Try this on for size:
Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg (who was EU presidenct) declared that if the voters approved the new EU, it was a go. And if they didn’t, it was STILL a go.
Get the feeling that the architects of the New Europe don’t give a rat’s ass what their people think or want?
Tiny nitpick: It’s “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?”
Bruce Bawer obviously hasn’t watched Newsnight, or read Private Eye, The Guardian or even (not that I blame him) The Daily Mail.
The BBC news service is as a whole very left-aligned (not the same as Labour-aligned) and has been known to simply not report items damaging to those in the Labour party still in its good graces. For example, I’ve yet to see any mention about Mandelson’s finances, and I’ve seen reports on Samizdata.net and Biased BBC they’ve been caught editting articles on their website.
Just to nitpick your description of the various papers’ allegiances, I’d call the Sun populist (read: big tits) rather than right-wing. And both the Sun and the Times toe the Murdoch line, not right-wing or left-wing.
None of the media are unbiased; as long as you know the bias, you can adjust for it.
Back to the OP, it certainly seems to me that the UK’s politicians are elitist. They swan around in their chauffeur-driven cars, or claim their fuel on expenses - and they have very generous expenses. (And some of them, like Michael Trend, are caught fiddling their expenses anyway). Many also have houses or pads in London, and so do not need cars for much of the time. They have assistants to do their shopping; they have secretaries to filter their letters. They have come up through the ranks of political hackery. This leads, IMHO, to an unreality zone where they are significantly divorced from the needs of their constituents.
But this doesn’t seem to differ substantially from the privileged status of federal politicians in the US. I don’t see how Bawer could claim that European politicians are more “elitist” than American ones just on the basis of this kind of economic top-doggery.
No no no, that’s the Old Europe, the New Europe is countries that end in -ia, like Bulgaria and Latvia. I’m not sure how Juncker’s remarks translate into popular positions on death penalty, gun ownership though.
While it’s true that Europe overall has a (or several) fairly entrenched wealthy caste who tend to dominate politics, culture, the media etc, we’ve also had a number of revolutions, two World Wars, and some powerful political movements that have tended to shake up the Old Order.
As an example of the diversity of European politics, candidates at the last French Presidential election included Olivier Besancenot, a then 28 year-old postman who garnered 1.2 million votes, and Jean-Marie Le Pen who was only defeated by Jacques Chirac (the incumbent). I think it’s fair to say that a number of highly differing ideologies and power networks were in play at that election.
Since the end of the cold war however, I find that Europe has been drifting slowly closer to the American model, where there are basically only two unchanging parties, presenting very similar candidates and positions. This is not necessarily a bad thing if it shuts out some of the more extreme positions and allows for a little more continuity in government (cf Italy), but I believe the coalition government scenarios we used to see so often were more truly representative of the vox populi, and helped keep the politicians on their toes.
This was really interesting. While it’s true that in France we get some ‘man of the people’ politicians, we tend to be wary of ‘demagogues’, and currently have a large crop of ‘technocrat’ types. We’ve also had a lot of highly publicized scandals lately (kickbacks and misuse of public property), so there may be another shakeup coming.
I’m not sure that this proves much, but Romano Prodi (Italian PM) reputedly used to ride home on public transportation when he was at the EC.
Were you to come up with better cites than heavily slanted blogs, I might find your testimony more convincing. With a very little research I myself examined one article on a similar blog (“BBC watch” IIRC), and the little digging I did forced them to print a retraction. While it’s true that Labour politicians have attempted to lean on the Beeb to prevent bad news, and some accusations of left-wing bias might be upheld even the most cursory glance at Newsnight or Have I Got News For You, or a quick listen to the Today Programme, and you surely have to realise that the Beeb is nowhere near pro-government. That really is the most ridiculous allegation. Do you really live in the same country as me, or do you just not watch it?
I agree, except the Murdoch line is at present right-wing, and thus the papers are.
Methinks you’re misinterpreting the meaning of “elitist” in the OP. All politicians in nearly all countries live similar lives: the elitism of the book mentioned refers to societal elitism, not expense accounts.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Were you to come up with better cites than heavily slanted blogs, I might find your testimony more convincing. With a very little research I myself examined one article on a similar blog (“BBC watch” IIRC), and the little digging I did forced them to print a retraction.[/qute]
I actually chose those two as being obviously biased. Surely the name of one was a give-away? It doesn’t stop them being sources.
You obviously missed this:
Quite possibly, but the perception is the reality.
Your joking, right? I asked you to cite your claim that the Europen press criticized voters who voted no, not to bring a quote from the head of a tiny place of half a million people. But as it is, your wrong even on your single cite: Juncker didn’t said that; he said that remaining countries still should have their say even though France and the Netherlands voted no (cite). However, a cite showing that a majority of Europeans leaders expressed what you claim they do instead of your upcoming press cite would be acceptable.
FWIW, Juncker actually said that he’d step down if voters in Luxembourg said no in the referendum (cite). Gee, how is that for respecting voter opinion.
I’m still waiting for your 3 cites. And note that a cite is a news article, not a commentary piece, particularly not from an outlet like the Scotsman.
But if that sort of economic elitism of the political upper echelons is all that Bawer is talking about, then it’s absurd to try to paint it as a specifically European phenomenon.
I haven’t read Bawer’s book, but going by the OP I got the impression that it’s all about differences between European and American political/media “establishments”. If Bawer’s big point is just “Hey, European politicians are elitist because they’re well-to-do with fancy perks and expense accounts!”, then he’s got no point at all to speak of. There’s no detectable difference between the Merkin and the Yurpin varieties of Homo politicus according to that criterion.
I’ve just been cathing up on the posts here. It’s been a busy week.
I just want to make clear something. I don’t agree with Bawer.
I don’t disagree with him either. He makes some good/startling points. Yet, I find his pro-American generalizations as well as his generalized European disdain hard to swallow. I don’t really trust anyone that defines so readily what what “we” Americans believe or “those” Europeans, knowing how different the beliefs are just in my group of friends – American and European.
Not to mention, there is not one footnote/citation/bibliography in the book! That’s why I brought it here.
I intend to write to Bawer, actually. I’m reading *Identity and Violence *by Amartya Sen right now, and I’d kind of like to recommend it to him.
Concerning the thread, I want to reference one running theme: the use of the word “elitism.” I don’t think it specifically denominates someone who is moneyed, though that may be a part of it. I think he means something more along the lines of a well-educated social elite who, as he sees it, place themselves above the proles. I would say he refences the establishment elite much in the same way that a lot of Red-state folks back home regard those in academia, who are not necessarily wealthy, but are still part of an elite, nonetheless.