A European View

The Utopian ...

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Fri, 16 May 2008 04:37:00 +0000

... has launched!

Please do take a minute to look at this very exciting magazine, which I have founded together with Alex Lee.

---

The Utopian is devoted to seeking out the most original and challenging ideas in contemporary politics, art and culture. Taking from utopian thought a spirit of free inquiry and open-mindedness, the magazine includes diverse perspectives in the recognition that nothing is unthinkable.

Drawing on a distinguished network of contributors from around the world, The Utopian offers high-quality reportage and a searching analysis of important contemporary issues. Transgressing the limits of traditional journalism, The Utopian is also a prime forum for full-length photographic articles, experimental music and innovative video art.

Coinciding with the fortieth anniversary of the 1968 students' rising in Paris, The Utopian's inaugural issue addresses the revolutionary spirit, then and now. Looking back, The Utopian explores the legacy of 1968, asking if these cultural transformations still have the force to shape the future, even after forty years. Looking forward, The Utopian seeks out new directions in politics, philosophy and art, questioning whether they might - and whether they should - have a similarly transformative impact. This search will continue in forthcoming issues, including "Beyond Liberalism?" and "Making History".

A European View is Excited about.. * The Utopian *

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:53:00 +0000

An exciting magazine, founded by Alex Lee and me. It will be published this Wednesday. Watch this space for the link, which will appear here very soon...

Do read it (and excuse my related and very long blogging-absence)!

A Russian Version of the Obama Girl...

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:26:00 +0000

(Thanks to Alex for the pointer!)

Another Round in Italy's Tragedy

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:35:00 +0000

In many ways, it is part of Italy's charm that things there don't work quite as smoothly as perhaps they should in a First World country. But even my unbounded love of the place does not allow me to see everything through rose-tinted spectacles. Today, devoid of such saving spectacles, the spectre of another four years of Berlusconi looms all too clearly; all too painfully.

Just as the takeover of the US by a bunch of partisan ideologues may be coming to an end, European leaders are mounting a series of strong bids to wrestle the status of the world's liberal democracy governed in the most absurd manner from Bush & Co. Under Sarkozy's leadership, France's political culture is starting to resemble the ancien regime: l'etat, c'est moi - now, to amuse yourselves, pleeease do gossip about my sex life.

And under Berlusconi's leadership - not yet a certainty but, alas, the most likely outcome of the current crisis - Italy will once again be reduced to being the private thiefdom [sic] of a skillful entertainer. Don't you worry for yourselves: the wine will be as good as ever, the food as appetizing, and the people as welcoming. But do take a moment to pity another lost generation of talented Italian youngsters, unable to do what they want to do with their lives - and help Italy in the process - because the same-old structures of corruption and patronage continue to squeeze out all meritocracy. For those who actually need to lead their lives there, the new round of Italy's political bafoonery has lost all its charm.

Cole, not the Dole

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:16:00 +0000

I'm stealing the following anecdote, which is priceless, from a comment by Kieran Healey on the Crooked Timber blog:

In his Diaries, Alan Bennett tells a story about an Oxford Don conducting Margaret Thatcher on a tour of (I suppose) All Souls in the early 1980s. Along the way he was supposed to point out some of the portraits of various college luminaries. His plan was to pause by Cole’s portrait, point out the nameplate and say, “And this is the philosopher G.D.H. Dole,” whereupon Thatcher would have to say “Cole, not Dole.” But he chickened out and didn’t do it.

Thanks to Shashank for the pointer.

Sarkozy proves his bad taste - on many, many levels...

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:08:00 +0000

The real reason why the French call Sarkozy l'americain is style, not substance. They are deeply skeptical of a President who prefers yachts to country estates; jogging to promenading; and Hollywood blockbusters to philosophy books.

I wasn't. Well - I was skeptical of Sarkozy for all kinds of reasons. But it didn't seem to me that among the wealth of objections you might endorse, his holiday destinations, workout method or even leisure activities ranked particularly highly.

Now, however, he has proved me wrong - and all those nagging, self-satisfied Rive Gauche intellectuals right. A few months after his divorce from Cecilia - the main selling point of whom, in Sarkozy's eyes, it seems to have been that she at one point was a supermodel - he appears to have a new girlfriend. And she is... (drumroll, close-up of professors at the College de France shocked at the news, etc.)... another ex-supermodel, Carla Bruni.

The French media, traditionally loath to expose politicians' private affairs, couldn't help running the story after they were spotted - in Euro Disney!!

Classy destination for a Romantic outing, I hear you groan. Quite... But it gets worse: given that they could hardly have expected to be all on their own in Disneyland on a Saturday afternoon, this seems to reflect the happy couple's wish for their liaison to become public in just that space.

A few months ago, Jean Clair, former director of Paris' Musee Picasso, told me: "The Louvre must of course be open to all. But, frankly, I find it pitiful that it has eight million visitors a year. Most of these people don’t even know what they’re looking at - they probably are tourists who got lost on their way to Euro Disney"

Well, at least Sarkozy did not get lost...

Oh, by the way: did I mention that Carla Bruni's former liaisons, or so it is rumoured, include real-estate magnet Donald Trump??

Whilst many observers seem to think that Sarkozy would change France profoundly, I was not so convinced. Perhaps I should have thought about style, not substance. For the stylistic self-portrayal of her political elite, at least, could not have changed more.

Overheard in New York - Germanophobes

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:43:00 +0000

Thought I'd share this little gem from www.overheardinnewyork.com :

Girl #1: When I first met my boyfriend, I wasn't that into him.
Girl #2: Yeah, but there wasn't an 11-year age difference between you two!
Girl #1: But he was German! That's comparable!

Have been bad about updating the blog recently - more to come over the next weeks, I promise...

On Criticism, Rhetoric and - Outbursts

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:19:00 +0000

Britain is a country of genteel humour - and yet the UK parliamentary system allows for the most vicious theatricals of any Western democracy. Americans, by contrast, are generally proud to be more brash than their stiff-upper-lipped cousins - and yet, in politics, the consider too much passion (or, God forbid, criticism) a cardinal sin.

One reason for this, it seems to me, points to an inherent disadvantage of Presidential systems. The President, the nation's most influential politician, at the same time acts as commander-and-chief and, most importantly, personifies the country as Head of State. That's why, for Americans, insulting the President equals disrespecting the country.

In the UK, a politician could not disrespect the Queen. But the Prime Minister, who is "merely" the Head of Government, can be shouted down with cries of "shame" by an uncompromisingly hostile opposition. Prime Minister's Question Time is the prime example - ever-shocking to Americans, it is, to me, the most beautiful embodiment of what democracy is all about. (It also saves the UK from incompetent leaders - George W Bush would not survive even the lightest grilling in the House of Commons)

All this just to say: to an American audience, Senator Ted Kennedy's impassioned plea for a rise in the US minimal wage seems ludicrously, even dangerously, agitated. To those of us used to parliamentary systems, on the other hand, it may ring true - not in spite of, but rather due, to its highly rhetorical pitch.

Mafia Morals - not so Tarantino after all...

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:54:00 +0000

Warning: Troubled teenagers with an overactive imagination awakened by the Godfather or Pulp Fiction will be as saddened as I was to read the ten commandments of Mafia morality, discovered after big-boss Lo Piccolo's recent arrest. If you ever needed a definitive let-down to dispel any illusions of glamour about organised crime, here it is:

1 - "You must not get in touch with one of our friends unless you're introduced by a third party."

2 - "Do not cast your eyes on the wives of our friends"

3 - "Do not make friends with cops"

4 - "Do not frequent bars or night clubs"

5 - "You have the duty always to be ready to render a service to the Cosa Nostra. Even if your wife is just about to give birth"

6 - "Categorical respect for appointments must be maintained"

7 - "You must respect your wife"

8 - "When you are called upon to give an information, you must say the truth"

9 - "You must not appropriate funds of others, nor of other families"

10 - "No one can belong to us if they have close relatives in the police, if there have been cases of infidelity in his family, or who behaves badly and does not respect moral values"

Poor, poor Hollywood...

---

Italian version:

1 - «Non ci si può presentare da soli a un altro amico nostro, se non è un terzo a farlo»

2 - «Non si guardano mogli di amici nostri»

3 - «Non si fanno comparati (amicizia ndr) con gli sbirri»

4 - «Non si frequentano né taverne né circoli»

5 - «Si ha il dovere in qualsiasi momento di essere disponibile a Cosa nostra. Anche se c'è la moglie che sta per partorire»

6 - «Si rispettano in maniera categorica gli appuntamenti»

7 - «Si ci deve portare rispetto alla moglie»

8 - «Quando si è chiamati a sapere qualcosa si dovrà dire la verità»

9 - «Non ci si può appropriare di soldi che sono di altri e di altre famiglie»

10 - «Niente affiliazione per chi ha un parente stretto nelle varie forze dell'ordine, oppure chi ha tradimenti sentimentali in famiglia, o chi ha un comportamento pessimo e che non tiene ai valori morali»

A not so ironic Joseph Beuys sings for "Sonne statt Reagan"

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:57:00 +0000

One of Germany's most tragicomic TV moments, this 1983 campaign spot for the Green Party not only features artist Joseph Beuys in a sadly serious attempt at rock-stardom. It also, to use a Germanic expression, is the ideal-type of German humour's talent for mixing well-meaning earnestness with particularly bad puns.

The refrain - "Wir wollen Sonne statt Reagan / Ohne Rüstung leben" - exploits the similarity of the German word for rain and Reagan's name, to merge the strangely unpolitical wish for good weather with the baffling demand that Reagan simply turn into the sun. The lyrics, in short, are not inspired.

But Beuys' performance is worse. His temporary job description, for want of a better word, is that of a lead singer. It doesn't help, of course, that he has been parked behind both a band - Germans will recognise them as BAP - which looks like it doesn't know how to play its instruments and a bunch of women with no apparent reason for being on stage (the Green party, of course, was big on feminism, so I suppose it preferred having women on stage doing nothing to having no women at all in the spot...)

P.S. By the end of the spot, self-conscious Beuys seems so relieved it's nearly over, that he engages in some overly optimistic microphone-action - be sure to look out for the Beuys-Helicopter!

Fearing Fear Itself

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:43:00 +0000

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman writes:

In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.

Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.

Do we need need to add to this a reference to the measured, calm beauty of Winston Churchill's rhetoric, when his nation was in more danger, and in darker an hour, than America has never seen?

It is a sad reflection that in our times, steadfastness and courage seem to be exemplified more by scaremongering high-pitched rhetoric than by the kind of leadership which inspires citizens to face up to their fears as they want their military to face up to their enemies. Krugman's article makes this point well...

Republican Ron Paul on 9/11 & Giuliani's Bulldozing Answer...

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:19:00 +0000

As any historian or social scientist will know, it is extremely difficult to determine what the main cause of an event is. Ron Paul makes a few good points in drawing attention to the unintended effects of the US' interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. It clearly had a strong influence on the ideology of Islamic terrorists - though the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, and US support of the Taliban at that stage, were possibly just as important as factors that helped the rise of Islamic terrorism. Paul's remarks don't explain why 9/11 happened; but they are are least an attempt to think about the terrorists' ideology and motivation from their perspective.

What really scares me, however, is the extent to which the political discourse among Republicans seems to consist of hypocritical bashing about of taboos. "As someone who lived through 9/11", Giuliani seems to imply, he finds it offensive to be told that the attacks may be an unintentional result of US foreign policy. In the US today, being offended by a comment all-but equals the unspeakability of the idea behind the comment - even if its truth content hasn't been examined at all.

With the cheapest of rhetorical tricks, Giuliani equates the idea that US foreign policy was one of the causes of 9/11 with the entirely different idea that the 9/11 attacks were jutified because of America's foreign policy. Whilst it is difficult to disagree with the first idea, few people - certainly not me, certainly not Ron Paul - would agree with the crude second idea. If you study World War II you will conclude that Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor because of America's support for the Allies - but not that Japan was justified in doing so...

The really interesting question, of course, would be to ask, from America's perspective, whether international influence is worth the risk of retaliation. If America had not played such a prominent interntional role since World War II, today it would not be the main target of Islamic terrorists. This clearly doesn't mean that it shouldn't have done so. Neither would isolationism have made the US safer today - the threats would just be of a different kind.

The US needs an intelligent President, who weighs all these considerations, with a good understanding of both the ideology of America's opponents and the possible adverse effects over the long term of short-term strategy. Giuliani's bulldozing answer to Ron Paul's remarks indicates that he's not the man America needs to combat terrorism intelligently.

The School of Tall Studies and Sarkozy's virtu...

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:42:00 +0000

Pierre Manent, the eminent French political philosopher who teaches at the École des Hautes Études in Paris, is giving a talk at Harvard this Friday.

Check out the beautiful translation of his university which Google - or, perchance, a surprisingly British sense of humour? - has suggested to the event's organizers...

What will be next? The "School of Super-Normality"? The "National Elementary School of Administrators"? If you thought that Freedom Fries hurt Frensh sensibilities - they didn't, after all they are a Belgian invention - you should be doubly worried now.

Call me a hopeless pessimist, but if Americans start attacking French intellectual pride, all of this might just end, to use a phrase currently en vogue with the Bush administration, in World War III... Then, small Monsieur Sarkozy, supported by his friend from the School of Tall Studies, will finally have a real opportunity to prove his virtu!

Polish relief as the Duck Brothers are clobbered by Donald

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:10:00 +0000

Below is a re-print from my third entry on the Harvard International Review's blog...

---

Poland has not yet perished
So long as we live.
What foreign violence has taken from us,
We will reclaim, sword in hand.

Poland’s history of suffering at the hands of Germany and Russia is so long that its anthem was written at a time when the country had, once again, been partitioned off the map. Despite the loss of statehood, the anthem expresses the hope that, against the odds, “Poland has not yet perished / so long as we live…”

Over the last two years Poland has, once again, suffered immensely. But this time the suffering wasn’t imposed by powerful invaders from the West or East.

No, President Lech Kaczynski and Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski – known, after their looks and surname, as the Duck Brothers – had hijacked Poland via the polls by evoking the worst in its citizens: an hysterical anti-Communist witchhunt which combined McCarthyism with partisan political manipulation; complex-laden, passive-aggressive nationalism which fused racism, anti-Semitism and a paranoid emnity to Germany; an amateurish foreign policy which left key embassies without embassadors; populist opposition to the EU; and economic mismanagement: Jaroslaw Kaczynski didn’t think it a problem that close to half of Poles don’t have bank accounts – indeed, he doesn’t have a bank account himself, preferring to entrust his Prime Ministerial income to his mother.

This time round, Poland’s spooky spectacle was self-imposed.

But at last Sunday’s election, recalling her anthem’s fighting spirit, a different Poland arose to reclaim, pen and polling paper in hand, what domestic violence had taken from her… The result: a resounding defeat of the governing coalition and a victory for the pro-European Civic Platform, led by a calm, intellectual Donald Tusk.

Though the Civic Platform, like the Kaczynkskis’ Law and Justice party, is considered right-of-center on the European political spectrum, its policies are likely to be radically different. As the designated Prime Minister, Tusk is hoping to substitute the traditionalist and protectionist populism of the Kaczynksi years by a modernizing approach: he will push for free-market reforms at the same time as taking a more liberal stance on social issues.

Internationally, the first priority of the new Polish government will be to return Poland to the center of Europe. Under Tusk’s leadership, the Sejm, Poland’s parliament, will move quickly to ratify the EU’s constitutional treaty, which the Duck Brothers had long opposed. This should be welcome news to all Europeans (even though Gordon Brown, who is in his own quandary about how to convince the British to accept the EU treaty, will be unhappy to have the spotlight turn on him…)

Relationships with Germany – which had detiorated to a level of mutual hostility unknown since before Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik reconciled the traditional enemies in the 1970s – will improve markedly, even though real disagreements remain. Poland is worried about a German-Russian oil pipeline which is being built outside Polish territory. It is also angry at the plans, championed by descendents of Poland’s German minority, to commemorate their forefathers’ expulsion after World War II without direct reference to the preceding Nazi terror.

The Polish-German relationship will not turn peachy overnight. But Tusk will know how to raise these issues calmly, as disagreements between friends should be. As a result, Tusk might convince Angela Merkel to take Poland’s genuine worries more seriously than she had when they were raised as a phony part of Kaczynski’s frenzied rhetoric.

The greatest measure of tact, however, will be required in Tusk’s handling of the Polish-American relationship. Tusk and his pro-business party are by no means anti-American – nevertheless, Tusk’s campaign promise to bring back home the remaining 900 Polish soldiers in Iraq will strain Poland’s relationship with the Bush administration. As the “Coalition of the Willing” is further decimated – most of the countries which invaded Iraq at America’s side now make up the “Coalition of Countries whose Previous Governments were Willing” – Donald Tusk will strive hard to assert Poland’s role as an equal partner, neither a vassal nor an enemy, to the US.

Overall, the better Poland has good reasons to be relieved that the Duck Brothers got clobbered by Donald. So has the rest of the world.

Why Sarkozy Breaks Taboos, Or: How to Understand Bush

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:28:00 +0000

Below is my second post on the Harvard International Review's blog...

---

Politicians are painfully – some even paranoically – aware that one wrong move, however small, can lastingly impact on their careers. Just think of George Bush Sr., who glanced at his watch once too often during one of the Presidential debates against Bill Clinton; or Howard Dean, whose 2004 run for President faltered in no small part because of the infamous “Dean Scream”.

Of all the political taboos that could ruin a politician’s career, however, it is those involving children or cuddly animals which are the most dangerous.

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachussets and a Republican candidate for President, was rudely reminded of this when tales of a 1983 family holiday resurfaced recently. Some twenty-four years ago, he put Seamus, his Irish setter, into a dog carrier on the roof of his station wagon for a 12-hour trip to Ontario – and has had to reassure upset dog-lovers that “my dog loves fresh air” ever since.

On to children. In the UK, a somewhat more substantial decision was to haunt Margaret Thatcher’s political career. As a young government minister responsible for education, Margaret Thatcher, in 1971, scrapped the provision of free milk to school students over the age of 7. Until today, most British children continue to associate her with a neat little nursery rhyme: “Thatcher, Thatcher. Milk snatcher!”

But the realm of taboo includes not only the hidden political minefields which everyone tries to avoid. More important still are the instances of rhetorical defiance of orthodoxy, when politicians consciously choose a controversial policy. For then the breaking of a taboo must be understood as a symbolic battle cry, not merely an ill-considered mistake. It thus points to moments of decision for the larger political culture, at which politicians either defend a time-honoured ideal against the moment’s winds of political change; or try to shift a policy paradigm.

The former is the case with President Bush’s recent decision to veto a bill which would have provided state-sponsored health care to approximately three and a half million additional children. Bush obviously knew this to be controversial – there are few things which are as blatantly unpopular as denying poor, sick children a doctor (except, possibly, snatching their milk). But apparently he judged a last-ditch attempt to defend America’s traditional skepticism towards state-provided health care against the rising appeal of some form of universal health insurance to be more important than short-term popularity (or his party’s electoral prospects at the 2008 elections).

The latter is true of French government plans to require foreigners who qualify to immigrate into France because of family ties to prove by a DNA test that they really are related. The measure, which passed its last parliamentary hurdle yesterday, has kickstarted the first big opposition movement of Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency – embracing not only his traditional political opponents, but also Francois Bayrou, a centrist, and Dominique de Villepin, the Conservatives’ last prime minister. Their worry: by linking immigration and genetics, the law would change the notion of French citizenship. No longer welcoming to anyone who subscribes to French Republican ideals, it would become a closed, implicitly even ethnocentric, concept.

Sarkozy is undoubtedly a shrewd politician. He has also proved more capable than to use bipartisanship for strategic goals than expected. Foremost amongst these seemed to be weakening the reform wing of the Partie Socialiste, the main opposition party – which is still reeling from the quasi-defection of two crucial figureheads, Bernard Kouchner to the foreign ministry and Dominique Strauss-Kahn to the head of the IMF. So why did a President who has surprised his opponents by orchestrating these bipartisan moves now push ahead with as taboo-breaking a policy as this?

The answer may be more simple than expected and it is bound up with yet another taboo. Sarkozy is hoping to reform pension benefits for state employees – potentially a huge cut to government expenditure, but raising the possibility of protracted strikes, which could paralyse his government as well as the economy. The first day of the strike, which will cripple not only the Paris Métro, but also – and more importantly, according to many – their beloved Paris Opera and Comédie Francaise, is scheduled to start this Thursday.

One way to see these issues is on the left-right spectrum, where opposition to the DNA measure and opposition to his economic reforms is largely correlated. A better way may be to look at the affected socio-economic groups. Et voila: among the working-class and lower middle-class Frenchmen most affected by Sarkozy’s economic cuts xenophobia is particularly rife. By picking his fight on DNA, then, Sarkozy is hoping to create cross-cutting constituencies, shoring up support for his iconoclastic politics among groups of the population who are likely to suffer from the very same willingness to break taboos in the near future.

Can President Bush’s decision to veto the children’s health bill be credited with a similarly subtle plan? Perhaps not. But whether consciously or not, the deliberate breaking of a political taboo signals a kind of endgame, a clash of ideological titans. Sarkozy may have his economic agenda in mind when he signs off on the DNA measure, but if his law becomes reality, immigrants to France – and France’s political culture – will suffer from the effects for decades. Bush’s bunker may at this stage have lost sight of everyone other than the few true-believers who still surround him; but if, against the odds, he manages to win the fight on state-sponsored insurance for children, he may just have managed to bolster America’s time-honored opposition to universal health care enough to torpedo its introduction even if a Democrat becomes President.

When politicians choose to break political taboos, the public’s first reaction is anger or indignation. This, however, is part and parcel of the taboo breakers’ strategy. Only by understanding their motives and goals can the public oppose not only the particular measure in question but also make sure that policy paradigms do not shift as a long-term result. Otherwise, an angry public will achieve a Pyrrhic victory, winning the battle of the day and yet loosing the cultural war which lurks behind the headlines.

Stay Away From my DNA

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:02:00 +0000

The French government plans to require foreigners who qualify to immigrate into France because of family ties to prove by a DNA test that they really are related. In all likelihood, the measure will pass its last parliamentary hurdle today.

Last Sunday, opposition parties and civil society organisations filled the Zenith, a massive Paris stadium, to the last seat in a loud protest against this worrying law. As importantly, the masses were joined by political actors from the whole democratic spectrum: next to the left's luminaries, there was also Francois Bayrou - the centrist Presidential candidate who came in third at the elections - and Francois Goulard, a government minister in the last conservative cabinet.

An online petition against the law has been signed, at this time, by over 230.000 people - among them Dominique de Villepin and Jack Lang, as well as the usual suspects (click here to add your name to the protest!). The petition's text is pretty good at outlining some of the moral issues the government project raises:

En instaurant des tests ADN pour prouver une filiation dans le cadre d'un regroupement familial, l'amendement Mariani, adopté par l'Assemblée Nationale, fait entrer la génétique dans l'ère d'une utilisation non plus simplement médicale et judiciaire mais dorénavant dévolue au contrôle étatique.
Cette nouvelle donne pose trois séries de problèmes fondamentaux.

Tout d'abord, des problèmes d'ordre éthique. En effet, l'utilisation de tests ADN pour savoir si un enfant peut venir ou non rejoindre un parent en France pose d'emblée cette question : depuis quand la génétique va t'elle décider de qui a le droit ou non de s'établir sur un territoire ? Au-delà, depuis quand une famille devrait-elle se définir en termes génétiques ? Sont pères ou mères les personnes qui apportent amour, soin et éducation à ceux et celles qu'ils reconnaissent comme étant leurs enfants.

Ensuite, cet amendement fait voler en éclats le consensus précieux de la loi bioéthique qui éloignait les utilisations de la génétique contraires à notre idée de la civilisation et de la liberté.

Enfin, cet amendement s'inscrit dans un contexte de suspicion généralisée et récurrente envers les étrangers qui en vient désormais à menacer le vivre ensemble. Car tout le monde s'accorde à dire que la fraude au regroupement familial ne peut être que marginale au regard des chiffres d'enfants annuellement concernés et au regard de l'absence de raison substantielle qu'il y aurait à frauder dans ce domaine. En effet, quelle étrange raison pousserait les immigrés à faire venir massivement dans notre pays des enfants qu'ils sauraient ne pas être les leurs ? Autrement dit, l'amendement instaurant les tests ADN n'a pas pour fonction de lutter contre une fraude hypothétique mais bien de participer à cette vision des immigrés que nous récusons avec force.

Nous sommes donc face à un amendement qui, sur les plans éthique, scientifique et du vivre ensemble introduit des changements profondément négatifs. C'est pourquoi, nous, signataires de cette pétition, appelons le Président de la République et le Gouvernement à retirer cette disposition, sous peine de contribuer, en introduisant l'idée que l'on pourrait apporter une réponse biologique à une question politique, à briser durablement les conditions d'un débat démocratique, serein et constructif sur les questions liées à l'immigration.

Swiss Sheep II

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:57:00 +0000

And it just got worse: on the SNP's homepage you can now play a game which involves stopping black sheep from transgressing the Swiss border; and catching Swiss passports before they are blindly distributed (by Greens and a dorky judge) to a clamouring crowd of foreigners.

The games are preceded by little quizzes - i.e.: what proportion of rapes in Switzerland has been perpetrated by foreigners?

The site is rather slick, as, on the whole, is the SNP's entire campaign. It would be interesting to see what, given the current state of discontent with the government and the weakness of democratic opposition parties, would happen in Germany if a right-wing extremist party would run such a professional campaign.

It's an experiment I'd rather not see happening in reality - for, somehow, my feeling is that the potential for right-wing extremist parties is no lower than it was at the peak of Haider's influence in Austria, or Blocher's likely triumphal election results next Sunday...

Swiss Sheep

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:11:00 +0000

We Europeans have many prejudices about Americans; not all of them entirely unfounded. But one of the American prejudices about Europe that I often have to argue against is that racism is a lot more widespread in our beloved Old World. Mostly, people who argue this are simply misinformed. Sometimes, however, I think there may be a modicum of truth to this.

Switzerland, for example, will be voting in 10 days, and Blocher's right-wing extremist SNP will likely gather more than a quarter of the votes. And in case you think they're not so bad - or at least not openly racist - have a look at the SNP's election poster:

It reads something like: "People's Initiative to Deport Criminal Foreigners - Building Security". The foreigners, in case you didn't find the slogan offensive enough, are depicted by a black (!) sheep, being booted out by a good white patriotic (and presumably Swiss) sheep.

Let's hope Swiss voters give Blocher the boot instead. But there's not much hope. Perhaps I'll just have to start admitting that we Europeans do have a real problem with racism??

Harvard International Review

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:15:00 +0000

Hi all,

I've just posted my first post on the Harvard International Review's blog. I promised them to post an entry every week, so be sure to check over there regularly for updates. I'll also post links on here every time...

Obviously, also continue to look at Bits of News regularly, though I've recently been a bit lazy on that count...

Cheers!

Putin - Democracy's Man in Moscow

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:09:00 +0000

No, I obviously don't think Putin is a good democrat. But his recent manoeuvering might just help Russia return to a modicum of democracy. Why? Check out my post over at the Harvard International Review Blog:

Here's the first two paras:

It’s been a long while since good news for democracy has come out of Russia. Last week, however, brought two interesting developments. First, Garry Kasparov – a charismatic and popular former chess champion – decided to stand as the opposition candidate in the upcoming Presidential elections. Then, Vladimir Putin – Russia’s cold and stern, yet eerily even more popular President – implied that he may seek to become Prime Minister when he has to step down from his current post.

In my view, only one of these decisions has real potential to be good for civic freedoms in Russia. Which? Counterintuitively, it is Putin’s self-serving political calculation, not Kasparov’s well-meaning idealism, which gives me hope.

French Republic = United States of America (II): The Tazering Years

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:51:00 +0000

Just in case anyone thought that my last post on France and the US was frivolous - here's another tiny step towards French Americanisation. According to an announcement reported by today's Le Monde, the French municipal police will be equipped with - Tazers. It seems like all things American, good and bad, eventually cross the Pond. If the French aren't careful, Oreo-topped pizza might be next...

The French, however, will have to use Tazers more carefully than police in Flordia did during a recent John Kerry speech (see below): if every rambling audience member at French political rallies was to get tazered, the whole audience would be sent into paralysis sooner or later.

Better idea still: politicians on TV debates, when they exceed their allocated speaking time, could be tazered into silence. I knew America would find a way of silencing these self-righteous French politicos eventually... and a few years ago, when the "Freedom Fries Years" gave no indication that they might be succeeded by the "French Tazering Years", we all feared that the Whist House's weapon of choice might be rather less peaceful!

French Republic = United States of America (I)

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:26:00 +0000

I have a pet theory. Most people perceive it as silly, which is why I've been keeping quiet about it. But now - from a very unexpected direction - it is being publicly vindicated. I guess I gotta get moving with it to keep my intellectual property right...

Here it is:

The country with the political system and ideology closest to France is - the US.

My arguments for this will follow over the weeks.

So long, just have a look at Mr. Sarkozy's opinion on the matter:

Mr. Sarkozy, who has been accused of being too enamored of all things American, said he considered France and the United States to be on equal footing and somehow better than many others, because they believe that their values are universal and therefore destined to “radiate” throughout the world. The Germans, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Chinese, by contrast, do not think that way, he said.

Pleased though I am about this support, I am also struck by another, equally surprising, bit of praise for America:

He listed the things that appealed to him during his two-week vacation [in New England]: the countryside, the shopping malls, the restaurants...

The shopping malls?? Apparently Sarkozy really does want to turn France into another mini-America. But I'm not sure I, or the French, can stomach the idea of a "New-England-Come-New-France" minus the convenient Chinatown-bus connection to New York...

(For the full interview, see here)

If only the Dems had some courage... (Le Déserteur)

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:19:00 +0000

Whilst the Democrats are failing to oppose the Iraq War effectively on Capitol Hill, Boris Vian's moving song - written in the last stages of France's faultering imperial ambitions during the Indochina War - might serve to inspire them. They probably wouldn't like it, though.

(Here's a verbatim translation, for non-Francophiles:

The Deserter

Mr. President
I'm writing you a letter
that perhaps you will read
If you have the time.

I've just received
my call-up papers
to leave for the front
Before Wednesday night.

Mr. President
I do not want to go
I am not on this earth
to kill wretched people.

It's not to make you mad
I must tell you
my decision is made
I am going to desert.

Since I was born
I have seen my father die
I have seen my brothers leave
and my children cry.

My mother has suffered so,
that she is in her grave
and she laughs at the bombs
and she laughs at the worms.

When I was a prisoner
they stole my wife
they stole my soul
and all my dear past.

Early tomorrow morning
I will shut my door
on these dead years
I will take to the road.

I will beg my way along
on the roads of France
from Brittany to Provence
and I will cry out to the people:

Refuse to obey
refuse to do it
don't go to war
refuse to go.

If blood must be given
go give your own
you are a good apostle
Mr. President.

If you go after me
warn your police
that I'll be unarmed
and that they can shoot.)

Poland has nothing to hide - Or: "Waiting for the Log Cabin Republicans' Sequel..."

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:02:00 +0000

The Polish "Women's Party" bared all to show they have nothing to hide - a stab at the national-conservative policies of the Kaczynski government, which is hopefully headed for a hefty defeat in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

A naughty thought, though, may be forgiven. The US Republicans, from the bathroom-cubicled Senator of Idaho, to the prostitute-soliciting Senator of Louisiana, have a lot to hide. Why don't they bare all secrets, with a similar poster?

The Log Cabin Republicans, those rare and brave souls admitting to being homosexual in a deeply homophobic party, have laid the facts bare verbally. Those hypocrites from Idaho to Louisiana should follow suit physically. At least, for once, they'd be in charge of their own humiliation.

Another episode in "Tazering America"

noreply@blogger.com (Yascha Mounk) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:07:00 +0000

Granted: ranting audience members can be annoying. But this instance of unprovoked police brutality is shocking.

Two things, though, are even more shocking.

a) Kerry's lacking response. On another video you can hear him trying softly to speak out to the police officers - without courage or decision.

b) The media reaction. CNN, for example - supposedly a "liberal" news outlet - in the main implied that it was the student's own fault for being "inappropriate". Inappropriate, by the way, is my favorite Americanism. I hope to write a blog entry on it soon. Suffice it to say, for now, that in a society where things being "inappropriate" is enough of a reason to ban them - or to tazer individuals behaving inappropriately - freedom of speech all too easily flies out of the window...