard for its fatal flaw.

Opponents of the EU, meanwhile, need to grapple with a contradiction of their own -- that the democratic slap to the Brussels technocrats (which looks set to continue today) will likely lead to more illiberal policies, rising trade barriers, and stronger anti-Americanism. The answer to the question "What alternative do we have?", could be, as the L.A. Times' Andres Martinez worries today, a Lou Dobbs world where the 1990s are seen as some fin-de-siecle fantasy-land in which people were foolish enough to believe they could travel and exchange goods freely, without paying fealty to the nationalisms of the moment. Those who prefer the latter to the former need to go back to the drawing board.

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

I listened to some of the street interviews in the Netherlands today, and immigration from Turkey seemed to be a big (albeit veiled) concern.

...How's Le Pen doing in the polls these days?

Economic growth and an inflexible work force, etc. aren't the only problematic contradictions. Once you've decided to stick with a rigid economic system, isn't increased immigration the only alternative to a top heavy demographic with low birth rates?

[spur]

speaking of french womens reactions, how did that semi-hot, petti-boug, protest organizing pro-war french almost-libertarian chick you profiled as a potential savior of the doomed french republic view the vote and what side was she one? can't find her webpage anymore.

[Max]

Seems like economics may not be the biggest issue, although it gets the most press. One bit that keeps getting brought up, and then casually dismissed, is the fact that this is not a democratic process rather it it just a bunch on technocrat elites in Brussels making laws (and history). I would be pissed about that if I was in the E.U.
PS- I saw that LePen is doing quite well- remember it was only the last go round when he forced a run off with Chirac. So I guess there are plenty of people in France who are really pissed if they are willing to lie down with that dog.

[Eric II]

Sabine Herold? The Telegraph had her take on the issue.

Down the road, however, they are extolling the constitution at a meeting for Libert? Cherie. Sabine Herold, their spokesman, says: "I think that only the European Union can break the hold of the unions and drag France into the 21st century. We have 10 per cent unemployment, we are in a rut. We need to become more Anglo-Saxon."

[Joe Bonforte]

Opponents of the EU, meanwhile, need to grapple with a contradiction of their own -- that the democratic slap to the Brussels technocrats (which looks set to continue today) will likely lead to more illiberal policies, rising trade barriers, and stronger anti-Americanism.

How can water get any wetter? Do you really think the statists that want control of Europe would be easier to deal with than the current leaders of Britain, Poland, et. al.?

With several countries to deal with, we at least have a chance at picking them off one at a time to get them to confront the real world. But one passel of Brussels technocrats to deal with would mean complete intransigence until Europe suffers complete economic collapse.

Europe has such major problems to solve - high unemployment, low growth, out-of-control welfare state, aging population, unassimilated immigrants - that it will almost certainly take some experimentation to solve the problem. That's a lot more likely if several sovereign entities are grappling with the problems than one uber-government that is required by their very constitution to preserve the welfare state at all costs. (As a presumed libertarian, Matt, I would have expected you to realize that immediately.)

[MikeP]

That's a lot more likely if several sovereign entities are grappling with the problems than one uber-government that is required by their very constitution to preserve the welfare state at all costs.

And one should remember that the EU is not monolithic, especially monolithically French. The new eastern European countries are quite a bit more liberal than the old members. My biggest worry is that greater and intentioned centralization in Brussels will allow the old fat countries to force feed the newer high-growth countries a trans-national-fat diet of taxes and regulation that will make them competitively uncompetitive with the west.

The biggest hope for Europe -- and the world -- is that the central and eastern parts of the Europe outcompete the west and force them into reform.

In general the world as a whole is improved by bigger trade blocks and smaller sovereignty blocks. And if the rejections of the EU constitution are really because the populations fear greater economic freedoms, we surely don't want those appetites pulling bigger levers in Brussels than they can in Paris or Amsterdam.

[quasibill]

"One bit that keeps getting brought up, and then casually dismissed, is the fact that this is not a democratic process rather it it just a bunch on technocrat elites in Brussels making laws (and history). I would be pissed about that if I was in the E.U."

Assuming that you're in the states, you should then be equally pissed about the Uniform Commercial Code, which is crafted by technocratic elites and then presented to individual state legislatures, who are bullied into accepting it or else they cause inter-state problems. If it involves interstate commerce, why isn't a matter for Congress to decide, you might ask? Good question, and one that should illuminate the extent to which democracy is a good thing...

[BlogDog]

I think I'd rather be in Bob Dobbs world than a Lou Dobbs world.

[m]

Slack. We all need slack.

[bunkerbuster]

Lou Dobbs lusts for nothing so much as Bill O'Reilly's audience...

[thoreau]

I think The Economist proposed a decent Constitution for the EU: Outline a set of institutions, define their relations to one another, specify that the EU shall have only those powers adopted in separate, unanimously ratified treaties, and further specify that there is no "elastic clause" or "implied powers."

[David Davenport]

[Once you've decided to stick with a rigid economic system, isn't increased immigration the only alternative to a top heavy demographic with low birth rates?]

Why not have more white babies? Why isn't that an alternative?

[Ken Shultz]

"Why not have more white babies? Why isn't that an alternative?"

European women continue to choose to have fewer babies, maybe that will suddenly change--I don't know of anyone that expects they will.

When I was just a little kid in the '70s, I overheard people arguing about how women would behave once they had the same career opportunities as men. The more conservative among them claimed that, given a choice, women prefer to stay home and have four kids. The liberals said that, given a choice, women would rather forego children altogether and have a career.

...Shultz's Fourth Law of Social Dynamics states explicitly that when females are confronted with mutually exclusive alternatives, they often choose both. ...and in keeping with that, sure enough, women chose to join the workforce and have one or two rather than four children.

Has this not been Europe's experience also?

I think it's possible to have both a growth economy and a declining population, but I think that would assume an extremely flexible economy. If you're going with a rigid economy, and you want to keep that worker to retiree ratio at a workable number, one way or another, you're going to have to have more legal workers payin' into the system, no?

...Anyway, having more European babies is certainly an option; I just don't know of anyone who thinks it's even a remote possibility. So if I were a European that was really concerned about immigration--some people are really into worryin' about that sort of thing--I'd be advocating extremely flexible labor laws.

[M. Simon]

quasibill,

The Euros already have a UCC. That is what the economic integration is all about (at least to a certain extent).

What the Euro Constitution is all about is political integration with the people having very little input.

[Kirk Parker]

Hey Sabine,

I certainly agree the French would be better off economically if they because more "Anglo-Saxon", but good grief--how can you think this version of the EU will help you get there???

[kwais]

"Why not have more white babies? Why isn't that an alternative?"

Well for that women would have to choose to have more babies, and that ain't going to change unless the moslems take over, and everyone lives by their rules.

Of course there is always cloning as an option. Raising a large number of cloned white kids could become a government job.

[Warren]

Ya know, I remember back when every gullible fool (read: corporate manager) was all twitterpated over Y2K, and all the neo-hippies were convulsing in the streets of Seattle. There were a several folks that pointed out that there was a global economy once at the turn of the last century. Apparently all the prosperity allowed the indulgence of nationalism. The inevitable result of which was two World Wars, a Great depression, and the rise of Communism. If history repeats itself, we're under a decade away from WWI II. I tell ya, it wouldn't surprise me if the Bush administration was negotiating secret alliances either. We could be just one dead Prince away, right now.

[kwais]

Warren,
On the dead prince thing; rumor is that the king is really dead, and that fact is being hidden from the public amidst CNN & Fox News stories of his recovering health.

I don't know anything about that though,
When the Y2K came, I made sure I had plenty of guns and ammo, and some food stashed away, and then I went to go see girls flash their titties in celebration. It was a good time.

[David Davenport]

[ Well for that women would have to choose to have more babies, and that ain't going to change unless the moslems take over, and everyone lives by their rules. ]

That is Olde Europe's future.

[Chancellor Euro Palpatine]

Of course there is always cloning as an option. Raising a large number of cloned white kids could become a government job.

I propose the creation of a Grand Army of the Union, consisting of clone troopers, to defend us against the growing threat of these separatists.

[mewsiferous]

Relax everyone; this is good for us (and them) both short and long term. They did everything backwards - you're supposed to have a constitution first, then use it to pass legislation. Can you imagine if the US constitution regulated by article apartment prices in Santa Monica? A constitution founds a nation state; Europe isn't ready to be one yet, unless you want to found it in opposition to the US as Chirac and Schroeder would like. Think of it this way: when Europe finally is ready, French influence will have been diminished seriously. That's good for everyone, even the French!