A lot of things are of historical significance today, it seems. Guy, over at wsacaucus, refers to Tony Blair’s “historic address to a joint sitting of Federal Parliament today”. Blair is no doubt a good orator, and has some charm, but his pseudo-Gladstonian liberal Imperialism falls apart very quickly when examined logically. Andrew Bartlett gets it in one:
“Prime Minister Blair is the last person to be giving anyone advice on what should be done in Iraq,” Senator Bartlett told reporters today.
“His record is appalling and his complete inability to admit he’s made mistakes is rivalled only by our own prime minister’s.
Let’s have a look at Blair’s values shtick.
Mr Blair told MPs and senators who crowded into the House of Representatives that the struggle facing the world today was not just about security.
“[It is also] a struggle about values and about modernity, whether to be at ease with it or enraged at it,” said Mr Blair, the fifth world leader granted the honour of addressing federal parliament.
“And to win this struggle we have to win the battle of values as much as arms.”
The key to deconstructing this high-sounding rhetoric which actually seeks to enshrine realpolitik in morality (Blair’s stock in trade) actually lies in Howard’s response:
“Our two countries have stood together in defence of common values and universal truths and liberties, often at very great cost,” he said.
Precisely – Blair’s values talk begs the question of whether there is just one modernity. And it’s clear that “universal truths and liberties” actually means Western versions thereof. An actual struggle for democracy, as I’ve suggested Amartya Sen argues, would recognise that democracy is neither a gift to be given or a regime to be imposed by the West, but something whose true universality arises in the traditions of public rationality found everywhere in the world.
Blair shouldn’t be ashamed of defending our particularistic interests in the name of security. No amount of noble sounding rhetoric about universalism, values, and modernity will disguise that that’s what he actually bases his decisions on. If he does actually base his decision making on some utopian madness about “spreading freedom and democracy around the world”, rather than Britain’s security interests, he’s as bad as Bush if not worse. Leaders whose ideological dreaming involves war and the deaths of innocent are very dangerous. Let’s not forget Blair’s constant justifications of the Iraq War in terms of his own conscience rather than democratic accountability. We shouldn’t fall for Blair’s rhetoric.
Yes, thought it was a good comment from Andrew who cut through the crap very nicely. As far as the values stuff goes I agree, with the caveat that I have heard much worse mangling of values (and manipulation thereof in a nationalistic manner) from the likes of Howard and Bush in the past.
Somewhere, sometime, someone from the CoW will have to have the gumption to say that things in Iraq have not gone as planned, and that things realistically speaking might have or even probably would have been better off without the gung-ho military intervention that occurred.
But that would require honesty from people in elected office with something to lose from telling it like it is.
Mark says
“Blair’s values talk begs the question of whether there is just one modernity. And it’s clear that “universal truths and liberties” actually means Western versions thereof.”
Don’t stop there, Mark, I’m interested to see the alternative(s) you can present. That’s just leaving us in suspense.
You may also want to throw in a couple of examples of “alternative” medernity.
Try South-East Asian for a start, JC. And leaders from countries such as Malaysia and Singapore have been among the most prominent articulators of the view that Western “universal truths” are really attempts to put them back in their box.
Malaysia, Singapore … I’m not touching this one.
“…but his pseudo-Gladstonian liberal Imperialism”
are you guys serious?
You call malaysia an example of modern alternative society? You realize don’t you that they practice a form of aparteid there, don’t you?
Blair and Gladstone – a history lesson.
The contradictions of Blair.
The danger of liberal imperialism.
“And leaders from countries such as Malaysia and Singapore have been among the most prominent articulators of the view that Western “universal truthsâ€? are really attempts to put them back in their box.”
Ever considered comments they made were self-serving and not representative of the truth?
JC, that’s a somewhat overblown claim, and there’s a few blots on our modernity as well. Modernity doesn’t imply value judgements or indeed values in the Blairean sense.
Have you ever considered that Blair and Howard’s comments were self-serving and not representative of the truth?
That’s precisely my point, JC. We’re better off with a bit of old-fashioned international relations realism rather than mad utopian overstatements, no matter from whose lips they fall.
“And leaders from countries such as Malaysia and Singapore have been among the most prominent articulators of the view that Western “universal truths� are really attempts to put them back in their box.�
I take it all that huffing and puffing about Van Nguyen was just confected?
Look it’s blatantly obvious that both the ruling cliques of Malaysia and Singapore have a lot to gain from this special pleading. There are democratic traditions in Malaysia (e.g. at the level of the villages) but UMNO and Chairman Lee are not very good examples of them.
I think you’ve also missed my point, Jason.
I’m sceptical of any grand claims from people pursuing their political self-interest to incarnate freedom and values. So much of values talk is just cover for power politics.
To clarify, you can make an evaluation that there are different types of modernity without invoking values in the sense of “one is better” or “ours is better”. Where the confusion comes in with Blair’s nonsense is that he first conflates modernity with Western modernity (and if you pushed him, I bet it would end up being Anglo-modernity) but then alleges this is universal and that he is acting in a morally correct fashion by seeking to impose it universally. The contradictions should be rather evident.
‘[Y]ou can make an evaluation that there are different types of modernity without invoking values in the sense of “one is betterâ€? or “ours is betterâ€?.’ Okay, I’ll bite. A type of modernity that is founded on liberal values is better.
I jumped over to wikipedia to find out what modernity is. These are some of the defining aspects:
Bureaucracy, Disenchantment of the world, Rationalization, Secularization, Alienation, Commodification, Decontextualization, Individualism, Subjectivism, Linear Progression, Objectivism, Universalism, Reductionism, Chaos, Mass society, Industrial society, Homogenization, Unification, Hybridization, Diversification, Democratization, Centralization, Hierarchical organization, Mechanization, Totalitarianism…
You kids are gonna have a field day with this one. I’m gonna sit in the backyard and have a tinny.
“I bet it would end up being Anglo-modernity.”
Yes Mark, and I would even go further and say that so-called Western values are largely a myth too. Anglo- Saxon values is the term that ought to be used.
You know you are on the right track when the French scoff at it.
To be honest there is nothing I see in the world other than a few pockets in Europe, such as Switerland and Liechtenstein that even remotely look anything like holding Anglo Saxon values.
I might dive into the discussion in more detail a bit later, but I’ll offer this for the time being.
If we accept Blair’s rhetoric that the decision to go to war was based on faith in values and their extension in the world… doesn’t that make things worse? I think the “Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was threatening the world’s security” was a much more solid defense. To send people to war based on nothing but values is a dangerous precedent to set, given that alternate to the world of values, we have a world divided by nation-states that lay claim to sovereignty and must compete for power in an anarchic world (a particular school of thought in IR I know, but I think it makes a lot of sense). States should be going to war for matters of defense and pressing interests rather than as an instrument of liberal evangelism.
“Have faith in God, but tether your camel”, so the Muslims say.
Sorry Mark but you are barking up the wrong tree/creek/dogs leg/whatever.
If you say that “talk of values is just power politics” then you will always be stuck in the world of the paranoid.
Superficially Blair Bush and Howard are from conflicting political streams but they share the same “realpolitik” (stupid lefty term), for the world to be successful people must be free.
There is no alternative scenario.
“That’s precisely my point, JC. We’re better off with a bit of old-fashioned international relations realism rather than mad utopian overstatements, no matter from whose lips they fall.”
So you think the Wilsonian dream is dead?
We may fail, but at least we failed trying as against even failing to try.
I am not sure I agree with Wilson dreams but it not a bad ideal to have. Whereas the opposite is almost nihilistic. This is a hard postion to come to grips with to be sure.
Mark
The problem that some on the right and nearly all on the left is that they do think Wilson is dead. However his ideals were sunk in the 20’s and 30’s only to be revived after the war.
We all know what happened when we turned our back.
And who gets to intrepret what freedom is? And why is the definition the province only of the strong?
I would like to have seen Blair appear on the 7.30 Report, answering questions arising from the Downing St memos which showed that he was told that “the intelligence has been fixed”.
Another opportunity to interrogate a war criminal lost.
How about free press, free association, free vote, freedom for women, fair judiciary, freedom of religion, rule of law, private property rights.
That’s a start. Would you add to this list Kim?
I could parse that list to analyse how many of these freedoms are in effect in this country or in those countries to whom we’ve “brought freedom and democracy”, JC.
Kim,
OK, do we not have any of the freedoms in JC’s list? Parse away.
Mark,
First, a quibble about terminology. You criticise Blair for seeking to “enshrine realpolitik in morality”, but then later say we need some “old-fashioned international relations realism”. I thought realpolitik was a fancy German expression for IR realism?
Secondly, if you really think realism and not idealism (in some form) should be the guiding light of our foreign policy, then congratulations, Mark: you are now officially a conservative!
Thirdly, I really would like to see you address Jason’s point about Van Nguyen. Personally, I was deeply opposed to the execution. But under your position, what right do we have to lecture other countries about their laws?
You may laugh, but I think Blair was and is the most genuinely idealistic of the three Coalition leaders; he convinced me at the time that the war was right, and I have not changed my mind since.
I could parse that list to analyse how many of these freedoms are in effect in this country or in those countries to whom we’ve “brought freedom and democracy�, JC.
Kim, I am not going to argue with you if you think those freedoms don’t exist here. That would be too hard.
Which coutries have we brought freedom and democracy?
Ok, Kim, let’s start with Germany, Japan, South Korea. How about US pressure on Mexico to clean up it’s election act where the “revolutionary party” is no longer running things the way they were. That’s a start.
How about US support preventing the Communists taking over in Italy in the late 40’s.
That’s a start, Kim , you can fill in the other blanks.
JC, before I do, you’ll have to fill me in on the chronology of South Korea. My impression was that the South Korean people did it themselves, while the Yanks were quite happy to support dictators.
South Korea
Yes, of course Kim. Getting run over by communist hords would have been far better than a dictatorship that voluntarily gave up power to deomcratic institutions.
The 50,000 US dead had no effect on that outcome.
There’s always thousands of dead, aren’t there, JC?
Do they whisper to Tony Blair in his sleep?
Do they whisper to Tony Blair in his sleep?
And the better solution is?
I’d follow up Kim’s question by asking: “Has the world therefore been unsuccessful up until now, and are those many millions living without your idea of freedom unsuccesful?”
Indeed!
JC, on filling in the blanks, we could start with freedom of speech which youse RWDBs think is under imminent threat from governments and PC police when you’re not in Blairite mode and lauding TEH WEST for its greatness in the upholding of freedom.
Just pointing to a contradiction…
In practice, you like to attack various actual or perceived infringements of rights in the West (and I’m sure if I got you started on “property rights”, we’d be here all night), but when you’re drawing up the borders against those uncivilised Others, we’re the paragon of all goodness and virtue.
Number of democratic countries has increased since the Iron curtain came down. Yea. It’s been successful with a lot more work to be done.
Since when has freedom been a relative concept?
If you lived in the UK, JC, how much would you find to like about the freedoms that Blair accords its citizens? How about attacks on the rule of law, due process and freedom of speech in the name of his noble ideals? I’m amazed you can’t see the contradictions!
“but when you’re drawing up the borders against those uncivilised Others, we’re the paragon of all goodness and virtue.”
No, as there is always work to be done. Uncivilized behaviour? You mean like this
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/6.htm
or this
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/7.htm
or this
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/8.htm
and this
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/10.htm
And this
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/11.htm
Or am I being too judgemental.
Well, you’re certainly not addressing the point of whether or not your view that TEH WEST is perfect is born out by practical criticisms I have no doubt you would make about the infringement of freedoms here in this land of plenty and joy. I do seem to recall reading various comments of yours about what you see as the infringement of free speech and economic rights.
Btw – if you post too many links in one comment, the moderation filter is going to assume that your comment is spam.
Kim
You need to remind me what this is about
“I do seem to recall reading various comments of yours about what you see as the infringement of free speech and economic rights.”
Anglo Saxon freedom isn’t perfect but it’s the best system on offer at the moment. The Rolls Royce.
Kim what we are arguing about is at the very edges such as should Fisa courts should have been notified when listening to potential mass killers planning an attack, or whether a terror suspect ought to be held for a longer period than in normal criminal cases. These are edge issues. They aren’t core issues, I’m sorry to say.
So you’d suggest that the laws going through federal parliament this week which allow eavesdropping on innocent parties’ email and sms communications without their knowledge aren’t a threat to core freedoms, JC?
Kim,
The West is certainly not “perfect” — but it is surely a hell of a lot better than Baathist Iraq or North Korea. You do see that, don’t you?
What I really, really wish is that Left and Right could agree that (a) mass-murdering dictatorships are evil (regardless of whether they are left or right-wing dictatorships), and (b) as a last resort, when all other options have been tried, it is legitimate to use force to remove them.
Incidentally, if you’re worried about white people imposing their values on the rest of the world, keep in mind that almost all dictatorships are essentially foreign impositions, not products of indigenous society. Saddam’s regime was based on a socialist (European ideology) party that sprung up in the 1940s, and, as we all know, was extensively assisted by both the US and USSR to stay in power. In 2003, at last, we finally took responsibility for what we had created.
Are they a threat, possibly. Do they reduce a little of our freedoms? Tiny.
Does it spell the end of our core freedoms and values? Absolutely not.
Yes, Paulus.
But to what degree are we conditioned by our own cultural assumptions when we split the difference as to whether the West is better than, say, Singapore?
I’d agree with your last para.
Your second para, of course, begs the question of why not all mass-murdering dictatorships attract the same level of Western concern and opprobrium, and indeed, whether disorganised states where genocide is being practiced (eg Darfur now, Rwanda in 94) get only lip service.
That’s surely the point about Blair’s humanitarian principles. They might sound fine in theory, but under what conditions are they put into practice?
Certainly not as if they were a universal rule.
Kim
Do you realize what we are up against. The old rules of conducting war etc. have gone out the window. If we have a chance of surviving and winning we have to adjust our rules.
These changes relate to potential terror candidates. It may affect you or me if we have spoken with these people while they are being investigated but that is a freedom i am willing to give up to prevent say an old people’s home being bombed as was attempted last week. If the authorities didn’t have power to listen the phone cnversations that act could very well have happened.
are some of our freedoms being a little compremised. Yes. A little.
Don’t forget these laws have use-by dates.
Well, I would certainly support a universal rule. Christopher Hitchens has made this point quite eloquently. Still, in the absence of such a rule, taking out Saddam was a good first start.
Re Singapore: sorry for banging on this drum again, but did you criticise Singapore re Van Nguyen. If so, well good — I did too — but weren’t you just “conditioned by our own cultural assumptions”?
This is my broader complaint about left and right — this tendency to cherry-pick issues and be inconsistent. We either (a) support notions of universal human rights and democracy, which are basically western values in origin, and may often conflict with other countries’ value systems, or (b) we don’t, and say every nation can do as it will, and we won’t criticise.
Choose (a) or (b) and be consistent.
Instead of just having a go at Kim, a question for JC …
As far as you’re concerned, is realism still the guiding principle for the right? In the case of another Blairite initiative to oust a dictator, but in a part of the world where there were no strategic interests for the West (eg Darfur or Rwanda as Kim mentioned), would you be for or against?
The problem with universal rules is they always have a particular application. The justification for Kosovo was in terms of “emergent norms of international law”. They didn’t keep emerging. Instead we get pre-emption and there’s no sign whatever that anyone is willing to take action against any of the world’s most pernicious regimes.
The distinction with Nguyen is that you can make an argument based on universalism when it comes to fundamental human rights affecting criminal jurisprudence, particularly when the judicial process to which you are in effect concedes many of the same beliefs regarding the rule of law and due process. And I didn’t go in there with humvees and bombs. I just made the argument.
As to (a), JC on this thread proves that the proponents of interventionism are completely unwilling to acknowledge that anyone in the West might be contravening universal human rights, or even that our much lauded democracy might be a bit febrile.
Oh, and on (b), “not criticising” can’t be equated with not making war on another country. There were no shortages of voices criticising Saddam Hussein pre 2003, and there were other methods of influencing the situation than invasion.
I can’t believe you can’t see that your push to impose “Western values” in practice entails the death of many innocents.
JC mentioned Wilsonianism. Wasn’t Wilsonianism supposed to be about abolishing war as a tool of policy?
Get back tom to answer
Go to work now
modernity = since everyone now has access to the same ebb and flow of information then we should feel not just free but positively required to draw our own conclusions…
“I can’t believe you can’t see that your push to impose “Western valuesâ€? in practice entails the death of many innocents.”
Yes, but in some cases innocents are going to die whatever happens. Take Rwanda. If there were any decency in the international system, there would have been a military intervention to stop the genocide.
No doubt Hutu elements would have fought back and waged a guerilla campaign against the UN force. Undoubtedly, innocent civilians would have been caught in the crossfire and maimed or killed. But you’d ultimately have saved many more.
I apply similar reasoning to Kosovo and Iraq, although I acknowledge they’re not as clear-cut as Rwanda.
Oh, and the “other methods of influencing the situation [in Iraq] than invasion” … this has been discussed millions of times on the net since 2003 and I am yet to hear a reasonable suggestion for dealing with Saddam’s regime. The sanctions system (despite our government’s noble efforts to break it) led to a far greater toll of innocents.
“I’m sceptical of any grand claims from people pursuing their political self-interest to incarnate freedom and values. So much of values talk is just cover for power politics.”
Spoken like a true conservative, as has been pointed out previously Mark. Blair is of course a left progressive and IMO was the architect of the largely Anglo BOL theory for Iraq. Essentially you see his (and Bush’s) strong leftist, affirmative action stance shining through his words and deeds. True conservatives would caution strongly against such evangelising/crusading, be it in the name of freedom, liberty or equality(Marxism?), because it is often the path to tyranny(Communism?)
In their defense of course Blair and Bush would claim they are merely pushing some well worn and time honoured absolute conservative values. Now leftists here are critical of Bush and Blair for being selective(why not Rwanda?) but that is a childlike response. As adults we always have to prioritise resources. First the alligators threatening the boat and then ultimately the swamp. Leftists with a childlike sense of where resources spring from, can never see the adult tradeoff, or perhaps simply don’t want to. ‘Whadda we want? Lollipops for all. When do we want em? Now!’ You know, the uni student dependent mentality. As part of resourcing so called positive affirmative action (good deeds?), it’s quite likely that vested self interest will lower the cost of that action. eg we all use oil and a peaceful ME is in all our interests, not least for that fact. Childish leftists refuse to see that and for them it’s a case of- See, it’s all about oil! In the final analysis though, Blair as a left progressive saw the ME as the greatest threat to world peace after the fall of the Berlin Wall. BOL in Iraq was his great affirmative action plan, after the blinding flash of light of Sept 11. If it were Clinton in the Whitehouse
instead of Bush, I have no doubt most here at LP would be defending their left progressive, affirmative action venture, against right conservative critics.
Shorter Obby: Lefties just hope for pie in the sky unlike me who’s sure the Iraq clusterfuck will make sense in the long run.
Ha, ha, ha! I almost split my sides laughing at this one. Where on earth do mark and Sen get their ideas about “traditions of public rationality found everywhere in the world”? The Enlightenment tradition – whether antique or modern – has, for the most part, been of recent vintage, very thin and narrowly bounded.
The history of modern democracy is largely the history of the growth of the modern European nation state and the export of its legal-rational institutions to the RoW. But even this is being too generous as most modern European nation states have, at one time or another, mutated into fearsome despotisms.
For some reason, during the modern age, where ever we find democracy spreading we are likely to see a Royal Ensign. Global democracy (like the UN) was, up until the swelling of the Third Wave, a show largely set up, managed and promoted by current and ex-members of the British Empire. Certainly the First Wave (UK and its various colonies 1828-1926) and the Second Wave (US and its various clients 1943-1962) were given their strongest support by the English-speaking peoples. The Third Wave seems to have been more an autonomous product of post-modern “End of History” processes.
Traditions of public rationality have been mighty this on the ground throughout most of human history. The human mind evolved to get food and sex by wheeling and double-dealing under conditions of intense status competition. This evolution is not always conducive to “public rationality”.
Most of the leading public intellectuals throughout history have held views about the nature of reality which could only be described as bonkers. And the common folk have mostly not even risen to that level. The notion that rational democracy was latent throughout world history is an example of a bonkers pov. Stove put the problem of what is wrong with our thoughts with characteristic pungency:
This is not intended as a criticism of democracy. There is definitely a “wisdom of crowds“. Democracy is an excellent method of sampling the population – a census! – to get a true and fair representation of their views. But its wisdom is mostly unconscious (tacit) and emerges as an unintended consequence of certain types of interaction within properly formalised institutions.
One needs a good demos to get a good democracy. And, following GIGO, the sample is only as good as the values in the underlying population. A rational and self-governing population will deliver a decent output with the proper institutions. In short, one needs to evolve “Protestants” and then get that tendency to spread. This was the world-historic mission of the Florentine Merchants and Royal Navy.
The existence of fairly stable Bell Curves in moral and intellectual competencies has profound importance for the spread of democratic decision making, both within and between states. One hopes that the Flynn Effect can push these curves to the right, so that virtually everyone except deviants will be willing and able to be democratic.
No Nabakov but I supported the war for asking the $64000 question- Are ME Arabs(in this case Iraqis but the question also applies to Afghans) like Germans and Japanese under fascism or are they somehow different? You got the answer yet Nabs?
“Are ME Arabs(in this case Iraqis but the question also applies to Afghans) like Germans and Japanese under fascism or are they somehow different?”
Yes and no.
Look obby, there’s no point in trying to make a point unless a) you have a real point to make and b)you get to the point about making your point.
So far you’re coming across like Special Agent Drunk Uncle.
Nabs, it’s a bit of a rhetorical question which we all answer individually. In the end that will have electoral consequences. The question can be rephrased as- Can ‘Arabs’ immediately benefit from a bit of well intentioned Blairite affirmative action, or are they a century or two away from any such notion and the best we should hope for is a benign Saddam? ie benign in the sense that he doesn’t threaten our self interest. It’s not a rhetorical question for Iraqis right now of course. Personally I think the question was worth asking (ie military intervention) but I’m not sure about the answer yet. I accept some have already made up their minds.
Of course mark Steyn (via Tim Blair)probably encapsulates my kind of multicultural relativist approach to these things Nabs:-
In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee�—the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:
‘’You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
Paulus Asks
“As far as you’re concerned, is realism still the guiding principle for the right? In the case of another Blairite initiative to oust a dictator, but in a part of the world where there were no strategic interests for the West (eg Darfur or Rwanda as Kim mentioned), would you be for or against?”
Paulus, the right, as you call it is a loose coalition of interests. We like the left have our mad Aunts.
I don’t have a ready answer as to whether we should have invloved ourselves in Rawanda. After the fact it looks like we should have stopped it.
Darfur is a perfect example of an operation that ought to be run by the UN. But being useless and ineffective they obviously can’t.
The question you should be asking is why would those places you mentioned be altogether different from Iraq?
Blair is as uninspiring as democracy on a bad day, but what we have in Iraq is a democratic government challenged by a significant minority that wishes to install an extremely undesirable dictatorship. Some communist regimes could claim some achievements in welfare, education and gender equality (East European democracy owes something to post-1945 communism) but absolutely nothing desirable could come from the overthrow of the current Iraqi government. The undemocratic minority in Iraq is pursuing a ruthless strategy of ethnic and cultural polarisation with the objective of bolstering its own numbers, like Howard they recognise that polarisation and violence is the way to build support. The only question should be how to support Iraqi democracy.
The tragedy of Iraq is that the political cost to the US could mean that in the future umpteen Rwandas will continue unchecked. Only democracies have to endure endless political scrutiny from their opposers, true dictators are excluded from inquiry by anti globalists and human rights activists.
Iraq is a test of the nerves and the west is failing.
GeoffR when you say that “Eastern European democracy owes something to post-1945 communism)” what is that thing, or are those things, that you think Eastern European democracy owes to post-1945 communism?
He means the Russian tanks in Prague 56/68.
The East German Intelligence network spying on the population. Estimates had it that 1 in 20 people of working age were working for the intelligence structure at its peak before the wall came down.
Oh, I forgot, he means they had free health care.
GregM don’t pass nonsense about communism. It stunk.
JC it was just a question, nothing more.
My own understanding of what Eastern European democracy owes to post-1945 communism is that it owes a profound debt, having endured forty-five years of Soviet imposed communism,in having learned the lessons in evil from that experience, so that Eastern European democracy, more than in Western Europe, viscerally rejects the controlling role of the State in matters of belief and conscience, collectivism, one-party rule, sham elections, State ownership of the means of production, economic policies derived from the writings of a second-rate 19th century economist and political theories derived from a 20th century Russian psychopath, etc. etc.
However I am open-minded about these things so I am curious about what else the East Europeans derived from their post-1945 experience that GeoffR considers means that they owe anything at all to it that could be described as good.
Greg
Got you, thanks for the explanation.