The Bush visit to Canada starts today and of course media on both sides of the border have started to analyze the differences between the two nations and assess where they may find common ground. Personally, I have written more than enough about this, there’s an entire archive devoted to it.

In short, my view is that further integration of Canada into the US from an economic and security perspective is both inevitable and preferable, but then I am a pragmatic European with a strong inclination to free-markets and a soft spot for US foreign policy. Such integration will however not result in Canada ceasing to be a sovereign entity: Republicans in the US wouldn’t favor diluting their marginal hold on power by inviting millions of statist liberals into their midst (even if they bring lots of oil) and neither would the northern elites look kindly at diluting their power base for the sake of security and jobs. So whatever shape or form further US-Canadian co-operation takes, Canada will probably remain a renegade northern province for years to come. The separation will largely be social-economic in nature, from a cultural perspective Canadians are not that dissimilar to Americans as they like to think, no matter how hard some try to argue that case.

The real problem is that Canada is beset by the same legacy as Europe. Remnants of a centre-left elite continue to have a hold over government, media, judiciary, education and the framework of public debate and thus the overall direction of the country. From a social perspective that’s probably fine as Canadians have been willing to experiment in that department , although we shouldn’t overstate it: government owned liquor distribution and the inability to creatively solve drug addiction and help legalize prostitution are hardly the hallmarks of a socially progressive country, whatever Canadians think. What’s constraining progress is the continued grasp that government and unions have on economic life and the defeatist peacemaking instincts when it comes to foreign policy. Both are no longer of this day and age. A well organized conservative campaign, a severe economic downturn or a terrorist attack or a combination of all three are examples of a potential cure for Canada. The folks over at Diplomad pointed in the direction of hard medicine last week, although it shouldn't be administered by the US. When it's homegrown or from an alternate source Canadians are probably more likely to respond to it in a positive way.

Canada is not Europe, nor is it America. The country has the right ingredients to become a huge success story alongside its southern neighbour; it’s a matter of time and apt management of events. So the best thing to come out the Bush-Martin get together would be for the US to promise significant movement on lifting softwood lumber tariffs and beef imports and for the Canadians to sign up for missile defense and to commit to working towards a North American security perimeter. Again, pragmatic instincts would warrant such an outcome, but it hardly ever works this way. Let’s what happens in Ottawa and Halifax today and tomorrow.

Further Reading
Kate points to the experiences of an American living and working in Canada. And Jay Currie points a crucial difference between the US and Canada. Finally, read the long post I received from a reader below: A Canadian Bush Backer Speaks Out.

UPDATE I: Of course our American in T.O. has lots of comments.

UPDATE II: A reader from California writes to say that Canada could join the US using the 'Quebec formula': give up sovereignty and be part of the US but on day-to-day matters you can pretty much do your own thing, like yes, healthcare. Not likely to happen but Canada is indeed migrating to a scenario where most of the integration takes place without giving up sovereignty.

UPDATE III: And of course good stuff from Frum.

UPDATE IV: So far, protests are hardly impressive:

A few pro-Bush demonstrators on Parliament Hill were drowned out by a crowd of several hundred protesters who screamed at the U.S. President to “go home.” A march planned for later Tuesday is expected to draw a bigger crowd.

UPDATE V: But then of course, there are a lot of Friends of America in Canada.

UPDATE VI: Lots of pictures of the "protests" here, even the Trotskyites made the effort to welcome the President!

Canada is getting ready for the visit by President Bush and it’s encouraging to note that in addition to the standard Bush-bashing and the knee-jerk anti-Americanism there are many Canadians that support Bush. Not only that, they are frustrated and want express their views and a few have asked me to post their comments. So take a look at Aidan Maconachy’s criticism of anti-Americanism and his informed and very accurate assessment of Bush as a leader. I couldn’t have done it better myself, a must–read for Americans and Canadians alike.

Recently I got into a discussion with a few Canadian friends about the Bush victory in the 2004 Presidential election and the ongoing war in Iraq. These friends are well educated and cultured people with a preference for European wine and movies with sub-titles. I suppose they could be described as middle-of-the-road liberals and made for pleasant company at dinner over a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau ... at least until the subject of George W. Bush came up.

Their reaction to the re-election of the President was unequivocal. Choice of language included adjectives such as "dreadful", "shocking", "appalling" and even "bizarre". Their self-righteousness was more akin to arch inquisitors passing judgement on a proven devil worshiper, rather than dinner companions airing views on a President of the United States.

When I offered a contrary opinion, there was a hush and eyes widened with genuine horror - as though the late hour had induced the first physical evidence of my ‘werewolf within’. One of them even said - "are you feeling alright Aidan?"
You see, I’m one of those anomalies in the Canadian dominion - a Bush backer. A partiality that induces some of my fellow citizens to regard me as ... if not exactly a brown shirt ... then at the very least a tan shirt.

In the majority of Canadian minds the standard Bush caricature reigns supreme; the idiot cowboy with his finger on the trigger of the greatest arsenal of weapons ever assembled in the history of mankind. They buy the stereotype of the phonetically challenged goofy guy with big ears who would seem more at home eating beans under a starry sky than sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office. So why don’t I see this also? Is it possible that an emissary of Karl Rove has slipped a President enhancing drug into our rural Ontario well?

I’ve always been a little suspicious of iconic Presidents. Clinton for example, with his majestic white mane and inclusive body language; master of the language and equally at home with an Ohio pig farmer and the head of the PLO. Reagan with his star appeal and charming malapropisms; shielded from accusations of idiocy by his transcendental belief in "the good" as personified by America. These legendary Presidents almost compelled belief by sheer force of presence. By comparison, Dubya seems human and entirely fallible.

He reminds us of a guy we might encounter at the local sports bar or rub shoulders with in the bleachers during a ball game. Like most of us run-of-the-mill humans he screws up from time to time, mangles his grammar and even chokes on food at inopportune moments. He has daughters who have been known to act out and a wife who holds it all together with a stoicism that is instantly recognizable to those of us with an appreciation for self effacing, strong willed matriarchs. George is simply "that guy"... the only difference being that he also happens to be President of the greatest superpower in the history of the planet.

In internet chat rooms and when talking with friends, Bush backers like myself are constantly accosted with the idiot word. "Bush is an idiot" has probably been recited more times than the Hare Krishna mantra, and yet despite a stratosphere that reverberates with the "Bush is an idiot" echo, I don’t buy it.
My reluctance to give the nod to the ‘Bush as idiot’ consensus doesn’t reflect either willfulness or perversity. When I observe Bush speaking off-the-cuff to reporters I see a guy with a folksy style who addresses the issues in a direct down-to-earth fashion. There are occasional moments of levity when he upstages a journalist or offers a witticism or two. Clearly this is a regular guy talking and not an icon, and therein lies the offence. For some, Bush is simply too human and they wonder how a President who looks and sounds like the guy next door, can ever be relied upon to do and say the right thing. But to leap from that assumption to the conclusion that Bush is therefore an idiot, is facile in the extreme.

After 9/11 he rallied Americans with his down-home appeals to the nation. When he stood on the smouldering debris of the towers with an arm around a fireman and spoke into a megaphone, he was one of us ... a surrogate doing what we all wanted to do most ... reach out to a nation reeling in a time of crisis.
When he made speeches at the U.N. and at military academies around the country, his words were of course scripted ... and yet there was nothing about either his diction or his delivery that was suggestive of an idiot. He speaks well, despite the occasional mangled word, and sometimes even speaks with energized power and conviction. All of which makes the ‘idiot fixation’ such an odd phenomenon.

Of course, these detractors will argue that going into Iraq was idiotic and will predictably cite the non-discovery of WMD as proof positive of idiocy. According to them Bush was acting from the most venal of motives; indulging his appetite for a personal vendetta and sacrificing young lives on the alter of his ego. For some reason these detractors feel more inclined to call Bush’s motives into question, rather than examine the despicable nature of the Iraqi regime and the long term consequences of leaving Saddam in power.

Even though the entire world, and maybe even Saddam himself, believed that the regime was in possession of proscribed weaponry, the non-discovery of WMD was seized upon as evidence that Bush had launched a war without justification. The compelling information that has surfaced concerning links between Saddam’s Baathist regime and Al Qaeda is simply disregarded by the President’s detractors. The genocidal excesses and expansionist tendencies of the Iraqi regime are similarly overlooked. Saddam’s funding of suicide bombers is disregarded, as is the presence in pre-invasion Baghdad of that most sinister of terrorist godfathers ... Abu Nidal.

In her book The War Against America, Laurie Mylroie claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was captured in Pakistan, may not in fact be Kuwaiti as he claims, but rather an Iraqi agent. Since Mohammed was an Al Qaeda operational leader, this information could well create direct ties between Iraq and the 9/11 New York attack, and so has important implications. Yet even such potentially damning information fails to move the die hard ‘idiot brigade’ who see in the person of Bush an atrocity that far exceeds even the rape room activities and genocidal excesses of the Baa’thists.

This odd fixation with Dubya’s inner idiot is compounded by the latter’s candid admission that he is a man of faith. Liberals by and large become alarmed at the prospect of God insinuating his way into the affairs of state. Some like Ann Coulter, have argued that this aversion is due to liberals’ devotion to the 'golden cow' of political correctness - something akin to a secular religion in and of itself. Coulter points out that while hundreds of references to the "Christian conservatives" and "religious right" occur in the New York Times, a Lexis-Nexis search of the entire New York Times archive did not succeed in unearthing even a single reference to "atheist liberals" or "the atheist left". Her not unreasonable conclusion, is that demeaning references are reserved for entities to the right of center.

Unlike his predecessors in the Oval Office who kept matters of personal faith in the closet, Bush has the temerity to refer candidly to God as if He actually exists and doesn’t hesitate to characterize terrorism and the states that support it as "evil". Such candor is deeply disturbing to those liberals who view God as a type of quaint metaphor that nobody in the final analysis, takes seriously. Such Presidential utterances shocks them deeply - in much the way the psychiatric nurse was shocked by the ravings of the Jack Nicholson character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

In attempting to get to the roots of the knee jerk tendency to characterize the President as an idiot, I must also make some reference to ‘the line’.
There are some lines, such as union picket lines, that right wingers cross at risk of death and dismemberment. Even though all of the evidence and the call of destiny might necessitate the crossing of a non-negotiable line, the actually crossing of it brings unforeseen consequences. Bill Clinton knew this very well. So while he was prepared to make shows of American military power by bombing a factory in the Sudan and ordering an air campaign in Kosovo, he was too much of a liberal to cross the scariest line of all. When Al Qaeda began testing the American will with bombings in the Middle East, most notably the attack on the USS Cole, the Clinton administration declined to act. Even when Dick Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, counseled a bombing campaign against terror camps in Afghanistan, the administration twiddled its thumbs and deferred. Opening a front with Al Qaeda was a scary line to cross and Bill Clinton wasn’t about to fire up the Arab world and ruin fun times at home, let alone turn himself into a potential target for assassination.

The task of crossing that line fell to George W. Bush, and once he stepped over the line with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq - all hell, as they say, broke loose. The Iraq attack in particular, in the eyes of many liberals was the act of an idiot. To others, it demonstrated tremendous courage and a willingness to defend the United States at any price. The jury is still out, debating the final verdict. As Jacques Chirac recently remarked ..."history will judge". Of course, it’s easy to play the proctor when you are comfortably ensconced on the sidelines sipping a pernod.

The reflex tendency to dismiss Bush as an idiot trivializes the very real threat of international terrorism. The demonizing of the USA and its President simply provides a pillow for the enemy who are greatly comforted by the sight of the western media reducing America to a loathsome caricature.

In the final analysis, war polarizes and compels people to choose sides. The Bush detractors in N. America are operating in shrinking neutral territory. When the final verdict comes in, they may well find themselves further out to sea than they had ever dreamed possible.

Posted at 11:00 AM by Pieter Dorsman | Permalink | North American Affairs | TrackBack (2)

Events in Holland have served as a wake-up call for other European nations where multiculturalism appears to be failing. It’s one thing if the right explains the problems of today in terms of mistakes of the past, it’s quite another if the left acknowledges past mistakes. Former German Social Democrat chancellor Helmut Schmidt is an example of the latter when he made the following comment last week:

"Multicultural societies have only ... functioned peacefully in authoritarian states. To that extent it was a mistake for us to bring guest workers from foreign cultures into the country at the beginning of the 1960s," Schmidt said.

This is both refreshing and hopeful. The debate over Muslim immigration and the resulting seeds of radicalism on the European street can be conducted in a productive manner only if both sides of the political equation are able to use the same language, the same terms of reference. If one side remains stuck using outdated political constructs then the chances of finding common terms, effect change and move forward are remote. It may well be that the Van Gogh killing and the divided Dutch nation will cause other nations to rethink their options and in doing so may create a framework that to this day has eluded the Dutch.

The quest to point out the inherent weaknesses of the UN and the suggestions to abolish the institution altogether, or replace it with a league of democracies, have been gaining momentum in recent years. With good reason, although we should note that the UN did produce some important resolutions that form the basis of many important international arrangements. Today is the anniversary of the UN vote on resolution 181, which approved the partition of the western part of Palestine into a predominately Jewish state and a predominately Arab state. Not only does this resolution establish the right of Israel to exist, it equally provided a framework by which both Jews and Arabs could live on the same, relatively small, plot of land. The rejection of the Arab world of this resolution is crucial in understanding of where we are today. Of course, you might wonder if in retrospect the Palestinians shouldn’t have accepted the deal for it gave them far more land then ever was on the table during the peace process that was established by the Oslo Accords. Resolution 181 will probably never be implemented in terms of carving up the land, but it establishes a benchmark against which further negotiations will be held. If we reduce the UN to irrelevance then 181 will equally lose its status, affecting both the Israeli and Palestinian cases and the potential for a long term solution. As a strong supporter of UN reform we should ensure that whatever we do with this institution, we should salvage the bits and pieces that did make the UN a relevant entity.

Good discussion in the Rolling Stone on why Bush won the election by Ruy Texeira, Peter Hart and notably David Gergen who has some intelligent and sobering analysis, as usual. On the challenge in front of the Democrats he argues:

The Goldwater coalition was in a deep, deep hole. They were a distinct minority, but they could build from the ground up. The Democrats are in danger of sliding down. They haven't won a majority of the white vote since 1964. They haven't won fifty percent of the national vote since 1976. And in the last six congressional elections -- starting with 1994 -- they haven't cracked 48.5 percent of the national vote. This is a party that needs to have some deep rethinking -- not simply go out and turn a few dials.

In other words, rebranding the party with a new face just won’t cut it, a point Gergen reiterates a few times. The panel also has some sound analysis on the impact of the ‘value vote’ and why it is more likely to be the result of a short-term tactical shift and that on a long-term basis voters may well move away from socially conservative positions. Read the whole thing.

Rolling Stone published the 500 greatest songs of all time and that was a great opportunity for some of us to put their favorites online like John Hawkins or otherwise come up with some comments like Norm Geras. I can’t resist this and started to work on my top ranking and decided to give it a bit more depth as to why they’re qualified to be on my list. If applicable I indicate in brackets where Rolling Stone put the songs on their list. Here we go:

1. The Wanderer – Johnny Cash with U2
There are many Cash songs that rank high in my mind, but his co-operation with U2 produced an almost religious experience that pretty much sums up his life. It’s touching, emotional and reaches deep. It should be a theme song for all wanderers.

2. Still Believe – Herman Brood & His Wild Romance
The only real Dutch rock star ever, Herman Brood enjoyed some brief fame in North America with the hit “Saturday Night” but never really made it big. His finest work was produced in the late 70s and early 80s and it is best described as Muddy Waters on crack. The live recorded “Still Believe” however is a slow track with a phenomenal introduction by saxophonist Bertus Borgers. Picture a downtrodden soul walking along a cold dark street still hoping and believing that one day he’ll be on top of things, and you get it.

3. When Doves Cry – Prince (52)
The first time I heard this song was on Dutch radio when the DJ announced that “this” was “it” in America with a sense of enthusiasm and urgency that is hard to forget. It’s clear why and it is reflected in its high placing on the Rolling Stone list. It is equally highly ranked in the Dorsman household.

4. Soul Kitchen – The Doors
The absolute favorite in my entire album collection is ‘Live in Concert’ from The Doors, each track is special and can stand on its own. From the introduction by the local police commissioner to Morrison’s poetic rants to ‘Soul Kitchen‘ which I picked as it contains most of the unique features of Doors music. It’s a shame Morrison and friends were not done justice by Oliver Stones’ movie, which for some reason and at some level I somehow still enjoy.

5. Who Wants to Live Forever – Queen
It turned out that I was only living a few blocks from where he lived and died in December 1991 in London and Freddy Mercury and Queen dominated the airwaves most of the Christmas season that year. Reuniting with friends back home we spent an evening in a bar where nothing but Queen music filled the room for the entire evening, a fitting tribute. The theme song for the movie Highlander (1986) is one of Queen’s best.

6. Angel Eyes – Frank Sinatra
In my view Frank Sinatra’s best album is “Only the Lonely” and it’s also one of his saddest. Melancholy over failed relationships and ill-fated love are all over this record and Angel Eyes is the one that touches me every time I play it.

7. Not Alone Anymore – Traveling Wilburys
It was difficult to pick a Roy Orbison track ‘Oh, Pretty Woman’ and ‘Blue Bayou’ score high, but these lyrics reflect the profound emotional pain when you find out that the girl of your dreams has discovered someone else. Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, George Harrison and Jeff Lynne formed this unique short-lived co-operation together with the Big ‘O’, the man to put his soul into their great collaboration and deep grief into singing about the emotion of unfulfilled love.

8. The House I Live In – Frank Sinatra
This song was the topic of discussion before on Peaktalk, it’s really the theme song for Reagan’s shining city on a hill, a 1950s dreamland that no longer exists. And that’s why we probably strive for it; the live version on ‘The Main Event’ to me is one of the best Sinatra pieces ever.

9. The Load-Out/Stay – Jackson Browne
Browne’s tribute to his crew on tour has become more than just that, it’s become a theme of longing for something that’s over or coming to an end. It’d be a nice track for a funeral, really.

10. Stand by Your Man – Tammy Wynette
The queen of country music gave a timeless performance in this song. When it came out people in Holland frowned upon Tammy as a sort of one-hit Barbie doll but I knew better. Her voice and the painful relationship with George Jones have contributed to legendary and timeless songs; this is probably the best one of them all.

11. L’Ete Indien – Joe Dassin
The only non-English song in the list, the French classic about the Indian summer. The music captures the sad mood of the end of summer, yet gives you the beauty of that time of the year. Picture a good Cabernet and a warm afternoon transforming in a cool September evening and you get it.

12. Get Up, Stand Up – Bob Marley & The Wailers (296)
My first ever live concert that I attended was by the King of Reggae in 1977, dropped of by my father at the door and picked up at exactly the same spot. With good reason, the crowd was interesting to say the least even from today’s perspective. It left an indelible impression. The concert ended - just like the live album- with this very robust call for action.

13. Can’t Help Falling in Love – Elvis Presley (394)
From the movie Blue Hawaii the live version of this song accompanied an unreturned love but when a song can survive that level of bitterness it’s probably a great song. Together with ‘I Can’t Help Believing’ an Elvis evergreen.

14. Let’s Get it On – Marvin Gaye (167)
The best male R&B singer ever. Marvin Gaye’s body of work is of epical proportions and it has been given even more intensity after his tragic death at the hands of his own father. Rolling Stone ranks ‘What’s Going On’ higher which is fair but I like this one better.

15. Missing You – Diana Ross
My real induction into modern soul and later disco came by way of Diana Ross who was part of my collection long before she became mainstream among European youngsters. To be frank, I get a little tired of the endless Supremes reruns and Diana of late isn’t that great either. Her best work dates from the late 70s and early 80s and by that I mean the ‘Love Hangover’, ‘The Boss’ and ‘Touch me In The Morning’ phase. It was hard to pick the right song but I guess the tribute to Marvin Gaye somehow compelled me to pick ‘Missing You’.

16. Stairway to Heaven – Led Zeppelin (31)
This is hall of fame material, Robert Plant and Jimmy Page feature on the Saturday morning repertoire when Irene and the kids are out, much to the chagrin of the neighbors. And ‘Whole Lotta Love’ is part of that ritual too, of course.

17. The End – The Doors (328)
On a normal weekday I am still more likely to play ‘Roadhouse Blues’ or ‘LA Woman’ but ‘The End’ is Jim Morrison at his best. The song can stand on its own but for me it will forever be associated with Apocalypse Now which is when I first heard it. Again, there’s far more to the Doors than history has given them credit for, I think.

18. Born in the U.S.A. – Bruce Springsteen (275)
This is 1984, the peak of the Reagan Revolution and the LA Olympics. Even though it’s hardly an endorsement of Republican policies the powerful song became an important tune for those dreaming about America back in 1980s Europe.

19. Careless Whisper – George Michael
After the group Wham! fell apart it was very clear, very soon that Michael was the creative brainchild behind the group and had far more depth than anyone could have expected, something that continues to this very day. We still crave new Michael releases. It all began more or less with this typical 1980s anthem, which remains a truly great song.

20. The Lodgers – The Style Council
One of the best black female singers I know is D.C. Lee whose guest performance on this left-wing song continues to send shivers down my spine. I really wonder why she never hit it big; she had a minor hit with ‘Ever See The Day’ in the 80s. This track comes from another favorite album ‘Our Favourite Shop’ which was released as ‘Internationalists’ in the USA. The remix available on ‘Greatest Hits Vol. 1’ is crap.

21. Time – Culture Club
Boy George and Culture Club appeared to be a flaky and short-lived British outfit of the 1980s and initially I didn’t care that much about their music. However a number of their songs stood the test of time especially, yes, ‘Time’.

22. Fool To Cry – The Rolling Stones
I admire their body of work, have quite a few albums but find it hard to pick their greatest song. In fact I never really favored any song and declined invites to come along to Stones’ concerts which I have never regretted (I did the same when Peter Gabriel came to Hong Kong and that is something I do regret to this day). Fool to Cry is simply my favorite Stones track.

23. Heart of Gold – Neil Young (297)
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young had some sort of cult status in the late 1970s Holland for what in retrospect may have been a small group. Some of my friends had Neil Young’s ‘Harvest’ in their collection but it took me to the late 1990s to get it on CD. To be frank, ‘Heart of Gold’ beats ‘Out On The Weekend’ by a very, very small margin.

24. I Found Someone – Cher
A special place is reserved for Cher in our home and liked by the kids as the purple princess that sings ‘Strong Enough’. It was hard to pick the best song but on reflection I think the intro to “I Found Someone” does it and this is also the song where Cher has to stretch her vocal capabilities to the fullest. Great song, great woman.

25. First We Take Manhattan – Jennifer Warnes
More famous probably as a Joe Cocker song, Jennifer Warnes delivered a lasting piece of music with her album where she exclusively performs work from Leonard Cohen. In my mind she remains one of the best female vocalists ever.

There’s lots more and it pains me to leave some out but twenty-five is twenty-five and I have to be frank, no matter how much I like David Bowie I don’t listen to him as much as I do to those on the list. I also realize there’s very little new stuff here, but I am just not thrilled by what is hitting the market these days, although Eminem’s Lose Yourself (166) came quite close. I don’t have the time to listen to radio or music as much as I was able to do in the past. There’s other music I like as well, but for now I won’t bother you with Opera, Jazz, Bagpipes, Erhu or Cantopop.

For Americans and for everyone else. Since it's a holiday I will take it easy in terms of blogging today. For tomorrow I am planning a long, somewhat out of the ordinary post, see you then.

As Roger Simon pointed out earlier this month, Hollywood remains mum on the Van Gogh killing. Bridget Johnson today takes on the topic in OpinionJournal with "Look who isn't talking":

One would think that in the name of artistic freedom, the creative community would take a stand against filmmakers being sent into hiding à la Salman Rushdie, or left bleeding in the street. Yet we've heard nary a peep from Hollywood about the van Gogh slaying. Indeed Hollywood has long walked on eggshells regarding the topic of Islamic fundamentalism. The film version of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" changed Palestinian terrorists to neo-Nazis out of a desire to avoid offending Arabs or Muslims. The war on terror is a Tinsel Town taboo, even though a Hollywood Reporter poll showed that roughly two-thirds of filmgoers surveyed would pay to see a film on the topic.

It may be the taboo is a result of fear, but I doubt it: these attitudes were prevalent long before the Dutch filmmaker was killed. Talking about Van Gogh or putting terrorists in movies remain two different things and 'the industry' is pretty clueless either way. On the other hand, it may be the case that they're no longer around to take on the issue, struggling to find a latte in a damp Canadian potato field.

Good stuff over at the Interested Participant who is hosting this week's Carnival of the Vanities, a long-running blogospheric tradition initiated by Bigwig.

There have been many different responses from Europeans to the Van Gogh killing, from politically correct appeasement to xenophobic rhetoric with those stuck in the center struggling to condense their fury into palatable proposals. The view from the Muslim side is structured differently but you could argue there’s some symmetry. There’s a radical fringe, a moderate center and then there are those that have assimilated into western culture but are not afraid to argue the Muslim case a bit more aggressively without reverting to jihadist slogans. Naeem Mohaiemen, while trying to build a reasonable case for the current state of affairs in Europe, renders his attempt futile as he reverts to sweeping statements that contradict the facts and at times adopts some tenuous positions, in particular this one:

European fascination with the veiled (and unveiled) Muslim woman is nothing new. During the colonization of North Africa, the eroticization of the "harem woman" was a trope of European art and literature. Van Gogh's film is a modern version of the same colonial male fantasy – a vision where the European male is the only liberator of Muslim women.

Let’s put aside the fact that Van Gogh’s film was written by a Muslim woman, the writer - who does express his anguish over the death of Van Gogh – engages a little bit too enthusiastically in free-lance psycho-historical analysis. His case is further weakened by the insulting and misinformed description of the tentative attempts that some Dutch politicians, who by North American standards are centrists, have taken:

In a Dutch government with prominent right-wing demagogues like cabinet ministers Rita Verdonk and Gerrit Zalm, and Members of Parliament Gert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, there is a strong possibility of excessively zealous legislation being pushed through. The American experience, where decades of civil liberties gains where jettisoned in the post 9/11 hysteria, can serve as a blueprint for European right-wingers.

Any outrage over terrorist attacks and proposals crafted along a democratic decision process dealing with these atrocities are, in case you’re not aware of it, “right-wing”. This is not entirely new of course but arguing for safety and a determined response to terror doesn’t go down all that well in some circles. But the writer is not entirely misinformed when he goes on to look at the deeper fears that linger below Europe’s surface and this is an area that has received little attention so far, precisely because either side of the debate is clueless to take a reasonable or well-informed position about it:

The key factor that drives fears of Muslim immigrants is the plummeting birth rate among white Europeans. Similar to Israel, it is the "demographic time bomb" that is today the specter haunting Europe. The Dutch government estimates that, by 2010, at present rates of immigration, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague and Utrecht would have Muslim majorities.

The Dutch projections are ludicrous and I wonder where the writer got them - 2050 seems more likely - but there is some merit to the claim that Europe is worrying over demographics and let’s be clear, it’s not just caused by immigration. After having established that, the writer moves to his conclusion:

Theo Van Gogh's tragic death should be mourned, and his killers apprehended. Muslims must work vigorously to root out the tiny band of extremists in their midst who are distorting the message of Islam.

Indeed. And he ends with:

But Europe must also look inward, and heal itself, in order to integrate its Muslim peoples. There can be no better reply to those who want to throw up the walls of Fortress Europe.

There you go: while willing to root out radicals, Mohaiemen argues it’s really not up to the Muslims to do anything beyond that and he puts the ball back in the European court without offering any concrete solution for the rapidly spreading feelings of deep unease around the old continent. A mirror image of the politically correct elites on the other side. It’s time that determined moderates from both sides start talking. Soon.

I didn’t jump on the rally for peace and against terror by Turkish Muslims in Germany because it's not the turning point that others deemed it to be. Zacht Ei as usual has some sobering commentary noting that the demonstrators represent a secular part of the Muslim world and that the Muslim community in Holland has kept a pretty low profile after the Van Gogh murder. Well, when it comes to denouncing terror and radicals tarnishing their good name, Muslims around the world have in general been pretty mum to date. And to the extent there have been such voices they are more likely to be found in the non-Arab segment of the Muslim universe.

The march in Germany however points to something I argued earlier and that is that an alliance - in whatever shape or form - between Western democracies and moderate Muslims is an essential ingredient to fight he war against jihadist terror. As controversial as it may seem at first, bringing Turkey into the European Union is a good example of how that might take shape. From that perspective Sunday’s march may be further evidence that Turkish Muslims are well worth partnering with.

A new group blog definitely worth a visit, in their own words:

A Blog by career US Foreign Service officers. They are Republican (most of the time) in an institution (State Department) in which being a Republican can be bad for your career -- even with a Republican President!

They've got some pretty sharp comments and are even offering their services to those in need:

US Consulates will stand by 24/7/365 to receive immigration applications from sane Canadians fleeing the howling wilderness that will become Canada once the link to the oppressive imperialist war-mongering USA is broken; once the border is solidly locked down to prevent movement either way of anything; once hateful US investments stop; and once Canada can no longer serve as a cheap backlot for Hollywood productions. This is tough love, but at times it's the only way. We might have to destroy Canada to save Canada from Canada to make it again Canada.

As I said, sharp.

Kevin Aylward at Wizbang has launched the 2004 Weblog Awards. Nominations are open until November 28 after which voting will start on December 1. It's not only a great opportunity to reward your favorite bloggers (no, I am not hinting or lobbying, I wouldn't fit into most of the categories anyway), the voting and final results give a pretty good picture as to where the 'market' is.

Jeremy Brown of Who Knew? is guestblogging over at Michael Totten's who's on a trip to Libya. Good stuff, so go check it out.

Ever since the Van Gogh killing MSM and blogs are awash with the same message: the Dutch are too tolerant, that caused some issues with Muslim immigrants and now they have got a little issue on their hands. Yes and no. I have argued before that the Dutch are not as tolerant as they appear to be. It may be a thin veneer under which a very different set of attitudes can be found or it may be that the origins of Dutch success have mutated over time into something called ‘tolerance’ or ‘cultural relativism’. I started to explore these notions and before I know it I had linked it to economic growth, red and blue states and a potential way out of the Dutch quagmire. Anyway, consider the Pragmatic Revolution.

The argument that the Dutch are tolerant needs to be addressed as I don’t think it’s an accurate description. Here’s what I said earlier:

Dutch tolerance doesn't necessarily find its origins in liberalism. Above all, it's pragmatism that has driven the Dutch to adopt a level of flexibility with regards to social issues that is hard to find anywhere else, but that doesn't make them tolerant.

The Dutch rebellion against the Spanish king which lasted from 1568 to 1648 has often been qualified as the struggle of the protestant Dutch against their catholic superiors in Madrid. True, but only up to a point. There was no such thing as the “protestant Dutch”, and the war against Spain was an insurgency incited by nobility and wealthy elites whose grievances were primarily focused on the taxation levels they were subjected to. Impoverished ordinary citizens were initially passive and the protestant-catholic divide in Holland is something that remains a fact of life to this very date. The quest for economic freedom was pragmatist: we need freedom to trade and generate wealth, freedom to trade required freedom of information which in turn helped spawn religious openness. The latter actually turned out to have huge benefits: Portuguese Jews, French Huguenots and English Pilgrims (historical note: the ancestors of the Bush family set sail for the new world from Holland) contributed to a vibrant economy largely based on trade (the Dutch East Indies) and services (banking, insurance) with science, arts and the humanities benefiting from the wealth that flowed into Dutch coffers from all over the world. For a brief period of time during the 17th century, the Golden Age as we call it, Holland was the most powerful nation in the world. No successful economy, especially an urban one, can thrive without a fresh influx of ideas, transparency, freedom of information, and the rule of law.

I spent seven years of my life in Hong Kong, equally a city-state that for its very survival as a separate entity had to rely on unfettered trade and thus a free flow of information. The British successfully implemented this and to date the Chinese, with a few aberrations, have managed to keep the fragrant harbour a free market. The Chinese who make up about 95% of Hong Kong’s population are by nature not very open or tolerant but out of sheer pragmatism they have put up with a lot of stuff that under different circumstances they would happily banish from their streets. The same is true for the Dutch, who at the root have a very peculiar culture that frowns upon achievement and non-conformity. A nation that coined the phrase “act normal, that’s strange enough” to me is not a hotbed of uniqueness and innovation. Conformity is both prevalent and expected. So underneath the reality-based approach to make things work (for more reading check my discussion of pillarization) is a very bourgeois culture that despite its adherence to freedom is not all that tolerant.

Demographic realities and the quest for economic growth after the Second World War led to a huge influx of immigrants from Southern Europe and North Africa. Economic growth was nothing short of phenomenal and in the late 1960s this coincided with the soft revolution that started at universities but pretty soon took over much of the country: women’s emancipation, gay rights, affirmative action, decriminalization of soft drugs and the right the participate at every level with a form of democratic participation swept the country. Again the Dutch sense of pragmatism enabled a quick adoption and institutionalization of the various demands, but we should not forget that the Dutch well had been poisoned by a devastating occupation by Nazi Germany from 1940 to 1945. Events of those years gave an enormous boost to minority rights and to a culture that would transform itself into a benchmark of political correctness. A nation that stood by idly when 100,000 of it fellow Jewish citizens were butchered was ridden with a sense of guilt for generations to come. As a result Muslim immigrants to date have been put on a pedestal and have been treated with a soft glove not so much because of Dutch tolerance but as a result of simple economic realities combined with a deep sense of guilt.

From that perspective we can try and figure out where the Dutch should go in the near future. No, populists like Wilders may enjoy stellar poll ratings now but his solutions are neither economically pragmatic, nor very creative. If there’s a struggle with Islam then passing on the opportunity to embrace a secular entity like Turkey, which Wilders advocates, is not exactly a hallmark of outside the box thinking. A better option would be for the established parties would be to look at the legacy of the incredibly gifted Fortuyn who combined a tough approach to immigration with a clear sense of economic needs. Not only was he as a PhD in sociology well aware of the dramatic impact of social change, as a student of economic history he knew where the solution to the Dutch conundrum ultimately was. He was called a racist when he argued that Dutch cities deteriorated when city centers were taken over by impoverished immigrants while the Dutch middle class disappeared to the suburbs. But he was right, the cradle of Dutch wealth has always been formed by the vibrant cities and they stand to gain most not from tolerance, but from simple goal oriented pragmatism. The comparison with America is interesting as the “blue state – red state” analogy points to something similar. Coastal urban communities require openness, social change and economic freedom as the key ingredients for economic success, competitive strength and continued renewal. As such they tend to be more open to certain liberal attitudes but that doesn’t mean they are tolerant.

The same holds true for the Dutch. Their approach to the world changed by the trauma inflicted by the German occupation, the economic abundance of the post-war years and the transformation of a liberal revolution into a stifling politically correct straightjacket. Everyone argued: “the Dutch are so tolerant” and the Dutch proudly stated “we are so tolerant” but in reality their pragmatism had gone haywire. Fortuyn drew ridicule when he argued to resurrect the Golden Age, but his critics not only missed the point that he was able to cast this call in today’s economic terms and realities, they equally missed the argument that it could unleash a dynamic that would help quell the social ills that are now plaguing Dutch life.

At the moment, there are no Dutch renewers or reformers to be found. But a second Dutch revolution is still possible by returning to the core values that helped build a prosperous Dutch city state in the past while at the same time taking on radical Islam. It would require a reformer, someone to break with the statist economic models and leftist inflexibility that have dominated Dutch society in the post-war years. If that sense of pragmatism results in tolerance, great, but tolerance should never dictate pragmatism.

It's a long piece but Bruce Bawer's analysis on the origins and perpetuation of anti-Americanism in Europe is a must-read. Bawer not only reviews the controversial ideas of some European and American commentators, he’s pretty effective in deconstructing some of the anti-American myths that they and European media (often state-owned or state-supported) perpetuate. And Bawer is also pretty clear where the key to an eventual betterment of trans-atlantic relations might be found:

There is no question that the chief obstacle to improved understanding and harmony between the U.S. and Western Europe is the Western European media establishment.

Here's another a good excerpt:

This practice has continued to the present day, when major European newspapers eagerly fill page after page with nonsensical anti-American rants by the likes of Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky. When European journalists and intellectuals aren’t relishing the latest windy jeremiad by one of these cranks, they’re busy congratulating themselves for their appreciation of nuance. That’s their term of choice for what they have and America doesn’t. Americans, they argue, are possessed by naïve, simplistic ideals, while Europeans are more aware of real-world complexities. Actually the opposite is closer to the truth. Yes, America is built on an idea, namely liberty; but far from being divorced from reality, it is an idea that Americans have realized, developed, and successfully exported for more than two centuries. We have demonstrated the depth of our commitment as a people to this idea by waging a revolution, a civil war, two World Wars, several smaller wars, and the Cold War in its name. It is, in short, an idea that is utterly indissoluble from our own living, breathing, everyday reality. By contrast, much of Western Europe is founded on an idea of itself that is significantly, and dangerously, divorced from reality. That idea, as Robert Kagan explains so adroitly, is that the world has moved beyond the necessity of war. It is a pretty fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. And keeping it alive requires that one ignore dangerous realities—such as the growing problem of militant Islam within Europe’s own borders.

My mother sent me a thick envelope with various items on Van Gogh that you can’t really find online. It included telling accounts of his life, his loves, his son, his career and his phenomenal capability to piss everyone one off, left, right and center.

It weren’t just the Muslims that had to bear the brunt of the Van Gogh fury. One of the things that kept coming back in the various articles was his conflict with Leon de Winter, a well-known Dutch writer with a Jewish background. Van Gogh had pointed out that he was getting tired of De Winter endlessly exploiting his background and that had greatly upset the latter. In a column penned shortly after Van Gogh’s death De Winter reiterated that Van Gogh’s comments had hurt both him and his wife at a very deep level. Yet Van Gogh’s death had shaken De Winter even more:

The act is representative of the intolerance practiced by many immigrants. Homophobia, anti-Semitism and religious and cultural intolerance have since their arrival in our country started a new life. Theo van Gogh lost his. He was an asshole, but he was my asshole and he had the right to be an asshole. I am furious, desperate and perplexed.

If this is an enemy of Van Gogh talking, imagine the feelings among his friends, family and supporters. Over the next few weeks I will excerpt and translate some more aspects of Theo's life as a tribute to him and to turn him into a man of flesh and blood for an audience that didn't know him other than as a victim of Muslim terror.

UPDATE: Just found a piece written by Leon De Winter for Opinion Journal shortly after Theo's death. Check it out.

Dutch tolerance doesn't necessarily find its origins in liberalism. Above all, it's pragmatism that has driven the Dutch to adopt a level of flexibility with regards to social issues that is hard to find anywhere else, but that doesn't make them tolerant.

NOTE: There's a longer post in the works on this topic with a link to the red-blue divide in America. Stay tuned.

Via w4d I found this political quiz that generates three interesting graphs and determines where you are politically in each one. Have fun.

The authors of this blog are discussing whether I am 'fair and balanced'. The basic idea behind Peaktalk is to give you my views and analyze events and by doing that in most cases I would end up in the 'fair and balanced' department, very few have qualified my writings as demagoguery. But yes, in a few cases I can't resist coming out with strong language. Anyway, you be the judge of this.

UPDATE: Colby Cosh has some fair and balanced comments on the particular political issue in question. If you're interested in how the politcal career of an America-basher in Canada's parliament ended this week, read more here.

It's been on my bedside table forever, Rudy Giuliani's Leadership, but I finally had a chance to read and finish it. It pretty much confirmed what I have been thinking about him for a long time: a fiscal conservative, a foreign policy hawk and a liberal in the social department. Some call that purple, some call it an eagle. Looking at what the former Mayor says and does I would cast him as the one to take care of and expand Ronald Reagan's legacy. But what's equally - maybe even more - important and that is something that comes through in the book very clearly, he's a man of character, honesty and integrity. That's why he's the favourite for 2008, for the Republicans and probably for many centrists and liberals as well.

When I have time I try to catch Aaron Brown but unfortunately I missed Jeff Jarvis debating Rebecca Hagelin on morality, TV and censorship. Hagelin apparently interpreted raunchy TV as evidence of a decline of American culture and argued for increased censorship. I can’t blame her for her assessment since I take a similar dim view whenever I visit my native Holland and look at what is on offer on TV. Censorship however is not the way to go, as a matter of principle but there's also good evidence as to why it's not even necessary.

This is one of the few areas where America is coming late to the debate. The explosion of commercial TV networks in Holland in the early 1990s resulted in fierce competition for a limited pool of viewers and the only way to capture a slice of that market was to come up with stuff that generates curiosity: sex and reality-TV. The latter and some of its exponents that are successful on this side of the ocean, Fear Factor and Big Brother, are Dutch creations. The liberal and pragmatic Dutch took full advantage of flexible broadcasting rules by littering the tube with dating shows early in the evening and never ending boobs late at night. Yet, a few years ago a turnaround occurred and there was a distinct move away from raunchy TV. The reasons were manifold: saturation, competition from other media, irritated advertisers. Glenn Reynolds points in the same direction:

To me, though, the whole debate seems a bit surreal. Broadcast TV is rapidly diminishing in importance, and broadcast radio isn't far behind.

In order to stay relevant broadcast TV had to move in a direction that allowed it to survive as a viable medium: less sex, enhanced reality-TV and more quality content. The Dutch experience shows that outside regulation by government entities like the FCC is redundant, both the market and society at large have an innate ability to self-regulate and determine the appropriate level of vulgarity on broadcast TV. So what we see on the box is indeed a reflection of our culture and how it moves over time although Rebecca Hagelin would no doubt like to influence the speed at which it moves.

Sooner than expected: Colin Powell is arguing that Iran is now on track to have nuclear weapons ready by next year.

Question: Is his credibility after the Iraq-WMD fiasco sufficiently intact to convince the world that we now have a real problem on our hands?

Answer: To many, probably not.

Question: But would you still accept his comments and agree that Iran is an issue that needs to be dealt with immediately?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Why?

Answer: Because (a) it is extremely unlikely that on the eve of his departure Powell would come out with an argument based on shaky intelligence and thus make the same mistake twice (place in history and all that), and (b) it's too late in the game to take any risks and err on the side of caution.

Conclusion: Faster, please.

Another great e-mail from one of my readers and I can break it down into three megaposts, so for now I will use only one salient bit for a post today:

Generally, it makes me uneasy when I see the current world situation described as a power struggle between religions. I think it is a struggle between rational humanity and irrational archaic beliefs.

So there’s the conflict between the rational West and archaic Islam which would set us on the course of that often used term “clash of civilizations”. If that’s where we are headed then you better start packing your bags because we will be in for a conflict that will dwarf the Second World War in terms of scope and intensity. The thing to recognize is that the archaic world of Islam doesn’t exist as it consists of many different streams and sub-cultures. Democratic Indonesia, secular Turkey, compliant Libya, Baathist Syria and struggling Iraq are components of a world that now is exclusively symbolized by a very dangerous and radical fringe. But to equate that fringe with the entire culture would be both absurd and risky as you would overlook the potential seeds for avoiding the anticipated clash. Likewise the West is hardly rational either. On the left side we have the now embedded tradition of political correctness and cultural relativism which has transformed itself into a destructive cult of self-loathing that if it were dominant would destroy the rational and liberal principles that once gave birth to them. On the other end of the spectrum is the resurgent religious base that has captured an audience that is rapidly becoming alienated because of the aforementioned relativism and the external threat of radical terror. Parts of the social and religious conservative groupings in the West are in danger of straying a little too close to their archaic fringes.

So here’s the challenge for a political leader in the West: relegate the self-defeating elements to the sidelines, ensure that religious zealots will not hijack your agenda while at the same time engage the enlightened elements in the Muslim world in such a way that they will help steer away the world from a deep conflict. Yes, I am painting with a broad brush here and European and North American leaders will all have to deal with different mechanics. The essence is: dismiss radicalism at home, destroy it abroad.

When I suggested that Holland’s new found realities are best dealt with on a pan-European basis something told me it would not be easy. Here are some reactions after Dutch PM Balkenende suggested the Euros should work together on improving Muslim integration and fighting terror:

EU lawmakers, through parliament President Josep Borrell, expressed "solidarity" with the Netherlands in dealing with the ethnic unrest, but urged caution in drafting new proposals.

German Liberal Democrat Alexander Alvaro urged Balkenende not to push through the new rules in the name of fighting terrorism at the cost of civil liberties.

"We will have to continue to think, discuss and debate," he said. "The protection of human and civil rights, of freedom and security are the foundations of Europe, and must be defended."

This is not hopeful and potentially dangerous: it’s an unwillingness to make changes to adapt to the new world and a call for inaction. That’s a form of radicalism as well.

George Bush is going to pay an official visit to Canada later this month and his hosts, rather than thinking through important bi-lateral issues, are now focused on discussing the risk of certain members of parliament heckling Bush during a speech he might give in the House of Commons. The conservative opposition is at pains to avoid this and are calling on the potential troublemakers to think through the consequences of interrupting and jeering the US President. A typical Canadian reaction: let’s try and keep things nice. I completely disagree. If Bush ever wanted to score a publicity coup in Canada and reveal how depraved and clueless the anti-Americans in parliament are, then there’s no better way than to let them make fools of themselves during what will surely be a smart and well-crafted speech. Bring'em on!

NOTE: This post only contains entries written during the immediate aftermath of the murder. The entire Van Gogh file is here.

Since the Van Gogh murder had an impact on many different areas I filed my posts about the affair under various categories, so I thought it would be wise to round them all up in chronological order in one post with a brief description. Here we go:

The initial reaction when news of the murder broke is here;
Comments on the likely assassins and why their role is not surprising are here;
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's first reaction after the murder is here;
My reflections on the affair in "Holland's Evaporating Hope";
"Al-Zarqawi on Clogs", translating the note left on Van Gogh's body and my thoughts after reading it;
My pessimism after a few days materialized here;
Enforcing political correctness and managing free speech prevails shortly after the murder, here;
A reader offers hope to the Dutch here; (this resulted in an amazingly angry e-mail from a Brit);
A possible solution: co-opting moderate Muslims is here;
Europe's prospects and the role of Islam, here;
Here's a backgrounder on Dutch politics and the political parties invovled;
The new realities for the Dutch and the impact on their role in Iraq is here;
The core issue: free speech is here;
The Dutch street erupts here;
Dutch politicians struggling to come to terms with the new world are here;
Van Gogh's farewell ceremony is here;
The arrest of more suspects after a stand-off with Dutch police is here;
Exploring the notion that Bush may become more attractive to the Dutch after the murder is here;
The plot thickens as some unusual suspects are picked up, here;
Despite many calls, the Queen keeps her distance, here;
Dutch parliament debates the murder and its aftermath, here;
And here I am pointing out that the Dutch are disoriented and hardly unified thanks to a clueless political establishment.

There it is, I am sure more will follow in weeks to come but that of course depends entirely on developments on the ground. One thing I will do however is summarize my thoughts in one essay and I will probably come up with some conclusions that weren't obvious to me on the day of the murder, now two weeks ago.

UPDATES:

Excerpts of Theo's Life
The Dutch appeared to be moving on.
The Muslim world struggles with