Despite the association of the latter with oligarchic collectivism, both liberalism and egalitarianism are derived from social contract theory.  Unfortunately, human beings were never atomized individuals who united and contracted to achieve social order.  It is the family that is the source of liberty, order, progress and equality or equity.  Leaders really are extensions of fathers and governance of parenting.  Within this context, it is worthy to note that psychologists identify four major styles of parenting: authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent and neglectful.  Of these, authoritative is recommended, as the others result in adverse and in fact very similar outcomes.  Applying this framework to Western systems of government, one might conclude that governments have largely transitioned from authoritarian to a combination of indulgent and neglectful.  Critics want to retain the freedoms gained during and after this transition, but to also include many authoritative features. 

Addressing your comments, I gather that you are a proponent of a minimal state and greater self-governance.  However, I do not understand how the resulting culture would necessarily be conservative or how it could be made so in the absence of the state.  Indeed, Christianity owes much of its position in Europe to its institutionalization first by Rome and subsequently by the Empire’s successor states.  Marxists were unable to instill egalitarianism from either the top or the bottom, and I believe that your idea of “traditional society” will be likewise unworkable. 

Dear KO,

I apologize for the lack of clarity; however, I was referring to traditional conservatism in my last sentence.  Traditional conservatism evolved from the Leviathan–esque hegemonic state (itself comprising the institutions of the monarchy, aristrocracy and Church), irrespective of the state’s internal power dynamics.  Rather than being overthrown by a liberal revolution, as was attempted in various instances, the traditional state was gradually eroded.  Whilst liberal intentions were moral, the chaotic process of industrialization turned the new working classes against the capitalist nouveau riche, resulting in nostalgia for the agrarian bliss of serfdom and tenant farming.  Indeed, the industrialists tended to be far more austere than the landed nobles, who after centuries of being at the pinnacle of society generally regarded public service and charity as obligatory.  The British civil service has declined greatly since the era when it was staffed by noble scions.

Neo–conservatism bears little resemblance to its predecessor: its economic policies are decidedly liberal, and its social values are comparatively diluted.  Unfortunately, neo–conservatives have yet to realize that a degree of egalitarianism on the basis of nationality is necessary if the nation in question is to be cohesive.  The increasing reliance on mercenaries is part and parcel of the consequences of leaving everything to the “invisible hand”.  How soon until armies merely march upon their stomachs?  Yet the Taliban will continue to fight Pakistani and Western forces, until each and every one is dead or victory is achieved.  Can the same be said of the West’s professional volunteers, who develop PTSD despite their unprecedented battle–space superiority?  The Taliban’s idea of “R&R” is martyrdom.  You may recall Marlon Brando’s conversations with Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now.

Nor is social security an invention of the left.  Socialists have in fact decried welfare statism as an apparent conspiracy by conservatives and liberals to placate the working classes, who were in no hurry to dispense with their new social and political freedoms.

Perhaps I have digressed too far.  It may be a bridge too far, given the criticism I am likely to incur.

Pale Rider

Germanic culture does not exactly correlate with Germanic genetics.  In terms of the latter, only the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes are Germanic.  Beyond Scandinavia, Germanic peoples are either Celtic-Germanic, as is the case in England, Flanders, the Netherlands and West Germany, or Alpine-Germanic, as with the Austrians, Deutschschweizer, and Southern Germans.  Northeastern Germany is an interesting case, as it features – in addition to the Sorb minority – substantial West Slavic admixture from Germanized pagan tribes such as the Polabians.   However, both culture and genetics can only be approximated or generalized.

Nations are unique and distinct as much as they are part of larger groups.  European civilization can be reduced into sub-civilizations of which Germanic is but one.  Moreover, the Germanic sub-civilization can be further divided without reaching the level of the nation-state.  As regards Italy, there is a cultural and genetic gulf between the north and the south.  Much of Northern Italy should probably be incorporated into Italian Switzerland, rather than bound to Sicily; the country has never been a cohesive nation-state.

Religion in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was never the same as religion in the Holy Roman Empire.  The Commonwealth was tolerant of Protestantism – and indeed of Judaism and Islam – during a period of hideous sectarian violence and political ambition in the rest of Europe.  Neither the House of Habsburg nor the House of Vasa could command the temporal or spiritual allegiance of the German states.  The House of Stuart was wise to keep its distance from the cauldron across the Channel; however, it did not escape unscathed.

KO,

Classical liberalism is not Procrustean in the least.  However, on the topic of conservatism, I trust you are referring to its traditional form i.e. center-right values with center-left intervention/spending. 

Sincerely,

Kapitein Andre

I once subscribed to Weber’s notion of the “Protestant work ethic”, especially given the role of Calvinism and various Puritan Anabaptists in creating the social conditions necessary for freer markets and capitalism.  However, you will note that the Slavs (and Balts) are mainly Eastern Orthodox and Catholic, with various Protestant minorities.  Yet Polish Catholicism is far removed from French or Latin American Catholicism, much as Russian Orthodoxy is from its Greek source. 

I have found that religion tends to conform to culture, which is derived from a people’s “character”.  No people adopts all of the foreign cultural norms it is exposed to.  Indeed, the Poles have always been Western–oriented and accepted neither Protestantism via the German states nor Orthodoxy from the Russian principalities. 

The French in France, Quebec and in the Swiss Cantons seem to share similar economic values that are more in keeping with those of the Mediterranean than those of Northern Europe.  If one is travelling by train from Amsterdam to Barcelona, one notices the increasing inefficiency as one crosses through Belgium into France and then Spain. Italian infrastructure is a disaster compared to that of Switzerland, and I can confidently state that Swiss organization is not a contribution from its French or Italian minorities. 

It is disturbing to see Northern European industriousness harnessed by the South, of which the Flemish–Walloon schism is but a microcosm.  Just as Brazil will always be “the nation of the future”, so too will a Europe united by the EU. 

The Anglo-Saxon world is very connected to the Germanic one esp. the commonalities of efficiency, political stability (not Germany), work ethic, liberty, and yes even equality. 

Kapitein, you say the French cannot be trusted to organise anything. Although I might agree this applies to Wallonia, the French are not Walloons regardless of the fact that both are French-speakers. Also, may I ask exactly how Germanic superiority has benefited the Anglo-Saxon World, Holland, Germany and Scandinavia in recent decades, in view of the fiscally unsound, statist, multiculturalist, overly feministic, morally relativistic and self-defeating policies that appear to have overtaken virtually all of these countries, please? [rhetorical question]

Heil Herman! Selam Türkiye, adieu la liberté. Let the fun begin.

European "success" over several centuries was premised upon the impossibility of centralizing power in Europe, a lesson learned by Kings, Emperors and Popes alike.  Europe has no need of a unified military or foreign policy, much less a single leader.  I cannot call the President of the European Council a representative, as he or she would be an appointed bureaucrat.  The EU's advantage lay in its common market.  However, French ambition, the German need for multilateralism, and dawning realization in the UK that the Empire is gone and there is strength in numbers, have completely corrupted an initially sound idea.  The French (incl. Walloons) cannot be trusted to organize anything, and the Germanic peoples from Scandinavia to Switzerland are still reeling from the pathology of multiculturalism and political correctness incurred during the Second World War.

There can be little doubt that most contemporary European politicians want the EU to "counter balance" the United States on the world scene.  The question is whether that is a sensible goal, or not?

In 1941, in Life Magazine, Henry Luce called the 20th century "the American Century".  He coined this expression at a time when the superiority of the US and of the American way of life was definitely problematic.  Nazi-Germany's armies occupied much of Europe (from Bordeaux to the heartland of Russia), Imperial Japan occupied much of East Asia (from Manchuria to Indo-China) and, at that time, the USA itself was barely exiting from a decade-long Great Depression. Despite the regular re-appearance in subsequent decades of fanciful predictions of 'American declinism' in leftist Western media, by the end of the century, however, it was clear that Luce had been prescient.

Today, after the 9/11 outrage, the frustrations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Great Recession of 2008-09, there is again a lot of declinist muttering about the US among Western elites (including EU politicians), just like there was in Luce's days. They imagine that China's ascent over the past decade paralleled an American descent, and some of them even correctly recognise that the US is presently ruled by an anti-American President (its first presumed Post-American President) and a wimpish Congressional leadership. However, temporary politicians matter less than underlying economic and cultural forces.

Every century has its own distinctive features and creates a new context within which great powers exercise leadership. It is too early to know with certainty whether the United States can reinvent and renovate the economic pillars (and their military applications) that made it prominent in the 20th century (particularly its leadership in aerospace, computers and telecommunications). Technological superiority in the 21st century will be determined by leadership in 'new' economic sectors of the future, such as, perhaps: sustainable energy, biotechnology and medicine/health.

There are a number of great powers today, and some of them are seeking clear dominance in particular regions. Among them, China and India are rapidly rising, while the European Union and Japan are declining. Others, like Russia, Iran and Brazil, are clearly 'unstable'. For the United States to be an effective and constructive leader in the world, it must be able to obtain significant cooperation from at least some of these powers on issues of world importance, such as threats from transnational terrorist networks, nuclear proliferation, the global economy and epidemics. In this 'game' among great powers, the United States will have choices to make. For example, it could lead smaller countries (e.g. Georgia, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc...) in their opposition to aspiring regional powers, or it could allow regional dominance in order to gain cooperation on issues of 'world importance'.

The Europeans too will have choices to make. For instance, they could sensibly 'co-operate' with the Great Satan, or they could pridefully and stupidly "counter-balance" him. It is largely their choice, and they will live with the consequences of their choice.

Good summary.  Self-governing Europeans have been sold out by their pols.  At some point massive civil disobedience will be in order.