Post-National Europe versus the rise of nationalism in the United States of America

Tony Judt provides an interesting and in-depth account of the post-national movement that swept over a Europe left dismantled in the wake of two world wars--wars that saw the rise of rulers blinded by nationalistic desires and were absent of an idea of an allegiance to a collective group of states titled Europe.  Rather, ruling parties and dictators sought to extend their power at the cost of other nations and the people of the continent--most notably a loss represented by the millions of human lives lost and widespread destruction of infrastructure.  Judt ingeniously and very early in the book asserts that "Europe's recovery was a 'miracle'.  'Post-national' Europe had learned the bitter lessons of recent history. An irenic, pacific continent had risen, 'Phoenix-like' from the ashes of its murderous--suicidal past".  He continues by stating that his account of post-war Europe is "a history of Europe's reduction" with states that "no longer aspire...to international or imperial status" and similarly Europe saw "the withering away of the 'master narratives' of european history".  In the end, "a modest substitute for the defunct ambitions of Europe's ideological past, there emerged belatedly...the 'European Model'. In what I found to be the most interesting chapters in the book, "Europe as a Way of Life", Judt provides an even deeper assessment of the birth of the "European Identity" from high culture to views on security issues.  I think that Milan captures the idea of the "European Identity" when he stated in his last post "..in order for Europe to survive it not only had to unite, but that each country within Europe had to develop a sense of allegiance to that state without losing its primary allegiance to Europe." The necessity of a collectivity for political, security, and economic survival gave birth to the creation of an even greater "European Identity"--an idea that is a continual project filled with the tension and balancing.

In order to further define the "European Identity", Judt relies heavily on differentiating Europe from the United States of America.  Comparing views on culture, political and military issues including the "tactless unilateralism" employed by the US, Judt reveals large differences between Europe and the United States.  While Europe sought to lift itself from the rubble and destruction left from the two world wars, the United States of America solidified its movement towards hegemony.  It is interesting to compare the post-national movement of Europe to what appears to be an indisputable rise of nationalism in America--a deep sense of patriotism that was reflected in its cultural identity and politics.  I have found the growing differences and approaches to security issues to be the most interesting topics of our day.  While Europe is a shining example of the effectiveness of soft power, America has adopted a nearly relentless unilateral strategy founded in blinded ideology.  

I am left questioning the result the Iraq War and the greater "War on Terror" will have on the United States as a whole.  Perhaps our current image after our rise to 'stardom' that gave way to uncompromising military actions, failed diplomacy, and a certain resentment for American culture will change greatly.  The evolution and devolution of the very distinct "American" and "European identity" are issues that are very pertinent to our day and topics I find truly fascinating.

British Politics

In his very short introduction to British politics, Tony Wright greatly emphasizes the strength of the British government. The British system of government has no separation of powers. The Prime Minister is elected by the parliament and due to the majority-rule system of British politics, the Prime Minister is always a member of the party who holds the majority in the parliament. Because there is no separation between the parliament and the executive and no judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of legislative material. The parliament and the Prime Minister are incredibly powerful, the Prime Minister and his party can do as they please. Essentially, as Tony Wright points out, there are no checks and balances as in most modern political systems.

However, what Tony Wright does not discuss in great detail is the existence of opposition political parties as a potential check on the ruling government. True, the opposition parties have little ability to thwart legislation proposed by the government. However, this is not important. It is the threat that the opposition party provides that can keep the ruling party in line. In British Politics, the opposition party has essentially a shadow government, whose purpose it is to study the actions of the ruling party, so that if they should win the next election they are prepared to govern immediately. There is always a chance that the general population could become dissatisfied and vote the new party into power. In theory, this threat should prevent the ruling party from moving to far in a certain direction. However, this theory has not been proven to work in practice. Tony Wright himself points out the three political revolutions in Britain after World War II. These revolutions were the Attlee revolution, the Thatcher revolution, and the Blair revolution. In each of these revolutions, the governing parties sought to undue or change much of what the previous parties had enacted. While political parties and election are clearly a weak check on the ruling party, they do serve to prevent the governing party from getting out of control. Maybe a a lack of strong checks and balances is the reason that the British government has remained stable for so long. Revolutions are able to occur in a civilized political realm rather than on the battle field.

Was the Moral Price paid worth it?

Judt explains in his work, Postwar, that post-war stability in Europe was largely based on the horrific actions of Hitler and Stalin, as well as the population transfer and ethnic cleansing of minorities, brought about by Europeans during and directly after the war because the outcome of these actions was, as Judt puts it, a “tidier” and more homogenous Europe. Even though the moral price paid by Europeans, both in condemnable actions and then disregard of these actions, brought much needed stability to the continent, it is difficult to argue that it was the right thing for Europe to do and that it created a better Europe in the end. The most apparent negative outcome of the new, “tidier” Europe is the high levels of xenophobia that developed in post-war European countries and that persists to this day. For example, in France the third largest political party is the National Front, an extremist, right-wing party, whose motto is France for the French and whose platform vehemently opposes immigration. The creation of homogeneous European states essentially led to Europeans being more uncomfortable with a highly diverse Europe, when formerly, as Judt points out, Europe had been an “interwoven tapestry of overlapping languages, religions, communities and nations.”(8) Now, people can argue against this by pointing to the European Union as an example of acceptance and diversity in Europe. In response, I agree that the EU demonstrates, to a certain degree, a mixing of nationalities, but it is important to note that most of the countries in the EU still desire to maintain their national sovereignty and national identity. Europeans want to assert that they are not all alike and there is no single European identity, which is one of the impediments to the full consolidation of the EU. Additionally, Europeans are incredibly wary of admitting states to the EU that are dissimilar from member states, like Turkey, further demonstrating their discomfort with the presence of “others”, as Judt calls them.
Of course, there is essentially nothing Europeans could have done to stop Hitler and Stalin’s extermination, but the acts of ethnic cleansing and forced population transfers that took place after the war could have been avoided and stability still be ensured. Additionally, Europeans could have acknowledged the horrific crimes that Hitler committed against the Jews without threatening stability. Fortunately, Europeans eventually began to acknowledge their condemnable actions, but to think if things had occurred differently during and directly after the war, I am certain Europe would be a different place today, whether it would be better or worse I cannot say, but it is likely that they would be less fearful of diversity and more accepting of others because they would realize that it was intolerance and the non-acceptance of others as humans having worth that enabled the crimes against humanity to be committed during and after World War II.

Postwar, framework

Tony Judt introduces Postwar as a retelling of the period of European history after the end of WWII. He makes the claim that in 1989, he knew that how scholars perceived the preceding fifty years would now be drastically transformed, as old assumptions were “thrust” aside by the unceasing progression of history (2). He thus attempts throughout the piece to reorient conceived notions about the history of Europe following the end of the Second World War in light of the end of the Cold War with the fall of the Soviet Union. Though he claims this to be the fundamental premise of his analysis, the degree to which he still allows common historical trends and assumptions to color his account discredits this.
Specifically, his piece is tainted by its Western centrism and teleological framework. Granted it is a history of Europe; however, he brushes over worldwide forces that shaped the history of the latter half of the twentieth century—forces, such as the loss of global European influence and dominance that inevitably impacted the new European identity of which he writes. As such, he falls into the same pattern of Western centrism that has largely discredited other historical works.
Furthermore, he claims to disregard previous writings and histories of Europe as they were obscured by the policies of the Cold War; yet, in the next breath he establishes an entirely new, yet now, obviously fictitious endpoint. He simply attempts to establish historical trends that led to the European situation in 1989, as opposed to the European situation in 1988.
Finally, as has been discussed in other posts, Judt oversteps his historical bounds into the world of political theorization in making the claim that the nation-state should no longer be the primary unit of analysis, based on the rise of the European Union. However, in light of the weakened status of Europe and the rising dominance of other nations, it is illogical to rest one’s thesis with regards to global politics on one region.
Judt’s claims are thus questionable if not contradictory and in no way an attempt to truly rectify historical analysis of post-war Europe.

Postwar

In his book "Postwar", Tony Judt makes a compelling argument for the rebirth of Europe not as a reaction to the coming Cold War, but rather as an essential development borne of economic, political, and yes, military necessity.  Previous to World War II, there was little unity among European states; rather, they in face competed for hegemony over the region.  What remained after WWII was a group of individual states that all had been decimated in the war.  These states recognized the necessity of banding together to help rebuild, to prevent the utter destruction that took place during the war from happening again.  It is only after WWII that the world began to recognize Europe as a unique entity, not just a group of competing states.

In a sense it seems somewhat similar to the United States after gaining its independence.  What remained was a ragtag collection of states that had suffered serious losses during the revolution and in addition held individual interests.  This loose confederation was soon proven to be a failure, and a more direct political unity was required.  Judt argues that a similar transformation took place in Europe.  While the European Union wasn't formed until 1993, other organizations began to form shortly after the war, such as NATO, which provided the greater political, economic and military unity that was required in the postwar time period.  While certainly one couldn't say that all European states agree on every issue (just look at the attempt to pass an EU constitution), there is a great deal more unity than in the pre-WWII era.  Should Europe (or for that matter, the United States) have chosen to continue as a group of competing states, it seems quite likely that it would have failed to achieve the political clout and economic power that it holds today.  Instead, Europe made the wise choice of uniting and in doing so has become one of the most powerful players in international politics today.

European Integration - a new unit of political study

In his Postwar, Tony Judt describes the creation and stabilization of the European Union as the evolution from a “customs union – a ‘common market’ – bound together by not much more than a common external tariff” to something that resembles “many of the external trappings of a conventional government” (723). The development of the European Union in its current form is, in broad terms, parallel to the history of Europe from its moral and economic desolation following the end of WWII to today’s increasingly unified continent. Although it is historical in its original aim, Judt’s book thus forces an alternative, broader thesis onto its reader: a questioning of the continued relevance of using the nation-state as the fundamental unit of comparative political study, not to mention as the cornerstone of the grand master narrative that we use to organize modern political history.

Indeed, the first move toward a European Union began in the mid-1950s, with the formation of the European Steel and Coal Community. That this was seen as largely a way to avoid future conflict and integrate Germany into Europe speaks volumes about the way that economic mechanisms are intertwined with politics itself. The evolution of the European Union, as a successor to the European Economic Community, was itself just an outgrowth on the theme of integration. The fall of the Soviet Union and the need to rehabilitate ex-Soviet satellite states into the European community was a powerful and difficult issue, but its resolution into the 25 state European Union has proved to one of the most essential defining characteristics of the 21st century. Today, the European Union faces new crises, chief among them is how to expand or conserve the traditional definition of what it means to be a European – thus, we see an ongoing, and, some would say, irresolvable, issue of potential membership for Turkey in the EU. Furthermore, the home of the EU – Belgium – is undergoing its own European

All of this is instrumentally fundamental to our study of comparative politics. If we look at Europe as the birthplace and chief exporter of the modern nation-state, and if we see the state as the primary unit of measurement in sizing up the world, the integration of the various states of Europe into a single, cohesive unit poses new questions about ethnic, political, and social organization. These issues can be seen as just a by-product of the greater trends of globalization. But in the European sense, the European Union offers a new face of political life. We have studied extensively the different way states can look based on their economic and political makeup. In the case of the EU, we have a multitude of different types of people coming together to form something, which, although not a state, is stable and united.

Judt says that the European Union now is “coming to resemble Switzerland” (735). Despite the failure to ratify the Constitution of the EU, we can that this description says a lot about what has happened in Europe over the past 60 years. How have so many different states, with different political histories, different languages, different cultures, managed to come together like this? We have studied extensively the way in which different communities find their role in a state – think of the special status, and continuing conflict, of the province of Quebec for instance. The European community has somehow managed to emphasize its similarities and common goals over its differences. Underwriting all of this is something that Judt calls “the European way of life” – arguably analogous to Huntington’s description of a civilization. Whether such commitment to peace and stability can continue throughout the challenges of the 21st century – an influx of non-European immigrants, the question of Turkey, the lack of political constitution – is, of course, not certain. But the creation and success of the European federation thus far adds a whole new element to study of comparative politics.

“Europe as a way of life”

Judt in his book “Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945” beautifully describes Europe’s struggle to recovery from the events of the beginning of the 20th century. Judt points out multiple ways that Europe began the road to stabilization. I think that his idea that Europe had to look to itself for the first time was very interesting. Throughout history Europe has been the hegemonic power in the international stage. It never really had to worry about its domestic issues, but more about states outside Europe. Judt points out that in order for Europe to recover after World War One and Two it had to join together and rebuild a foundation without its past. No longer did Europe have goals of conquering other nations or building stronger economies, but it had to work on rebuilding itself.

I thought it was important to recognize that in the past Europe was not always viewed as Europe, but rather as different state powers with different ideals and types of leadership. However after the wars, Europe had no option but to begin its model after the United States, literally a “united Europe”. I thought it was quite important how Judt pointed out that in order for Europe to survive it not only had to unite, but that each country within Europe had to develop of sense of allegiance to that state without losing its primary allegiance to Europe. This is very reminiscent of the U.S. Moreover, Judt points out that the only way of uniting and fixing Europe was to keep silent about much of its past. I think this is unfortunate but true in the sense that if European nations looked at how Germany killed their economies during World War Two, they would not have wanted to unite with Germany, therefore ruining the idea of “Europe as a way of life”.