In 2010, all eyes in this country turned to a protest movement that usurped the politics of a nation and led an uprising against an increasingly unpopular government. Stoked by untraditional fiscal policies passed by its leaders, this movement vocally opposed its government and public opinion eventually followed. It mounted the largest protests in decades. On each of six separate days in September and October, an estimated 1-3 million demonstrated their fury around the country. For a republic founded on vehement protest over 200 years ago, this was not novel, but ingrained in its national identity.
Eventually, its objection grew inflammatory. Workers went on mass strikes. Protesters overturned cars, ignited fires in the streets, and precipitating significant property damage. Confrontations with authorities resulted in arrests and even injuries as the protests became violent. Certain aspects of daily life came to near standstill. Student protesters built barricades around 400 different schools to prevent their peers from attending. One day about half of all flights around the country were cancelled as well as about half of the trains. A fuel shortage around the country also ensued. And as the strikes persisted, the movement made a spectacle to the world by caricaturizing the entire nation.
But this hysterical movement was not the Tea Party and the country not America. The country was France. What inspired the ire or its people so? An increase in its public retirement age from 60 to 62.
It did not matter to the protesters that French sovereign debt had surpassed 80% of GDP. Nor did it seem relevant that the French public sector was the second-most expensive in the world as of 2007. Nor was it disconcerting to see many of the welfare states of Europe teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. The protesters were never abashed. And not only did the general public condone them, but 70% of the nation supported the strikers.
In America, too, our politics was captivated by a protest movement this past year, but of an entirely different nature and character.
As the US economy sunk into recession in 2008, its government began an unprecedented expansion of its role in economic planning. Over two years, Congress and the President introduced bailouts and stimuli of unprecedented proportions, and a universal healthcare overhaul. At the same time, the unelected Federal Reserve was taking a new activist role in industrial policy.
And so it went for the past two and a half years. But it was not without due notice. As the government grew to an unprecedented size, and its debt along with it, Americans began having trouble recognizing their government. More and more, Americans saw their country was looking less like itself and more like Europe. And, ultimately, they decided not to sit idly and watch while it happened.
In a spontaneous manner, Americans unhappy with the direction of their government began to coalesce all around the country. It took shape in the form of local rallies, grassroots organizing, calls and letters to congressmen, and town hall debates. From 2009 into 2010, the movement gained steam–not behind a single person or organization–but behind some core principles and fondness for a more traditional form of American government. Soon enough, self-identifying Tea Party-ers were responsible for the defeat of longtime incumbent Senators and Representatives, and eventually the biggest Congressional landslide election in over 60 years.
Its adherents were not students trying to shake up the country, they were not primarily unionized, employees of the government, of any occupation or walk of life in particular. They were not the pitchfork wielders that the media portrayed them as. In fact they were slightly more affluent and slightly better educated than the average American. They did not scream and yell, they did not overturn cars, or light objects in effigy. They did not block major city streets or blockade schools. They did not disrupt the everyday lives of Americans in any way at any time. They simply exercised their constitutional rights to peaceful speech and to vote–nothing more or less.
While the developments in France were antithetical to those of America, they were hardly unique to Europe. In 2010, the European welfare state was in a death spiral. Its governments were forced to introduce draconian austerity, not by will, but because their creditors would not keep lending them money–because the math was not on their side. And rather than accept the necessary restructuring, many of its citizens regressed into a hysteria, kicking and screaming until that their governments could no longer give them the patronage to which they had felt entitled.
In Spain, its ruling Socialists(!) reluctantly passed a $18 billion austerity package to stave off a sovereign debt crisis (for the time being) and unions called for a general strike causing public services to stand still and riots to ensue. Up to 100,000 marched on Brussels, the capitol of the EU, which insisted on austerity of member states in order to sustain the common currency, and in some cases as a condition for bailout. Tens of thousands protested, struck, or rioted, in Portugal and Ireland against austerity measures, while both nations remain on the edge of solvency. In Greece, where the government was saved from bankruptcy by EU bailout, hundreds of thousands protested in riots so vociferous that they killed several.
No, America is not Europe and if its dissent this year was any indication it won’t continue becoming more like it. In 2010, the governments of Europe (barely) took a step back from the fiscal abyss only to ignite the angry mobs demanding the government keep handing out other people’s money. In America, the government kept taking giant steps toward Europe, but the American people put their foot down.
For most of the world, this year made crystal clear just where the European welfare state leads. For American Progressives, whose idea of Progress is fundamentally that America become more like Europe, 2010 should have been an illuminating year too. Americans won’t soon allow America to adopt a more European model so long as they have a say.
This is a lazy and probably willful misreading of the current economic crisis in Europe. The eurozone is in trouble in part due to the inflexibility of its monetary policy across national boundaries–not the welfare state. If you did any research–and you strike me as the kind of person who reads opinion columns that agree with him but very rarely any hard news, because it could fracture your orthodoxy–you’d find out that certain countries, such as Spain, are in hot water for exactly the same reason as the U.S.: they built too many houses, paid too much for them, and the bubble burst, devastating their economy. The welfare state you see as toxic to economic stability has nothing to do with their crisis; it’s been around for decades without hampering the European economy from expanding. In fact, it’s actually made the recession much less painful for those Europeans who have lost income during the recession.
You talk about France’s deficit (“80% of GDP”) as some kind of hubristic flaw leading to its downfall. But the Tea Party and Republicans at large, for supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest echelon of Americans while adding billions to our enormous national debt, and for opposing health care reform that would save billions according to the *nonpartisan* Congressional Budget Office, are somehow shining examples of American exceptionalism? Better to be a banana republic, apparently, than a welfare state.
One last note: I take issue with your using the terms “Americans,” “America,” and “American people” to describe the Tea Party, who are supported by a MINORITY of American voters. I’m an American and I don’t want to be confused with these ignoramuses, motivated by nothing except their own sanctimonious anger and possessed by a bunch of cynical, paranoid myths about the federal government. They hate government health care, but they love their Medicare; they hate the government infringing on their rights, but love infringing on a woman’s right to choose; they hate the bankers, but they hate regulating the bankers; they hate “wasteful” discretionary spending on education/health care/infrastructure, but they LOVE that 50% of discretionary funds spent on defense. A bunch of morons whipped into a frenzy by misinformation and fear–not an example of America’s better angels.
Nick, your incivility is rather unbecoming of you. i encourage you to disagree without being disagreable. its one thing to disagree with ryan on his factual analysis or disagree with the essence of the teaparty but to be ad homminem and to call names is rather immature at best.
as for your assessment of the article, i think you are almost entirely off mark. it seems that the article was entirely a cultural and political commentary rather than an economic one. anyone–ryan most of all im sure– would be happy to discuss with yout he causes of the crisis and the effectiveness of the european economic system, but it seems that was rather outside the scope of this column