Reconsidering Europe

>"how practically conservative and humane daily life in his part of the world is"

I think he's on to an interesting phenomenon, and I have no proposed explanation for it. I've seen something similar in Maine, for example, and in Provence.

On the greater sense of local community in Europe: Their strength is their lack of diversity.

I lived in a charming Bavarian village in the mid-70s, as a college student. My employers/housing providers were hotel owners. I cleaned rooms and eventually waited tables. As the Stammtisch waitress (the exclusive waiter for the tables reserved for locals to drink themselves silly after Church on Sunday mornings and every Thursday evening) I saw underneath some of the tideness. As my customers - all the upstanding men of the village- got drunk, their pro-Nazi sentiments were exposed. Even my solid, middle class, hardworking boss thought that "nur ein kleines Hitler" (just a little Hitler) would be a good thing. Get rid of all those Turks. Never mind that Turks were washing all the dishes in their restaurants and doing all the jobs spoiled Germans thought themselves too good for - sound familiar?.

That was over 30 years ago, so I can't speak for how Germans are thinking now. But it was disquieting, to say the least. Appearances can be deceiving.

Elizabeth, your comments remind me of some things a friend from my church, who lived in Eastern Europe for a while for his work, said about the small shopkeepers and landlords he got to know there -- he said that the anti-semitism and anti-immigrant sentiment is just under the surface, and that some of the comments about "what to do about the immigrants" made by "nice villagers" such as his landlady made his blood run cold.

A question without easy answer is how these Europeans - apparently so willing to throw off their traditional allegiance to nationalities and religion - are otherwise so willing to make these sacrifices for the common weal of their communities and fellow citizens? ... And why Americans, otherwise so devoted to nation and exceptional in the developed West for their religiosity, have become otherwise so unwilling to make the individual sacrifices that might result in actual forms of liberty - liberty, that is, as self-governance ...?

I think I see what perplexes Deneen here. A person can belong to two kinds of community, and in each of these cases, the people have decided to prioritize one over the other. The German example is membership in a local, concrete community of neighbors and acquaintances; the American example is membership in a huge, abstract community based on politics or creed. In the latter model, your connection to other members is a common cause or ideal; you may not actually know each other personally, but that's not the point. In the former model, that is the point; you know each other.

I think the German model is, in many ways, more human and natural. The human race grew up in small clans and small villages; we find it hard to feel real empathy for large groups of strangers, whatever we profess intellectually. Some of the other commenter point out the downside of local community - clans can be, well, clannish, and suspicious of outsiders - but the downside of abstract community is that it too easily becomes 'armchair' community.

That's why I, personally, think a "Guest Worker" program is a bad idea -- it was tried before (the "Bracero" program in California in the '60s) and it didn't work. Nothing wrong with immigration, but I believe in assimilation to give new immigrants a real "buy-in" to the values of the community.

Which is funny, because, when I was in college, I remember reading a book or article entitled, "The Ordeal of Assimilation." It may well be an ordeal, but methinks it is a very healthy one.

Utter Eurorot. Urban Europe is a combination of nightmare and museum with nothing of value for us and scratch a rural German and you'll find someone yearning to wear a brown shirt like his grandpa.

Of course you will se another type of Europe if you look at places like Bavaria, Poland, Croatia and the Austrian countryside. This places are highly catholic and conservative. But they are also shrinking and isolated. This parts are the last bastions of refuge for the soul of Europe. But outside of this forts Europe is dying.

For a few years now I have lived in Sweden and in this country there are basically no conservatives. There is a few old guard aristocrats, some low rank clergy and a couple of college students but that’s about it. There are no conservative organisations, no conservative leaders and no conservative news outlets.

As a result over 50 % (!) of the GDP is confiscated in taxes, abortions are skyhigh, church attendants extremely few (and old), a majority of children are born out of wedlock and there are no schools teaching the liberal arts (!). And even worse there are no children. The Swedes as a people are dying because the young women do not want to carry children. The average age for a Swedish female to have her first child is at the age 30 (in the US it’s 25) and the prognosis are that the average female born under the seventies will have no more that one child per person!

Europe is stale, Europe is dying. As Tom Tancredo said (I don’t agree with him a lot but here he is right) America is the last and best hope for western civilization. If we want to revive western civilization America must lead the way. We must win the culture war back at home and then take the fight overseas. Europe to lacks the ability to do it themselves.

How many of you are actually European? I doubt that any of you really are, you might have spent a year or two over here, but thats nothing. Sweden is dying? i didnt know that - but believe me i have every faith its population with rise again, with or without "conservative" ideals. Britain is managing it, European nations arent "dying" you just dont agree with the way we live, pure and simple. As for the poster who said that u gotta come over here and win the "culture war" (a right load of conservative bullcrap if ever i heard it), u can keep your "culture". we dont want your crap over here. We have the ability to keep our culture and we have done so. The only thing that america has contributed to the west is insecurity, scaremongers, a false war, and many deaths. You guys are in NO fit state to lead the west.

I just spent a little over a week in Ireland and Northern Ireland. There is much good to be said for Ireland.The people are wonderful, generous and unfailingly polite. I saw little Anit-American sentiment, thoguh Falls Road's graffitti was a revelation. I may not like Bush or this war, but damn if that means Fidel Castro and communism makes any sense.

One jolting thing that struck me, RE- supposed homogenity-the mobility of the EU has made Poles and Czechs to labor force for the Celtic Tiger. One local paper in Dublin was translated in whole to Polish, and the joke is another paper was that looking back on JPII's triumphant visit in the 1980s, today he would be given a 6 Euro per hour job to man a hamburger stand. Is that somehow a good thing?

EVERYTHING is taxed, some twice with VAT.

If you want a bag with your purchase, you pay for it. How you could carry out groceries for family remains to be seen.The idea is supposedly to get people out of the house and into restaurants and clubs. But it makes supporting anything much beyond a couple very hard. The economy, not just the culture, seems geared to singles 20-somethings rather than families. While my view might be skewed a bit by being mostly in and around cities, it seemed true in both Dublin and Belfast.

I have a lot of respect for conservation. But I don't like $5/gallon gas or glorified golf carts instead of cars.I like my Grand Cherokee. I like driving on huge 6-lane interstates that go for hundreds of miles.I like pulling into huge parking spots in huge outdoor malls. I love going to Costco and Target. And I hate taking the crowded subway that breaks down every time it rains.

A note to those going-the dollar is really weak.

There's a species of pol (like Mike Bloomturd, for example) that thinks they can nanny state the car and anything else they see as evil(booze and cigarettes) out of existence.That is folly. Those folks hold the reins in Europe; they should never do so here, and they should all go to hell. And they're the kind of spineless people who will give in to the Muslims in a heartbeat in the name of diversity, right up until it's too late.And worse they're joyless scolds who , as in Bloomturd's case, drink up Johnny Walker Blue and smoke Cubans when the cameras aren't on.

Well, Anne, what do you do-hang around all day in your hairshirt? Conserving, recycling and composting are great ideas. But there's only so much that's going to do. We all gotta live. And there will be more of us. I'd note if you do buy in bulk for your family(as I and millions of Americans do) you minimize your trips to the market and save money.

Sorry for living, Anne.

It's folks like you and Bloomberg who would have us all feel bad for living. And guilt us into "carbon offsets". As in the Bush/Iraq thread-we could safely and easily drill in ANWR and off the coasts. We could convert our coal resources in clean fuel. We could expand refineries and their capacity. We could make cars more fule efficient. We could develop solar, wind and even nuclear technologies. Instead we get more doses of the guilts from scolds like you, and silliness like ethanol. And a whole bunch of NOTHING-build nothing, explore nothing, drill nothing, do ultimately NOTHING to address the situation.

Hemp clothing is nice, but it's not a substitute for addressing the problems we face, honestly and seriously. Whish our leadership has totally failed to do because they get cowed by whiners like yourself. Hope you're happy.

"Nothing wrong with immigration, but I believe in assimilation to give new immigrants a real "buy-in" to the values of the community."

This blog claims to be by and for "crunchy conservatives", but judging by the comment above it is more for limpy confused PC tolerantistas.

Would author of the above comment please explain how assimilation will work if a community (a small town, a large town, a state) is 55-75% a resentful minority loyal to their old country and believing that by all rights this land is theirs.

I'm Europeean and I have no trouble with americans (or anybody else for that matter) discribing Europe as a "wasteland filled with materialistic pleasure-seekers". Because we are. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth.

"I have no trouble with americans (or anybody else for that matter) discribing Europe as a "wasteland filled with materialistic pleasure-seekers". Because we are. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth."

OK. But compared to Americans?? Give me a break!

Re: "OK. But compared to Americans?? Give me a break!" and the rest of the back and forth on this:

I've lived in the UK for over a decade, and I would venture that compared to here (and I bet compared to the Continent too), the US is simply more extreme at both ends of the spectrum. There does seem to be more extreme consumerism in the US...but the US also has more extreme anti-consumerism. For example, I've found that Brits in general are far more likely than Americans to have a vague sympathy for smallholding, but smallholders and wannabe smallholders in the UK seem to be more....I dunno, conventional. More likely to be having a hobby smallholding as a lifestyle choice (I won't go quite so far as to say, "just another form of consumerism" but it is kind of tempting), whereas AFAICS there are far more American smallholders whose smallholding is tied up with a really serious desire to live out a non-mainstream value system that goes beyond smallholding.

> The economy, not just the culture, seems geared to singles
> 20-somethings rather than families.

I'm not sure any single person looking to buy a house in Dublin finds the economy geared towards them. That said I think Ireland has a younger population than America and the influx of 20somethings from eastern Europe can only have helped tilt things that way.

I never pay it myself as I bring my own bags but I think it is more like 30 American cents. IMHO the plastic bag levy and the smoking ban were some of the few things the last Irish government got right.

I've lived in Germany or Austria for a total of four years now. I'd love to go back there and work, someday. (For now I have family obligations - two ailing grandmothers.)

It is indeed very much as the linked blogger described. The whole rural society is based in small villages called 'Gemeinschaft" which means more than incorporated. It's more like, "social relationship based on affection or kinship."

By German law, all of these incorporated villages should be within walking distance of a train station, or a bus that will take you to the train station. But really, there are always two or three villages within walking distance, and a bicycle makes that really easy. There are large walking/biking trails between villages for precisely that purpose. Everything is recycled. Most everyone has a garden. Even the city dwellers usually have a tiny woodshed and plot of land out past the suburbs. Anything that can be grown locally is: chickens, cabbage, potatoes, cherries, feed for animals, milk, etc. Consequently a lot of it tastes better, and takes fewer petrol dollars. Small butcher and baker's shops are to be found in every village and neighborhood. The bread is amazing - but careful, no preservatives mean it won't last more than a day or two. On the plus side, it can be delivered to your door, along with milk in glass jars, per request. There are festivals all summer and fall. The best ones involve testing out the new half-fermented wine (your civic duty, you know. All for the good of the community!)

I could go on and on. The houses are pleasant, and either old and beautiful, or new and beautiful. There are acres of parking lots. Everyone lives in a smaller place. Which isn't so bad, you can only accrue so much plastic junk if you live in small place. Does that stuff really make you happy? Or does sitting in your back lot, with a neighbor or two, enjoying local made wine until dark. Most everyone lives at a saner pace, eats at a saner pace, and worries and fears less. They are not lightyears ahead of us. Theirs is a very old way, which has been called communitarian. Europe is not without its problems, politically. I've lived there enough and had enough friendly (and not so friendly) pub debates to know better. I've taken university courses in German, about local and European politics, about German and European history. But that's one thing. The way that life is lived is something else, and a better indicator of how a society is doing, I think, than political mantras.

But I want to leave you with this main point. The lifestyle I have described makes people happy. Happier, I daresay, than our highly individualistic, credit-based, suspicious of our neighbors lifestyle. Europeans are not sitting around dourly counting carbons and attending joyless communistic meetings. They are having one long block party, as they have for centuries, living within their economic (individual and national) means, and we are out of the joke.

Oops that whole long thing was me. And I meant to AREN'T ACRES of parking lots! Silly me.

I think all the money is placed in a separate fund that is only used for waste management but as it is almost a lazyness tax I'm not too worried about it.

As far as bars closing due to the smoking ban maybe it happened in NY but I have not noticed any impact in Dublin. No shortage of pubs here.

Crunchy conservatism has about as much to do with the conservative movement in the United States as does George McGovern: Very little.

That's why crunchy conservatives are quite confortable voting for far Left pro-abortion Democrats against traditional conservative Republicans.

It is "crunchy conservative" to vote for a Left-wing Democrat who is pro-abortion against a conservative Republican.

Figure that one out.

Again, Rock, you are conflating conservatism with the Republican Party. It all depends on what you wish to conserve. I don't believe either party is conservative in the sense that I am. Alasdair MacIntyre said that all parties in the US are liberal: you've got the liberal liberals and the conservative liberals. But all accept the liberal status quo. He was speaking not in a polemical sense, but in a philosophical sense.

NO KIDS!!!!

How can one think a culture is "conservative" when they are not even procreating at reaplacement rate?

Europe has a TFR=1.4, and this is still falling like a stone. Crunchy? Sure. Conservative? Humbug.

Rod,

Again, Rock, you are conflating conservatism with the Republican Party.

Here's what I wrote: That's why crunchy conservatives are quite confortable voting for far Left pro-abortion Democrats against traditional conservative Republicans.

Notice I used "traditional" and "conservative" as modifiers to "Republicans."

In other words, this isn't a case of Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe running against a pro-abortion Left-wing Democrats.

No.

This is a case of an anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, "traditional conservative" Republican against a pro-abortion, Left wing Democrat.

We can have a semantic debate over what is a "traditional conservative" Republican versus some other kind of Republican.

But I would guess if you asked 100 political science professors, a large majority of them would say that a "traditional conservative Republican" supports lower taxes, less government regulation over business, less forced unionization, less forced union dues, less government spending on social welfare programs, opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

I doubt many of these 100 political science professors would say, "Support for abortion rights is conservative" or "Support for more regulation over business is conservative" or "Opposition to lower tax rates on income from capital gains and dividends in conservative."

We all have the capability of making up our own definition of conservatism so that anything we advocate can be construed as politically conservative.

But if I told you that I live in California, voted for Barbara Boxer and John Kerry in 2004 and said, "I'm a traditional conservative," you would have to be on medication not to know I was being misleading.

Another point that gets to little attention.....

Lefty elites like to bemoan suburban sprawl and SUVs.

Driving around in a golf cart might be workable if it's only you and the "significant other." For people with children, the evil SUV is real advantage.

Try taking half the soccer team to soccer practice in a Prius sometime and let me know how it goes.

Also, living in a 800 square foot loft in the downtown area might work if it's just you and your "partner." But if there's a spouse and several children involved, you might want more than one bedroom, perhaps three or four, just so the children don't have to sleep with the parents.

So, while the Lefty enviro-religion might work for those who wish for the extinction of the human species, it doesn't pan out too well in reality for the man and wife who want to "conserve" the human race.

But I want to leave you with this main point. The lifestyle I have described makes people happy. Happier, I daresay, than our highly individualistic, credit-based, suspicious of our neighbors lifestyle. Europeans are not sitting around dourly counting carbons and attending joyless communistic meetings. They are having one long block party, as they have for centuries, living within their economic (individual and national) means, and we are out of the joke.

Posted by: | August 25, 2007 6:38 PM

Thanks for sharing. It sounds great! Next time, provide a name(ANY NAME)before you post. It's all confidential and makes responding to your post easier.

This is how I would like to live.

One observation that I really liked is that conservation is conservative. It is NOT conservative to buy multiple vehicles and a large house on credit that you ant afford. the idea that this lifestyle is necessary for families is BS as witnessthat large families existed in recent generations without fleets of SUV's and McMansions and hey, I managed to grow up just fine. Whats not conservative, though, is the attempt among some groups to instigate panic about a pending environmental collapse for the blatant purpose of consolidating power.
I think one of the problems America has is a large segment of the population is rootless. This is not new since we have always, as a culture, had the concept that it is not a bad thing to pick up, move on, and start over. It is exacerbated, though, because technology allows us to live disconnected from our local communities. Lord knows,
I've been a good example of a semi-nomadic American now struggling to learn how to fit into the community I've decided to settle down in. Compare this to europe where the addition built on the house in the seventeenth century is still called the new addition (my ex-father in laws family home). That difference has to have an impact on how we view the use of resources.

Europe is less ethnically diverse than America. Less ethnically diverse areas tend to be more equal and more conservative, but not necessarily more religious. Lest we forget, the most religious group in America are blacks, also the least conservative in behavior and lifestyle, while the least religious are East Asians, yet they are incredibly conservative when it comes to general behavior. Probably a bit of gene expression going on. Japan is probably the least religious country on earth, yet on all conservative benchmarks - rate of single motherhood, crime rate, anti-social behavior, STD's etc, it is overwhelmingly conservative. Black Africa, on the other hand, leaves and breathes religion, yet is a crime and STD infested hellhole. Gene expression trumps culture every time. Germans are genetically conservative in behavior, like East Asians, even if they've have abandoned religion.

Daniel,

Now whether that is a problem or not, the question of of whether there is anything inherenly "conservative" and therefore valued as "good" is suspect, unless you believe "conservative" correlates to "poor."

Wealth is only one correlation to procreation, and not even a primary one. All these drop fertility:

1) Atheism/Agnosticism
2) Female education
3) Wealth
4) Urban living

And the wealth angle seems to be more related to female education/career/lifestyle than to having wealth itself - IOW, many "highly educated/highly religious" women get wealthy and still have lots of kids. So, wealth cannot be considered THE cause. I would doubt it is even a primary one.

Regarding "conservative", this word generally means respect for the past; letting our ancestors vote, so to speak. Low fertility is a NEW thing by definition (it goes away as soon as it is tried!) And likewise it cannot be conservative, as it cannot last.

In other words, any culture with a TFR below replacement is not conservative by the very definition of conservative! Europe need not apply.

Lest we forget, the most religious group in America are blacks, also the least conservative in behavior and lifestyle, while the least religious are East Asians, yet they are incredibly conservative when it comes to general behavior. Probably a bit of gene expression going on. Japan is probably the least religious country on earth, yet on all conservative benchmarks - rate of single motherhood, crime rate, anti-social behavior, STD's etc, it is overwhelmingly conservative. Black Africa, on the other hand, leaves and breathes religion, yet is a crime and STD infested hellhole. Gene expression trumps culture every time. Germans are genetically conservative in behavior, like East Asians, even if they've have abandoned religion.

I wouldn't necessarily call East Asians the least religious people on earth-Buddhism is still prevalent there, I think, and if I'm not mistaken Shintoism still has a presence in Japan and local religions have a presence in rural China (and Christianity has a growing presence throughout China too). While not really a religion, I wouldn't be surprised if Confucianism is still influential there, and I suspect that it, along with an emphasis on tradition in the religion and culture of East Asia in general, has a lot to do with the conservativism we see there, even as East Asian countries have modernized and become more secular. I wouldn't attribute it to gene expression, as I doubt the Japanese as an ethnic group have been around long enough for such things to have been written into the genome, so to speak (I believe that they came about within the last 10,000 years or so). Germans haven't been around nearly long enough-if I'm not mistaken, Germans as an ethnic group have only been around for maybe the last 3000-2500 years. I suppose one might argue that such genetic changes occurred among their predecessors, which is possible, but I doubt human nature has changed much since we started splitting up into different groups-it wouldn't have had much time or reason to, and human nature seems to be a pretty universal thing (I could offer a different reason for that, but I'm a newbie when it comes to theology so I'll just stick to secular terms for now ;-) ). As far as African-Americans not being culturally conservative despite being religious, I imagine that religious influence has declined among younger African-Americans just as it has among whites. Historically, the church was the bedrock of many black communities and, despite all the external pressures they faced, the communities internally were solid, family ties were important and strong, and the problems we see in some of the communities today were generally not as prevalent-in other words, they were pretty conservative, I think, and I'm sure many still are. Among those that are not the culture has more to do with it than anything; I do not believe that Africans are somehow genetically predisposed to promiscuity and crime-such ideas seem reminiscent of the old racist ideas about the supposed hypersexuality and shiftiness of black people (please note that this is not meant to accuse you of racism). I believe that culture is a very powerful force, powerful enough to, as a whole, override some of our darker inclinations, and anyway I doubt any of the ethnic groups mentioned have been around long enough for such things to have been written into our genes.

And, except for Utah, it correlates to income. Again, it's more about poverty than it is about religion or being "conservative." Wealth and poverty certainly do have something to do with fertility rates-in poverty stricken countries infant and child mortality are higher and children are needed to help with the work and to provide for the parents when they get older. But I wonder if worldview doesn't have a lot to do with it as well. When you are religious creating children means creating something eternal, something that, unlike all your worldy goods, you can take with you, and when you are conservative you look to the past and the future instead of just the present; having children makes sense and seems like an important undertaking. Of course, I'm sure many in wealthy, secular, and more liberal-libertarian communities and cultures are looking to the future when they decide not to have children or to have only one, but I suspect that the greater emphasis on the here and now and one's own pleasure in this life has a lot to do with it as well. And, just based on what I've read and observed, the idea that people in the U.S who have large families tend to be uneducated and poor is an inaccurate one.

Hmmm...ideology as the community of the abstracted.

But that would include soccer mom teamsters, each of whom must be individually capitalized for platoon transport and deployment duty or be found wanting, equally with free range chicken chasers whose chickens and children must now increasingly compete for ever-scarcer range.

Daniel,

Actually, there is very little data to support this.

I note you leave out Mormons. You would have to leave out Orthodox Jews too to make your data work. Both groups are well-off and have lots of kids. From this alone we can see how religion can trump wealth.

If you want hard data that shows wealth is not the only factor, try this (world figures, as we are talking about Europe):

Year 1960 -- 2000
-------------------------------
Total Fertility 4.97 -- 2.69
Urban residence 33% -- 47%
Females schooled* 25% -- 60%
Contraception use 26% -- 63%
(*secondary school)

You can't really compare "wealth" easily, but the entire world has become a lot wealthier between 1960-2000, so I agree this is probably an important factor.

You also can't compare how "religious" peoples are very easily. Yet all but the most obtuse know the more serious someone takes their religion (no matter which one), the more children they will likely have. Which is why people with large families get weary of always being asked, "So, are you Catholic or Mormon?" (I always just smile and deadpan back, "Actually, I'm Muslim.").

I put it to you, Brad; will we pry that free-range kindly-killed drumstick from your cold dead greasy fingers?

The true community solution, providing multiple healthy uses for our dwindling land resources, is obvious: corral both chickens and children within the same fenced management acreage.

Chasing the chickens will provide the children with wholesome exercise and ward off the menace of childhood obesity while restoring a certain traditional meaning to the lives of the chickens so that they do not succumb to ennui.

The chickens, in turn, will keep the child-chicken management zone free from insect pests, providing the chickens with wholesome natural food while obviating the need for toxic pesticides.

I had the same reaction as Bugg (with a fortunately empty mouth), but I would add a less-sarcastic addendum: the free-range kids would also learn the value of personal effort in achieving results and rewards that their less crunchy peers don't seem to be getting much of.

Bugg, I like your writing, I like your ideas (I like seeing them even when I don't agree with them), but I have to ask: where do we draw the line between necessity and convenience?

The SUVs I see on the road are more than just gas-guzzlers. I see the drivers (more often women, it seems) talking on the phone and not paying attention to their surroundings... a consequence, no doubt, of their greater commitment to the activities of the their children. But when I also see them threatening my life (an admitted bit of hyperbole, but how many survivors of 70mph crashes do you hear about?) and the lives of the drivers of smaller vehicles around them, I really do have to question both their values and their morals. My evidence is anecdotal, but it is consistent and prevalent.

We are replacing respect for others with the cult of convenience. SUVs are just one of several symptoms. My car is smaller than a Prius, and I do/did just fine with three children in the house (two now that the eldest is married), weekly grocery trips and the challenges of Ikea packaging. I see the convenience of the red monster my neighbors drive (two children, both are self-employed and do alot of carting things around), and I find it easy to say no thank you.

I know, it begins to sound like the cliched "I used to walk ten miles to school, barefoot in the snow!!" The truth is somewhere in the middle, and I insist that you (general) cannot provide much beyond convenience as the justification for 14 mpg and greater carrying capacity.

...but has stopped being true for Catholics and never true for Evangelicals.

C'mon, Daniel, go into any Catholic parish and run your eye down the families there. About 10% in most areas (except liberal cities) are the conservative types, and they have big families. You can spot them a mile away. In every parish I've seen, the more seriously people take religion, the more kids they have.

Even among Orthodox Jews, there is a correlation between wealth and fertility. The Hasidim and other ultra-Orthodox Jews tend to be much poorer than Orthodox Jews and Jews genereally, they also have much larger families. Again, wealth/poverty correlates to fertility. Mormons are the only real outliers in that correlation.

I think our disagreement here stems from if someone is "in" a religion, or if they are "religious". Heck, just being a member doesn't tell us much about their religosity. I know tons of Catholics, Jews, etc. who are members, but pretty secular and don't give a hoot about the religion. So we can't just look at the rolls - the liberal zpg's and the conservative breeders (oops, make that child bearers for those too sensitive for the term) balance themselves out.

I'll try to track down some studies that show the religion-wealth correlation better. BTW, another issue is that most religions consider greed a serious sin, and so they might have an effect on income.

"C'mon, Daniel, go into any Catholic parish and run your eye down the families there. About 10% in most areas (except liberal cities) are the conservative types, and they have big families. You can spot them a mile away. In every parish I've seen, the more seriously people take religion, the more kids they have."

That's what's called a selective anectdote. And it still would not account for higher fertility rates in red states given how super specific you are now being in defining "religious." And the states with the highest percentages of Catholics are almost all blue or purple states and definitely not red. Arguably, among states where high Catholics fertility could actually have an impact on a state's fertility are overwhelmingly blue states with lower overall fertility.

One more thing:

How about letting others decide if they want to bring up water from the well the way they still do it in parts of the third world before we have to hear more lectures (followed possibly by a bigger, more bloated regulatory state) about the perils of convenience?

How about asking those who bring up water from the well whilst living next door to unending vistas of McMansions spraying dozens of gallons of water on imported turf lawns in the middle of what used to be a desert? Do you think they choose to spend hours instead of minutes getting potable water?

Find me a justification for those converted deserts that goes beyond conveniences, acquisition of wealth and a value system to puts image above substance. Show me where it is written that conspicuous consumption is a right. At no point will I even imply a desire for my neighbors to turn in their SUV for bicycles. I've defined the extremes; and I have yet to see you suggest what the middle might look like that would satisfy your sensibilities.

Strangely enough, in eastern europe exists such stereotype that american way of life is perhaps even more depraved and rotten than european, maybe it is because people are getting information from Hollywood films and make conclusions that america had long ago drowend in sin and ruled by satan (sorry, it is not mine opinion). It is more typical for people from province. They just don't understand that there is another life than shown in bad quality movies.
There was one funny story when to a young man from province, who became a big city dweller and civilised enough, came his relatives, a very young just married couple, they had some free time in the evening and he decided to show them a film "Pretty woman" with Richard Gere, to kill time and entertain them, he found it light and funny. The couple watched it with absolutely indifferent faces, they didn't even smile in funny places. He hoped that they were sympathizing with heroine, like he did, but just find jokes not funny. But closer to the end of film he heard outburst of laughter -the heroine said something like "you treated me as a whore" They both laughed like mad: "Ha-ha, don't like it, whore?" The man was shocked by their reaction.

Max: because they'd be arrested for theft. (Or was that a rhetorical question?)

Rock,

Before I wax pompous and windy: at no point have I thought of you as a bad person.

There are many good and bad reasons for economic decisions. Many of the "good" or "bad" aspects are very subjective, some of that being a primary driver of our discussion. I am, with all due respect (and more than a little agreement with your last rebuttal), asking for an objective assessment.

I really can't accept avoiding recession as a primary outcome of economic policy. The big words generally only have value to the big players. My contempt for corporate behaviors may be strong (and, concedo, aggresssive), but it has a solid basis in fact: private owners and wealthy stockholders always make a profit, while the middle and lower classes (ahem, 90% or so of the population) have little room to enjoy their wages... if their enjoyment budget even has anything in it to spend.

My intended point with the desert/water metaphor needs a bit of additional explanation. Please bear with me.

Developers do not develop in a vacuum. They ask for and receive from local governments (municipal to state) promises of infrastructure investment before they apply for the first permit. Cost of construction never includes new water mains (or new sewer or gas mains). My own neighborhood is an excellent example. I live in one of the first "suburbs", farm land converted to residential just outside of the southern boundary of Wm. Penn's city. (Ever hear of "South St."? That's the one.)

[My wife just called me to tell me that Alberto Gonzalez just announced his resignation.]

Ahem. Sorry. Anyway, I live two blocks from one of the most expensive, best maintained urban residential areas in the country, and until it broke and I had to pay for the replacement our connection to the sewer main was a terracotta pipe. In the meantime, just in the 23 years we've lived on this street, there have been two major projects that tore up the street and/or our sidewalk; were we invited to modernize our at-risk sewer connections? No, it had to wait for a tree root to finally crush our pipe and flood my neighbor's basement.

We are seemingly willing to spend millions on crisis repairs; but we cannot see our way clear to make investments in infrastructure that would save us many of those millions in the long run. And, we have recently removed the human element from "crisis spending", forcing honest working people who encounter personal catastrophe to either become homeless, or turn to crime to put food on the table. Yes, there are some who choose to be criminals; since they are the only ones sexy enough for media coverage, you don't get to hear about the others. Some of them are my neighbors. They steal water, gas, and electricity. Even with my own utility bills going up, I just cannot muster the impulse to turn them in.

I put my desert development metaphor into the same category: lots of money for ad hoc spending, none for long-term investment and spreading the benefit to as many as they can.

My cynical summary: what the economists see as trickle-down, we see as the occasional stream of urine followed by plastic cups that we are told to use to collect the urine and feel privileged to use it to quench our thirst. Sorry, but the view looking up is very different from what you seem to expect.

The different countries in Europe are different from each other -- what is true of the Germans does not necessarily extend to the other countries. Germans have a very different work ethic from the other cultures. They work hard when they are at work and they play hard when the work day ends. The French work to live. They do what is necessary well and no more. The Germans will work until the day is done or they are violating work regulations.

All Europeans value health. They take care of themselves. Eating good, nourishing food and getting exercise is a priority.

Despite socialism and mottos lauding equality, the countries have deep seated class distinctions. In France and Britain there is an elite and then there are the rest of the people. Except in cases of exceptional talent or intelligence, it is unlikley that someone that came from the lower class will break into the elite. In France, if you do not do well on the national tests when you are 16 there are no second chances. If you do well and can afford the right schools, you have a ticket to the elite class or the best jobs in the lower class. The rest of the folks will be pigeon-holed into jobs and will not have much opporutnity for change or betterment. In England, a very small percentage of the people attend university relative to the US and other parts of Europe. The number of years that people work is very limited to keep official unemployment rates down (typically 25 to 55). After that you can live off of the pensions but it is not luxurious living. So people are very frugal with the money they receive. Less is more is pretty much everyone's modus operandi. Small apartments, small furniture, small cars, small portions.

People in Europe are less mobile than here. Energy is much, much more expensive. Salaries are less. Things cost more due to VAT taxes. So the unintended consequence is less consumerism and strong local community created by economic forces despite official declarations protecting libertine ideals and goals. Official libertine positions give way to "what will the neighbors think" small town thinking. Folks live in close proximity so they worry about conforming to the norm. French families will go to great lengths to try to preserve some privacy by having very tall fences (I know someone who spent an entire summer planting tall shrubs to keep the neighbors from knowing -- and judging -- what went on in their back yard. Family remains strong as their teens (at least until recently) never were indoctrinated into the myth of teen rebellion created by Hollywood in the 50's and 60's. Teens will walk hand and hand with parents -- in public. Young adults are eager to visit parents on weekends and save some of their vacation to visit parents. Unions generally lobby to make sure that a certain percentage of all consumer goods and foods are from the country.This has the side benefit that local produce is readily available. Farm animals are on small farms and generally out in the open. The meet is tougher than US meet but it is more organic with less corn feeding and less antibiotics and other drugs. The animals are not stressed either so humans are not eating the stress hormones generated by the animals. Goods are not shipped long distances as the individual countries are small geographically--relative to the US. An artisian work ethic develops whereby the quality of the goods is superior to the mass produced goods. A vendor is embarassed to sell inferior goods. His/her reputation matters. The local produce vendors take greet pride in how their produce tastes not in how it looks after being shipped 2000 miles. So the unintended good consequence is more natural, healthy wholesome produce.

The French claim equality and liberty but the reality is that minorities are only equal in streets and public areas. Behind close doors and within the walls of businesses and government, there are gross inequalities. Minorities are very underrepresented in professional jobs, government, and many areas of life. TV programs seldom feature minorities.

So due to energy costs (high because of very high taxes), high real estate prices, high taxes on purchases, and constrained lifetime earnings (only the elite can break out and make substantially larger amounts of money), Europeans are less materialistic and have a healthier lifestle. They also have a greater respect for the places where they live because they are less mobile than Americans. Artisians and fabricators take great pride in the quality of their work because they know that quality is everything. The move to the European Union caused great concern amongst all of the people that globalization would errode the emphasis on locally produced goods and foods. If they keep looking across the pond, maybe they will continue to be convinced that having economics constrain their ability to be truly libertine perhaps has given them greater freedom in terms of health and quality of life.

Sotto Voce,

That's competition being forced to sell out due to the monopolistic (or at least oligolopolistic) manipulation of capital by those enties that possess the lion's share of it.

One of the difficulties with this view is that nobody is forced to sell or buy to and from these oligolopistic folk.

Heck, just buy bulk from a co-op or Costco, eat from scratch, use cloth diapers, read books and use the internet, don't buy canned intertainment or buy newspapers. Kill your tv. Live in a small house. Bike or use public transport. It's simple to whip the big guys; all their ads and captial doesn't do squat if we just say no. Don't feed the monster and he will starve.

In other words, if evil companies manipulate and control us, we certainly are as much to blame as they for falling right into their consumer trap. Who should we blame: the prostitute or the john? The drug dealer or the user? I am inclined not to have much sympathy for the latter.

Never before in the history of the world has a person been able to live like a king, eat food and exotic spices from far away lands, have tons of leisure time, and have a solid roof, all for very little labor. The problem is that we want more, and more and more...

A though experiment: in 1950 homes were half the size and held twice the people. Were we worse off?

Franklin Evans,

If I get you, you are saying that happiness is relative up to a certain point? If so, I agree.

But are we not (in the West) past the point of needs? We are squabbling over luxuries here, and the good life (which cannot be had by materialism) passes the culture by.

My wife accuses me of being a rather overboard romantic. There are times when I'm forced to agree with her. :-)

What is Crunchy Conservatism, if not a fairly wide-ranging answer to western materialism? I strongly suggest that we (general) avoid squabbling over details, and pay attention to the principles involved.

I am rather proprietary when discussions focus on European tradition, cultural contributions to the US, and especially modern comparisons. For all that I was born and raised in the US, I frequently find myself feeling like an outsider, or at least a disinterested observer; not because I lack interest (oh, no, quite the opposite) but because my sensibilities and mundane attitudes are so much more Old World than most people around me. I may "only" be 51, but I could easily fit in with people 30 and more years my senior. This is not speculation; it is a direct observation and experience many times over.

Anyway, this discussion calls to mind a unapologetic bit of bigotry from my mother: there is something rotten at the heart of German culture. It is so very important to keep the subjectivity firmly in mind, and remember that even extreme views are based on some kernel of truth. From angrily demanding that she renounce her bigotry, I have (especially since her passing 20 years ago) come to agree with her in the kernel of truth. Europeans, in general, have distinct differences in attitude and sensibilities compared to North Americans. We rightly find some of those differences distasteful (yes, even offensive); we must acknowledge, though, that the reverse is not only true, but that both sides are guilty of projection and self-centered filters.

I don't really have an opinion about the impending (or not) demise of Euro-centric culture on that continent. I see a core of strength there that matches what we have in the US, point for point. I also look at the many extinct cultures from human history. It is of no consolation to us here and now, I'm sure, but if one culture or another is doomed to disappear, others will take the vacated place. So it has been, so it shall be. My personal favorite example is the ancient Celts. Modern Celts really are almost nothing like them in any detail, except for one: they are resilient, adaptive, ready to assimilate only those parts of other cultures they encounter that they really like, and readily discard or dismiss the rest. I don't mourn the beauty that is gone; I admire the living culture that is. I'd like to respectfully remind both past-looking conservatives and forward-looking liberals that the here and now is precious, and bears receiving your thoughtful attention.

Modern Irish (last 200 years) have seen discrimination mostly for being Catholic. They have (if you care to compare such things) the most benign racial stereotype of any I can think of.

The ancient Celts were violent, pagan, and if they weren't defending their lands from invasion they were killing each other over local concerns. They were, nonetheless, the epitome of civilization in northwestern Europe and on the islands.

An assimilation of note gave rise to what is called Celtic Christianity. It was held in great disfavor by Mother Church because it illustrated what I wrote above about the Celts: adaptive, ready to see value in something for its own sake regardless of its source, and quite adamant about assimilating only what they really wanted. Of (nearly) all the pagan tribes and cultures that converted, the Celts were the only one to do so willingly, gladly, and with more enthusiasm than the missionaries were comfortable with.

You are superficially right about modern Celts. The Irish and their colony Scotland are the only cohesive remnants. The Welsh and Bretons are fading away into their local cultures. I like to think, though, that their adaptive strength remains. Part of being an overboard romantic, methinks. ;-)

I do not, personally, believe that American Catholics can claim any level of discrimination. Other explanations, especially political (the IRA for those Irish Catholics, for example) are more likely any more.

It's damn hard to "sort out the variables" as you nicely put it, Sig, and regardless of the target under discussion it is a grief to those who want to validate their experiences, but can't find the evidence to support it.

I wish, at any such point, that we could make it easier to sort out the retail, local, because-they-can prejudices that IMO will never go away, and the wholesale, prevalent and currently illegal discrimination that can and does still happen. It starts with the targets of the retail type to take a deep breath and/or a step back, and refrain from using the wholesale type of rhetoric. If nothing else, they may tend to get better sympathy (and a more likely change in the weather) from other locals who are in fact discriminated against, or have come to better terms with the retail idiots.

[I dunno why, but I seem to be stuck in merchandise metaphors lately.]