It may be a difficult marriage, born of proximity and
convenience rather than passion, but today German Chancellor Angela
Merkel and French President Francois Hollande put a good face on
the 50 years since France and Germany signed the Elysée Accords.
Americans, left and right, could learn a thing or two from this
relationship.
The raised glasses of fine champagne and plates full of steaming
sauerkraut (the former enjoyed more than the latter, I presume)
hide a policy divide similar to that seen between Democrats and
Republicans. That is, whether Europe’s grievous financial
structural issues can be better handled through “stimulus” or
“austerity” models. It goes without saying that Germans favor
budget cuts and austerity, while the French favor tax hikes and
stimulus.
With Europe’s economic future on the line, the question of who
is right, and at whose expense, may seem to trump any show of
humility. But this is not Merkel’s approach, even though the German
economy is providing a 20-year low in unemployment compared with
France’s Euro-era high.
“We are aware of our great responsibility to improve the
situation in the European Union, overcome the euro crisis and make
possible economic growth — and so make workable for the future the
tried and tested model of European life, linking competitiveness
and economic strength with social cohesion,” Merkel
said, emphasizing the need to act concretely and in conjunction
with France.
President Hollande struck a similar tone: “We have to give
Europe confidence in its future … (and) be as concrete as possible
… so that growth can be reinforced and stability guaranteed … We
are ready to talk to anyone, to hear any ideas, from those who want
to go further in European construction.”
Is such a tête–à–tête imaginable in these United States? Could
we have such profound mildness from our politicians? Granted,
France and Germany have a rivalry that’s caused three wars in 70
years to counterbalance, and a political union that seems to be
made up as it goes along, compared with our Constitution and its
“winner-take-all” presidential contest. Still and all, the
Franco-Allemande approach seems to be the one that will work better
in the end. If it does, it will have its shrewdly mild leaders to
thank.
Luckily we will not have long to wait. France and Germany face a
timeline by which to agree: The June European Summit.
Occam's Tool| 1.22.13 @ 2:47PM
They both have shrinking and aging populations, and a currency which is dying. Doing real well.
Frog in Uniform | 1.22.13 @ 4:51PM
Alas, Monsieur Outil d'Occam, our population is not shrinking at all. Our judeo-christian culture part is slowly fading away but the muslim part is alive and well. I believe Germany will have the same fate with the high proportion of turks who were granted German citizenship. The euro currency is the biggest scam in history, it allowed the prices to increase 20% overnight when the franc was dropped on January 1, 2002. If you consider that the rate of the euro is the EXACT double of the deutschmark rate whereas it is about 6.5 times the franc's rate, and that ALL European Community laws and regulations are closely modeled on existing German ones, you have no difficulty understanding which countries had to compromise the most. As my Dad said:" Hitler had a dream and Chirac fullfilled it." Only in the fuhrer's wildest delirium bouts could one have conceived a Frogland chained to Germany and extranged from the United States.
While we're at it, Monsieur, let me ask you a question that I wouldn't dare ask in Frogland without being in trouble.
Frog in Uniform | 1.22.13 @ 5:09PM
Here I'm asking for advice from an expert in psychiatry. We have noticed on several instances that suspects of muslim background busted for ordinary street crimes like drug dealing, mugging, beating, arsons and stoning are extremely stubborn not to admit their crimes when interrogated. I mean there's is not the usual lowering the gaze, perspiring, stuttering and stuff like that. I know that for a muslim, lying to an infidel is not a sin and that lying without being caught is not a sin either (as it is the case for all crimes if you follow their interpretation of the coran) but how come there is no physiological evidence that a muslim is lying? That the usual signs present with an "infidel" do not show up when you interrogate a muslim? Is there a built in "good conscience" in a muslim mind that prevents him from feeling guilty of anything if he knows his victims are infidels or that the accusers have no proof. A friend of mine who is a psychologist told me once she never saw the widening of the eye pupil on several muslim applicants who were being background tested for a job. We don't have polygraphs in Frogland, Monsieur, either because they're too expensive or because in certain circles we still believe in the virtues of "serious talking" but I'm wondering whether being convinced of doing the right thing or getting away with crime is enough to dodge the polygraph test?
Forgive my broken English.