The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

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.

View all comments (3) |

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.

More Blog Posts by Jackson Adams

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/01/22/ich-liebe-dich-je-taime-france

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT