This week's theme seemed to be national arrogance on parade. Nations being arrogant is not really news but when it goes as far as it has this week on more than one occasion it's more than news. It's hubris.
Example number one, only for chronology's sake, is found in an article from Politicker about elections in Kenya. It's entitled, President Obama's Brother Loses Election in Kenya , but what struck me had nothing directly to do with one of President Obama's relatives running for elected office. It's not even about the office he was running for. It's about the bigger race in Kenya's elections, its presidency.
The article said this about that race. "The United States and other Western nations have vowed there will be unspecified “consequences” for Kenya if Mr. Kenyatta emerges victorious." Now, beyond him apparently promoting some terrible violence after he lost the last time he ran, I don't really know much about Mr. Kenyatta, but I must ask this. If enough voters in Kenya actually chose to vote for him that he "emerges victorious", who will suffer these "consequences" the United States and other Western nations threaten to deliver. More to the point perhaps, who is the United States and these other Western nations threatening, the people of Kenya? Who made these nations God?
The next example comes from the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled, Hungary Lawmakers Rebuff E.U., U.S.. This time it is Hungary being treated like a second class nation. Their current government has such a strong majority in its legislative body that it's able to amend the nation's constitution almost at will, and is doing so. That does seem scary, but far scarier things happen all over the world each year with nary a word said. In this case however words are being said. Quoting the article, "Last week, the Council of Europe called for a delay in voting on the new amendments until they are reviewed by an international commission. EU and U.S. officials also urged more deliberation, saying the proposals raise rule-of-law concerns."
So what are these "rule of law concerns"? I invite you to read the article yourself but I will say they're not all that big. Seems to amount to little more than the legislature being able to pick which judges will rule on challenges to their laws. Not something I'd want my own nation's legislature to be able to do, but compared to say how France's government treats private property with its ridiculous tax rates, it seems a pretty small infraction against human rights and dignity. The other changes are also small things, defining the word "family" to mean what it meant when most family law was written and allowing police to keep homeless people from sleeping on city streets.
So someone is being arrogant here and in this case it isn't necessarily the E.U. Hungary does wish to be a member of the E.U. so being nagged and nitpicked by them is part of what they bought into. The United States on the other hand is wasting scarce and valuable diplomatic resources essentially telling Hungary they should be like them, and once again I must say, it's about relatively minor things. A couple of those amendments could easily be added to the United States constitution and to good effect, so what is the United States government really and truly upset about here? Are they actually speaking so that Hungary can hear them or so that they can hear themselves?
Now onto the third and final example of governmental hubris. This one's about a European's hubris and it's truly the grand finale for my blog this week. Reuters posted an article entitled Banks saved, but Europe risks "Losing A Generation". The article gets its title from a quote from Martin Schulz who is the current leader of the European Parliament. He is expressing concerns about how so much has been spent to save the banks but too little in his apparent opinion has been spent socially.
"One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems. And if the younger generation is losing trust, then in my eyes the European Union is in real danger."
The European Union is a government of governments and it seems that at least in Mr. Schulz's case he believes governments exist to solve their people's problems, pretty much all of them. Thus the idea of a generation of Europeans believing the answers to their problems must come from somewhere else is bad. That they should turn to more local governments, themselves, other individuals, or even to divine sources for solutions, those would all be bad things apparently.
What is hubris when it involves making yourself a god where none is needed? What is it when it involves making oneself a god where the real one is already? If the results of stupidity can be worse than evil, can the results of delusional foolishness be worse than hubris?
Example number one, only for chronology's sake, is found in an article from Politicker about elections in Kenya. It's entitled, President Obama's Brother Loses Election in Kenya , but what struck me had nothing directly to do with one of President Obama's relatives running for elected office. It's not even about the office he was running for. It's about the bigger race in Kenya's elections, its presidency.
The article said this about that race. "The United States and other Western nations have vowed there will be unspecified “consequences” for Kenya if Mr. Kenyatta emerges victorious." Now, beyond him apparently promoting some terrible violence after he lost the last time he ran, I don't really know much about Mr. Kenyatta, but I must ask this. If enough voters in Kenya actually chose to vote for him that he "emerges victorious", who will suffer these "consequences" the United States and other Western nations threaten to deliver. More to the point perhaps, who is the United States and these other Western nations threatening, the people of Kenya? Who made these nations God?
The next example comes from the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled, Hungary Lawmakers Rebuff E.U., U.S.. This time it is Hungary being treated like a second class nation. Their current government has such a strong majority in its legislative body that it's able to amend the nation's constitution almost at will, and is doing so. That does seem scary, but far scarier things happen all over the world each year with nary a word said. In this case however words are being said. Quoting the article, "Last week, the Council of Europe called for a delay in voting on the new amendments until they are reviewed by an international commission. EU and U.S. officials also urged more deliberation, saying the proposals raise rule-of-law concerns."
So what are these "rule of law concerns"? I invite you to read the article yourself but I will say they're not all that big. Seems to amount to little more than the legislature being able to pick which judges will rule on challenges to their laws. Not something I'd want my own nation's legislature to be able to do, but compared to say how France's government treats private property with its ridiculous tax rates, it seems a pretty small infraction against human rights and dignity. The other changes are also small things, defining the word "family" to mean what it meant when most family law was written and allowing police to keep homeless people from sleeping on city streets.
So someone is being arrogant here and in this case it isn't necessarily the E.U. Hungary does wish to be a member of the E.U. so being nagged and nitpicked by them is part of what they bought into. The United States on the other hand is wasting scarce and valuable diplomatic resources essentially telling Hungary they should be like them, and once again I must say, it's about relatively minor things. A couple of those amendments could easily be added to the United States constitution and to good effect, so what is the United States government really and truly upset about here? Are they actually speaking so that Hungary can hear them or so that they can hear themselves?
Now onto the third and final example of governmental hubris. This one's about a European's hubris and it's truly the grand finale for my blog this week. Reuters posted an article entitled Banks saved, but Europe risks "Losing A Generation". The article gets its title from a quote from Martin Schulz who is the current leader of the European Parliament. He is expressing concerns about how so much has been spent to save the banks but too little in his apparent opinion has been spent socially.
"One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems. And if the younger generation is losing trust, then in my eyes the European Union is in real danger."
The European Union is a government of governments and it seems that at least in Mr. Schulz's case he believes governments exist to solve their people's problems, pretty much all of them. Thus the idea of a generation of Europeans believing the answers to their problems must come from somewhere else is bad. That they should turn to more local governments, themselves, other individuals, or even to divine sources for solutions, those would all be bad things apparently.
What is hubris when it involves making yourself a god where none is needed? What is it when it involves making oneself a god where the real one is already? If the results of stupidity can be worse than evil, can the results of delusional foolishness be worse than hubris?
No comments:
Post a Comment