Bush aides have been insisting that he would present a vision of an ownership society. That he would differentiate between his programs that bring choice and accountability as opposed to Democrat’s programs that, in their view, bring either of these. However, Bush did not take the opportunity to make this case in his State of the Union address. Nor did he mention the ownership society in his February 19th speech as aides were foretelling he would. He made the by now familiar case with tax cuts instead. So far he has signed plenty of bills that changed lives of thousands of Americans. They have favored some, damaged others. After he is sworn in January 2005, a new era of American politics will begin. What does it mean for Europe? Will it benefit from Bush’s reelection or will it lose?

Europe, generally supported, Clinton/Gore democratic socialist ideology and vehemently opposed Christian-right, Bush’s conservative, anti-gay marriage, neo-conservative politics. Together with the democratic-left in America they kept their fingers crossed during the entire presidential battle and were very hesitant to do anything to enhance his 2004 reelection despite the fact that Bush was warning that this is only to jeopardize their prosperity as well as security interests. Before Bush declared the international war on terrorism and declared the war on Iraq and Afghanistan Europeans have developed a hostile, self-righteous, attitude toward Bush on policy issues.

Following September 11th, there was an empathy, which now has worn as political and ideological realities resurface. Academics as well as other analysts generally agreed that: “winning the next election or returning to power will lead to a mentality lessening the seriousness of the moment leading to obstructionism rather than cooperation on security and economic policies.” The predominant agenda of leftist, democratic, socialist mindset simply want to make him look bad. The major question remains, however, is this a right decision? Shouldn’t we just “forgive” him no matter how uncomfortable we feel while dealing with him, leave this selfish idea aside and focus on dealing with broader, global issues?

The leaders of the European Union, including for example Greek prime minister Costas Simitis, at that time president of European Commission, or EU foreign policy coordinator Javier Solana arrived in Washington D.C. in 2003 for a summit at the time when the relations with the Bush administration were “under strain.” The purpose of their mission was to rebuild the transatlantic relationship after the Iraq invasion many European governments openly opposed. “There is much more to the US-EU relations than military action in Iraq,” led his voice heard one of the senior EU official. He also added that there are many contentious trade issues between these two world’s leading economic superpowers. “The EU has moved to defuse some of the issues in relation to terrorism by offering to sign an extradition treaty with the US, and by backing plans for US cargo inspections in EU ports,” commented British BBC. On the broader issue, however, there are no firm commitments so far on how far will Europe contribute on cost of post-war Iraq reconstruction.

Two major US-EU projects are currently under way. US is collaborating with Europe and the UN to contain Iran’s nuclear programme. EU is also one of the four parties involved in the roadmap framing for peace negotiation in the Middle East. The EU foreign affairs commissioner Javier Solana wanted “tougher, more coherent EU foreign policy, which accepts some elements of preemption.”  Not all sorts of cooperation are supported by European citizens. On his first trip to Europe after his recent reelection, Bush faced angry demonstrators trying to repudiate him back to his homeland. Europeans are generally angry that his administration turned his back on the Kyoto treaty on tackling with global warming issues.

Despite a huge volume of transatlantic trade as well as political cooperation between Europe and the United States of America there exists seemingly immense cultural divide. From the issues of defence and the environment through abortion, same sex marriage to death penalty it seems there is increasingly growing rebellion against American values and culture. ‘Can the gulf between two western power blocks be bridged or is the transatlantic alliance coming to an end? Is America thanks to the attutude of Bushe’s administration out of touch with the rest of the world? Europeans are heavily protesting against every Bush’s visit of the old continent, calling him a “terrorist” and many American citizens are equally depressed.

Phil from Boston remraks: “It is all regarding Europe not being a military super-power, claiming that the EU could not exist without the US! Only the USA is INTERESTED in being a military super-power! Despite what the UK government (the US’ lapdog, might I add) thinks, the REST of the EU in no way “needs” the USA, nor their interference in European affairs. Two thumbs up to France and Germany for giving the two-fingered salute to George Bush. Not all Americans like this president, nor their government. I am hoping to soon become an EU citizen myself.”

Šárka Havránková

If we examine the various reactions caused by the major event of the French political history which constitutes the starting point of the large currents of the political thought, the Revolution of 1789, it is possible to notice that the traditionalists refuse this upheaval which they regard as harmful. They note that it led only to disorder and regression. They recommend a return to the former situation, a restoration of the past and a rehabilitation of the ancient values. This current is manifest since 1789, when it took shape in reaction against the Revolution, but it takes, undoubtedly -at least at its early years- its sources from the Ancien Régime. It is backed on and refers to the experiment and the values which were devoted by the last centuries: respect of the ancients, of the age, of the traditions; reference to the elites, hierarchy, order, nature, providence. It recognized the importance of the authority, the obedience, the discipline and the honor. It is also the attachment to the institutions, to the Church, the family, the school, the army, the Fatherland. It is also the recognition of the corporations, groupings and associations. The individuals should not be let by themselves, they must be supported, helped, be framed. Traditionalism is, finally, the primacy of the Nation upon the individual, a Nation often represented by a providential man at the head of, according to times, monarchy, empire, fascism, the regime of Vichy or Gaullism. Within French traditionalism are the ‘father founders’: Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald at the beginning of the XIXth century, then, in a different context, the father of positivism Auguste Comte. Lastly, with the development of nationalism, Maurice Barrès and Charles Maurras representatives of a restrictive nationalism, where Charles de Gaulle, incarnating a more open and pragmatic nationalism, i.e. a modernist nationalism.

The liberals, on the contrary, accept the transformations brought by the Revolution they initiated, but they recommend quickly a stabilization of the assets in order to organize the present. It emerged really in France during the XIXth century, although the liberal thought appears as of the XVIIth century. This current is based on the primacy of the individual and the respect of individual autonomy. The liberal thought is wary of the power and more particularly of the centralized power, considered as a permanent danger to freedoms. Liberalism is inclined to give the priority to the current problems, with the short term. From the economic point of view, it is the attachment with the private property, the need for competition, stimulation by the search of profit; it is the efficiency, the realistic and pragmatic spirit. This ideology supports the initiative, the individual blooming, but it is also accompanied by a certain selfishness. As for traditionalism, there is a conservative liberalism and a progressist and innovating liberalism. The liberalism, inspired of Montesquieu, is represented in the XIXth century by Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville. During the XXth century, it is expressed through Alain under the third Republic, and then it will undergo the influence of Anglo-Saxon authors such as Hayek or J. Rawls.

The Socialists, not only accept the change introduced by the Revolution, since it reversed the old society, but they wish new transformations in order to set up a better social organization. It has been developed practically during the XXth century, although the socialist thought was shaped throughout the XIXth century. This current is founded on the belief that it is possible to build a future allowing the realization of a greater justice between the men, including a better harmony in the social organization. It stresses the primacy of general aims and of change. It should logically result a priority from medium term on the short term. In fact, it is not always the case, the socialist programs often claiming the immediate satisfaction of the social demands, and not always to the profit of the most underprivileged. Socialism is founded on a certain generosity, on a certain altruism, but it resulted in immediate sacrifices for a dubious future or even, completely utopian. Here also, there is a constructive socialism or of a destructive socialism. The socialism which, at the beginning, is subject to various influences, the one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, or Babeuf, took very different forms: utopian, libertarian, revolutionary or reformist. He was also constantly pulled between two main tendencies: one centralizing, the other federalist. The result is the oppositions between Marx and Proudhon, then Bakounine, during the XIXth century, and then between Lénine and Blum, between the so-called “real” socialism and the social-democracy during the XXth century.

These three currents of thought crystallized in France by three main political tendencies: the right, the centre and the left ; but frequently in an approximate way. Each current reacts in a different manner, according to times and relatively to major political problems, in particular with respect to the religion, of the Church, the State, the Revolution, the social classes or the market economy. Moreover, the political parties are far from being always faithful to the ideologies that they claimed. Thus, the left was often conservative and the right was sometimes reformist. If in many countries, the grouping in two main tendencies prevails: republicans and the democrats (United States), the Tory and the Labour Party (Great Britain), the Christian democrats and the social-democrats (Germany), etc., France is characterized by its great diversity and by the fact that right and left hardly shaped coherent movements. In fact, the political culture of each country is strongly influenced by its history. In France, the right and the left can be defined only historically. Each current followed different evolutions. The beginnings of socialism were often reactionaries, this appeared during the XIXth century by its opposition to technical progress, mechanization, to industrialization, its reserves regarding to the vote for all and of the democracy. Thereafter, it sometimes deviated towards centralism, nationalism or even totalitarianism. The liberalism constantly hesitated between order and movement. Its natural tendency tends to conservatism, each time it reaches the power. On the other hand, it becomes reforming when it is in the opposition. Traditionalism took very different forms according to times. It currently tends to be assimilated to nationalism. Since the Vth Republic, and even more since the election of the President of the Republic by the direct universal suffrage, the distinctive phenomenon of the French political life contributed to reinforce the right/left opposition. Although it has become artificial on the plan of the ideas, it still remains important and cannot be ignored.

Aymeric Thareau January 2007

We entered recently in a new EU: the EU 27. The fifteen members present before the enlargement of 2004 are sitting with twelve new members with the entrance of Romania and Bulgaria. This event has been celebrated in Bucharest and Sofia when West-European medias maintained the piece of information quite discreet. Following their public opinions which seem not to believe anymore that “l’union fait la force” (does isolation make it better?), the head of old member states agreed to stop for a while the enlargement.

The process of European construction is at a dead point since the two “no” at the Constitutional Treaty, even if sixteen countries have already ratified it. This pause follows actually a period of lethargy and will have as many benefits as we will inflow some energy in it. The pause of the enlargement can mean a beneficial deepening of the current policies: making the European Neighbourhood Policy effective and efficient, welcoming Italy and Spain in the head of the European Security and Defence Policy and continue to edify it, expanding Schengen, going toward a more dynamic cooperation between the economical governments in the Eurozone, introducing Euro in the new member states, building a political basis for the European research after the Communitarian reform of Universities, etc. But we should not believe that it is the kind of pause that we enjoy after the effort. Because, precisely, efforts are terribly missing if not since 2001, at least since 2004.

Berlin is thus determined to go ahead with the different issues, to dust them, and to restart the European engine. The EU can therefore count with the deep will of Chancellor Angela Merkel, whatever the difficulty of the topic, and with the political asset presented by its government of coalition, but also with the geopolitical position of Germany, in the centre of Europe, what shows knowledge and implication in the different affairs of the continent.

Moreover, this presidency is written in a new strategic movement: 2007-2008. Germany begins this cycle with its presidency and France closes it with its own. In between, the presidencies of Portugal (South European state, turned toward Latin America) and of Slovenia (the good Balkan’s pupil, from ex-Yugoslavia, which has just adopted Euro) are the perfect link between the two historical actors of Europe. The EU could have chosen two other states (a founding member and a new one, one from the West and another from the East, etc.) but the choice to relaunch the Union by its two historical members is good if this new launch is efficient, tonic, and orientates the continent in a constructive direction. This is urgent.

But the cycles can only be useful with the French application to its execution. The presidential and legislative elections of 2007 will perhaps show a new dynamism in echo to Germany. If it is not yet the case (the political issues developed exclude largely concrete propositions concerning Europe benefiting the image of an independent and powerful France, i.e. a Gaullist France), Europe will maybe emerge during the presidential debate. The side of “no” is shattered, the extremes turned back to their own ideologies (anti-globalization, communism, sovereignism, nationalism) and the few others re-joined the ranks of their parties which have called to vote “yes”. The huge divergences between the defenders of the “no” vote appeared clearly when evaporated the idealism of an extreme-left which wished to unite the peoples of the whole Europe behind its own ideas, and which has shown finally its incapacity to present a unique candidate, in a restrained because traditionally anti-establishment political segment, to a simple five-years national poll. After a disinformation campaign towards electors about an inexistent “plan B”, the side of “no” extinguished itself, after having demonstrated itself the invalidity of its theories of gathering.

In France, the space of fantastic opportunities that is Europe remains empty for the moment, but the campaign is intense, and it is probable that such an important topic for France will not be omitted from the debate, and even less with the need of political change expressed everywhere in the country. If the candidates at the so-called “supreme magistracy” are aware of it, therefore France will be able to say that it has, together with Germany, picked up Europe, and that it choose construction rather than negation.