Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems - by George Monbiot

NEOLIBERALISM

Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

If you do have the capability to distinguish between "Right and Wrong",  and  are not too preoccupied with other "things" to do, it might be worth your while to read this rather lengthy, but most informative article, to help you understand why the world is in the total mess it is.  Have fun, and don't get too depressed. Tomorrow might bring better tidings - R.M - EU-Digest

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me?  in which he describes his main concern how social change has led to this psychic crisis and altered the way we think about ourselves.re :epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. Unfortunately we are all neoliberals now.

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal international”: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

s it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek’s view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes’s economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.

But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised.”

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”. But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – “my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”. The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as “an opportunity to radically reform the educational system” in New Orleans.

Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating “investor-state dispute settlement”: offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Those who own and run the UK’s privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world’s richest man.

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. “Like rent,” he argues, “interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort”. As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

Chris Hedges remarks that “fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the ‘losers’ who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment”. When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to “cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them”.

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised.

The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it’s not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

 EU-Digest - Neoliberalism : "The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by its private citizens" - Ale

USA: Greed Destroyed US Social Immune System. It’s Time to Rebuild It - by Monika Sauerlein

his crisis is about a lot more than a virus in America.

Read more at:
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2020/03/greed-destroyed-our-social-immune-system-its-time-to-rebuild-it/

European Union: Antidote to poisonous populism is a new Pact for a fair, resilient and a sustainable Europe – by Luca Jahier

In a little less than a month, more than 400 million Europeans, the second largest electorate in the world, will go to the polls to elect 751 members of parliament in an election that is probably the most decisive for the future of Europe since 1979, the first time we voted for a transnational parliament.

For the past two years, EU and national leaders as well as civil society representatives have been working relentlessly to define a joint vision for Europe. Several scenarios were outlined by the European Commission. Discussions and consultations were organised, plans sketched, solutions formulated. Never before there has been such a vivid, open and frank debate on the Europe we want and the one we want to leave to the next generations.

Yet, much of this discourse on the future of Europe has been hijacked by eurosceptics and marred by growing destructive populism.  Under the mantle of patriotism, populists promised to defend the interests of the majority against immigrant minorities and “out-of-touch elites”.

 Our values were questioned, the right to do good as the core reason behind of our political action was abandoned and ignored by many.  Nationalism is an ideological poison, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has said. This poison risks posing a serious health risk to our democracy, as populism attacks not merely real and imagined elites and the establishment but also the very fundamental idea of political pluralism.

This is why European leaders meeting in Sibiu on the 9 May—Europe day—must quickly inject the antidote, ahead of the European elections on 23-26 May. Many politicians have been at a loss when it comes to countering populism. Increasingly, they have adopted a stance that some call destruction through imitation, meaning outflanking far-right competitors with tough talk on refugees and immigration in order to regain consensus. That narrative has done serious damage to European democracy in recent months, pushing people to vote for even more extremist movements. Instead, democrats should present value choices that can tackle inequality.

Read more at: Antidote to poisonous populism is a new Pact for a fair, resilient and a sustainable Europe – EURACTIV.com

POPULISM: Beware of the simplistic nonsense Populist Rightwing Nationalistic politicians are telling you

Read more at:  

https://www.socialeurope.eu/populism-and-complexity

EU Citizens under threat from populist right-wing local and foreign politicians who are endangering the EU's unity and economic stability - by RM

Right-wing populist politicians destabilizing the EU

Democratic and Cultural Fortress Europe is under attack, by devious right-wing populist politicians and their followers

These include, but not limited to, (see picture insert) from top left to right: Donald Trump (USA), Steve Bannon (USA), Marine Le Pen (France), Nigel Farage (Britain), Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel), Geert Wilders (the Netherlands), Dr.Jörg Meuthen (Germany), Jarosław Aleksander Kaczyński (Poland), Viktor Mihály Orbán (Hungary),Thierry Henri Philippe Baudet (the Netherlands) Luigi Di Maio (Italy), and Sebastian Kurz (Austria)

It is not a question anymore of how to come to terms with this threat, but how this threat can be eliminated effectively.  Tthe majority of Europesn citizens certainly do not want Europe to fall apart into a feuding group of nations, and easy prey for China, Russia and the US.

This issue certainly must, if it is not so already, become the number one objective on the agenda of the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and each individual EU Nation state.

Maybe, in this context it might help to refresh our memory as to the importance of the EU among the world of nations, with some historic background on the EU, and the benefits its citizens enjoy.

The European Union was set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours in Europe, which culminated in the past, and more recently in the First and Second World Wars.

Europeans were determined to prevent such killing and destruction from ever happening again.

After the Second world war, Europe was split into East and West,  resulting in a 40-year-long Cold War.

To counter this political problem, West European nations created the Council of Europe in 1949.

It was a first step towards cooperation between them, but six countries even wanted to go further.

As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace.

The six founding countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

The 1950s were dominated by a cold war between east and west. Protests in Hungary against the Communist regime are put down by Soviet tanks in 1956. ’

On the 8 of May 1950 French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman presents a plan for deeper cooperation. This historic event is celebrated every 9th of May as ' Europe Day'

On 18 April 1951 based on the Schuman plan, six countries signed a treaty to run their heavy industries – coal and steel – under a common management. In this way, none can on its own make the weapons of war to turn against the other, as in the past.

In 1957, the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market

One thing led to another, making the EU what it is today, operating as a single market with 28 member countries, one of the major global trading powers.

EU economic policy seeks to sustain growth by investing in transport, energy and research – while minimising the impact of further economic development on the environment.

In terms of the total value of all goods and services produced (GDP), it is bigger than the US economy. EU GDP in 2017 was €15.3 trillion

Over 64 % of EU countries’ total trade is done with other countries in the EU bloc.

On January 1, 2017, the population of the European Union (EU) was estimated at 511.8 million, compared with 510.3 million on 1 January 2016. During the year 2016, as many births as deaths were recorded in the EU (5.1 million), meaning that the natural change of the EU population was neutral.

With just 6.9 % of the world’s total population, EU trade with the rest of the world accounts for some 15.6 % of global imports and exports.

Consequently, together with the United States and China, the EU is one of the 3 largest global players in international trade.

The 28 EU countries had the second largest share of global imports and exports of goods in 2016.

For individual EU citizen some of the benefits include:

    1) Eligibility to live and work everywhere within the EU without further permission.

    2) Eligibility to take part in local elections of the community where you are a resident. So if you       are a Frenchman living in Munich you can vote for in the election of the Munich
city council, which chooses the mayor. You can even run for a seat in that local municipality.
   
   3) Eligibility to vote in the EU parliamentary elections, and you can even run for a seat.
   
    4) Coming from another EU member country one may not be discriminated against, in relation to local citizen in your place of residence. That means: If local residents are allowed to send their children to public school for free, you are also allowed. If they receive social security payments, you may also receive them.
   
    5) Say you want to run a workshop in Germany, you may even have benefits over and above those of local German citizens. If you are a German running a car repair workshop, you either need a master certificate as a trained car mechanic, or you have to employ somebody who has such a certificate. If, however, you are coming in from another EU country, you only have to show proof that you are a car mechanic with a work experience.
   
    6) As an EU citizen you also have diplomatic protection. If you are in a country where your home country does not have its own embassy, every EU embassy of a member state is obliged to help you if you need help.
   
    7) EU citizens also have the right to communicate with every administrative office within the EU in your own language - and you have the right to receive an answer in your own language.

Bottom line - don't let these right-wing Populists mislead you with vague and confusing arguments, Ask for specifics, like how they would set up things differently, and what the benefits would be for you as a citizen.

And if this results in more garbled rhetoric, like we so often hear from those populist politicians,  make sure you tell them they are not convincing you.

There is no way EU citizens would benefit from going back to their own currency, border controls, banking regulations, and nationally protected local trade.

Probably the most remarkable success for the EU has been that, apart from its economic prominence, following the ‘Schuman Declaration’, on 9 May 1950, there have been 68 years of peace across the continent, following this declaration.

The European project, known as the EU is the best thing that ever happened for peace, economic stability and prosperity on  the European continent. Another positive is that since it is still a project under development, it can only get better.

We must therefore use all means at our disposal to protect and safeguard it from the destabilizing forces which are presently attacking its existence.

© This article can be republished only if EU=Digest is mentioned as the source

EU-Digest 

The EU Refugee problem: The George W. Bush refugees - and the mess -- including populism - the U.S. played such a large part in creating

George W.Bush "the mission is over" - who was he kidding?

On September 18, 2015 Andrew Bacevich wrote in Politico something which not only the US Government, but also its European NATO partners have never openly admitted.

"As migrants have poured into Europe, Americans must bear the blame".

"if you break it you own it.” Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule, warning George W. Bush of the consequences of invading Iraq.

Bush broke it — “it” being a swath of the greater Middle East. But the U.S. and their European NATO partners, the so-called "coalition of the willing" adamantly refused to accept anything like ownership of the consequences stemming from Bush’s recklessly misguided act.

Not least among those consequences is the crisis that finds refugees fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world in search of asylum in the West. The European nations most directly affected have greeted this wave with more hostility than hospitality — Germany, for a time, at least offering a notable exception.

For its part, the U.S. has responded with pronounced indifference and silence. In a gesture of undisguised tokenism, the Obama administration announced it would admit a grand total of 10,000 Syrians — one-eightieth the number that Germany has agreed to accept in one year alone. Obviously the situation is now even more grim for refugees wanting to come to America, with Trump's "Make America Great Again" anti-immigration policies.

No doubt proximity plays a part in explaining the contrast between German and U.S. attitudes. Viewed from Wichita or Walla Walla, the plight of those who hand themselves over to human traffickers in hopes of crossing the Mediterranean plays out at a great distance.

Syria is what Neville Chamberlain would have described as a faraway country of which Americans know nothing (and care less). And Iraq and Afghanistan are faraway countries that most Americans have come to regret knowing.

However, To attribute the European  refugee crisis to any single cause would also be misleading. A laundry list has contributed: historical and sectarian divisions within the region; the legacy of European colonialism; the absence of anything even approximating enlightened local leadership able to satisfy the aspirations of people tired of corruption, economic stagnation, and authoritarian rule; the appeal — inexplicable to Westerners — of violent Islamic radicalism. All play a role.

Such attitudes may be understandable. They are also unconscionable.

Yet when it comes to why this fragile structure collapsed just now we can point to a single explanation — the cascading after-effects of a decision made by Bush during the spring of 2002 to embrace a doctrine of preventative war.

The previous autumn, U.S. forces toppled the government of Afghanistan, punishing the Taliban for giving sanctuary to those who plotted the 9/11 attacks. Bush effectively abandoned Afghanistan to its fate and set out to topple another regime, one that had no involvement whatsoever in 9/11.

For Bush, going after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq formed part of a larger strategy. He and his lieutenants fancied that destroying the old order in the greater Middle East would position the U.S. to create a more amenable new order. Back in 1991, after a previous Iraq encounter, Bush’s father had glimpsed a “new world order.” Now a decade later, the son set out to transform the father’s vision into reality.

The administration called this its Freedom Agenda, which would begin in Iraq but find further application throughout the greater Middle East. Coercion rather than persuasion held the key to its implementation, its plausibility resting on unstoppable military power. For Bush’s inner circle, including Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (but not Powell), victory was foreordained.

They miscalculated. The unsettled (but largely ignored) condition of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban already hinted at the extent of that miscalculation. The chaos that descended upon Iraq as a direct result of the U.S. invasion affirmed it. The Freedom Agenda made it as far as Baghdad and there it died.

That Saddam was a brutal tyrant is a given. We need not mourn his departure. Yet while he ruled he at least kept a lid on things. Bush blew off that lid, naively expecting liberal democracy or at least deference to American authority to emerge. Instead, “liberating” Iraq produced conditions conducive to the violent radicalism today threatening to envelop the region.

So rather than cluck over the reluctance of Greeks, Serbs, Hungarians and others to open their borders to those fleeing from the mess the U.S. played such a large part in creating, Americans would do better to engage in acts of contrition.

The US, even under the leadership of Donald Trump, should at least understand that it is never too late to say they are sorry for creating this total mess in the Middle East and Afghanistan, which saddled the EU and Turkey up with millions of refugees, and indirectly, as a result, also created ISIS.

As to the EU,  it is never too late to recognize, they finally must get off the lap of Uncle Sam, develop their own independent foreign policy, and stop being part of disastrous US military  adventures.

EU-Digest

EU Unity: Rise in populism threatens European democracy, warns think tank

Institute for Global Change condemns 'inflammatory' attacks on independent institutions such as media or judiciary.

Read more: EU Unity: European politics - latest news, breaking stories and comment - The Independent

EU Panel Warns Against Rise of Nationalism in Populist Surge- by Karl Herchenroeder

A European Parliament member on Tuesday warned against the surge of nationalistic and xenophobic sentiment in populist movements across the globe, citing troubling trends in the U.S. and the UK.

Pedro Silva Pereira – a Portuguese member of the European Parliament who appeared at Georgetown University – described Britain’s exit from the EU as a “marvelous illusion.”

Brexiteers leading the campaign, Pereira said, convinced the majority of voters that in order to block unwanted migration of refugees, terrorists and the democratic failings of the EU, Britain should turn inward, restoring power to Parliament. He said similar pleas were made by President Trump during his 2016 campaign, when he pushed for border control and immigration reform.

“We have to fight (in the United States), where the battle is based on the issue of values and political ideas,” Pereira said. “Let’s bear in mind that history tells us that we should take nationalism seriously.”

Recent developments show how volatile the situation remains with the refugee crisis in Europe, where politicians continue pushing populist agendas. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced Tuesday that the country will hold a general election on June 8, three years ahead of schedule. British general elections determine who will serve in Parliament, and June 8 will offer a good reading of the political temperature in the UK following Brexit.

Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, fresh off his contested victory in a controversial referendum that boosted his powers, plans to restore the death penalty in Turkey and has demanded that Europe allow visa-free travel for Turks across the region.

According to Eurobarometer, EU’s official public opinion poll, immigration and terrorism top the list of concerns for citizens across the continent. Tuesday’s panel agreed that populists have also seized on fears over continued downward mobility brought on by wage freezes, economic stagnation and high unemployment.

“The incapacity to implement bold and necessary reforms has led, in my point of view, to a lack of confidence in the political class as a whole and to the belief that there are no efficient solutions to the problems facing our societies, and therefore there is a perception that this negative cycle might have no end,” said Pedro Reis, former president of the Portuguese Agency for the External Commerce.

Reis said that sustained cycles of unemployment and a lack of competitiveness have left the majority of European citizens with little hope that the economic situation will improve. Recent surveys, he said, show that 36 percent of European citizens trust EU institutions, compared to 57 percent in 2007.

While immigration and terrorism are chief among the EU’s concerns, France is most worried about unemployment, according to Eurobarometer. Unemployment stands at 10.5 percent in France. Maria Carrilho, former member of the Portuguese and European parliaments, said the French outlook is particularly interesting considering that the country has been repeatedly hit by terrorist attacks. 

Both Carrilho and Pereira predicted the defeat of France’s right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen in this Sunday’s presidential election. Pereira cited the losses of far-right candidates Norbert Hofer in Austria and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as evidence, while Carrilho said Le Pen’s program for job creation is not consistent enough.

Read more: EU Panel Warns Against Rise of Nationalism in Populist

Netherlands says No to Trump and Wilders populism in General election-as Rutte wins again - by Philip Blenkinsop

Mark Rutte

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said his VVD party was on course for victory in Dutch parliamentary elections on Wednesday in a result he declared represented a rejection of "the wrong kind of populism".

"It appears that the VVD will be the biggest party in the Netherlands for the third time in a row," a beaming Rutte told supporters at a post-election party in the Hague.

Rutte, who beat off a challenge from anti-Islam and anti-EU far-right firebrand Geert Wilders, said he had spoken to a number of European leaders already by telephone.

"It is also an evening in which the Netherlands after Brexit, after the American elections said stop to the wrong kind of populism," he said.

Read more: Dutch PM Rutte - Netherlands said no to 'the wrong kind of populism' - World | The Star Online