hell with elections, in other words. This is now official
US policy. State Department spokesman James Foley explained
the new doctrine. "What makes a democracy is more than
simply a clean and free and fair election," he mused,
"We've seen evidence in the past, I believe, around
the world of governments that were elected democratically
acting democratically or not acting in conformity with democratic
principles and with respect for human rights and things
of this nature. And so I don't think
themselves are the be-all and the end-all." Foley did
not cite any examples of governments that, though elected
"democratically," were not "acting in conformity
with democratic principles." The wonderful thing about
"democratic principles" is that no one knows what
they are. The United States can define them to mean whatever
it wants them to mean. In any case, it is obvious the United
States much prefers to deal with countries that do not bother
having elections at all. They do as they are told and make
sure Americans get rich. Saudi Arabia has no elections.
It also imprisons people for reading the Bible. Yet Madeleine
and Bill and Sam never seem to get indignant about it.
deja vu all over again. The Serbs are pulverized until they
get rid of their democratically elected leaders. Now it
is the turn of the Austrians. As a matter of fact, the hatred
being directed at Austria sounds awfully like the hatred
directed at Serbia. It cannot be long before the New
Republic burdens us with "Austria's Willing Executioners"
the latest reflections of Daniel Goldhagen. As a
matter of fact, Austria and Serbia are not such different
countries. To be sure, one is German and largely Catholic,
while the other is Slav and Eastern Orthodox. However, the
defining historical experience of both was defending European
civilization against the incursions of Islam. The Serbs
recall 1389 and their defeat at the Battle of Kosovo. The
Austrians recall that it was they, under the Hapsburgs,
who freed Europe from Turkish rule.
of course, makes the Austrians as much anathema to our liberal,
multicultural elite as the Serbs. They have to get with
the multicultural program. Here is the New York Times'
sneering characterization of the Austrians: "Behind
the waltzes-as-Muzak and the cozy cafes lies a darker reality
on which Haider has played. That reality includes Christian
Vienna's long rearguard action against the Turkish 'infidel,'
enthusiastic Austrian support for Hitler and the historical
distortion that long portrayed Austria as the 'first victim
of Nazi aggression'." Note the facile way in which
fighting the Turks is put on the same level as "supporting"
Hitler. This supposed Austrian "support" for Hitler
is the journalistic cliché of the moment. Jim Hoagland
not the brightest bulb in the world parroted
it in the Washington Post : "For most Austrians
the past never happened in the first place. They have constructed
an imaginary history in which Austrians were the victims
of a Nazi German invasion rather than Hitler's willing henchmen."
of this is ludicrously oversimplified. According to the
Treaty of Versailles, Austria could not join Germany without
the permission of the League of Nations. This was in clear
violation of Woodrow Wilson's proclamation of "national
self-determination." Austrians were Germans and therefore
it made perfect sense for them to be part of Germany particularly
as they had just lost their empire. However, the victorious
allies were not about to create a Germany bigger than the
pre-1914 one. So they happily abandoned their own principles.
Austria and Germany became two separate states. Hitler
an Austrian was obviously unhappy about this. National
self-determination applied to Poles, but not to Germans!
he cried. Did the Austrians support the 1938 Anschluss?
Perhaps, but it should be pointed out that Hitler marched
into Austria to prevent the holding of a promised referendum
on the issue. Hitler's mistrust of the voters was a lot
like that of the Clinton Administration. From the Anschluss
on, the Austrians were obligated to fight for Germany in
much the same way the Germans were. Reproaching the Austrians
makes about as much sense as reproaching the Germans. What
were they supposed to do? Fight for the Russians? Fight
for the British?
liberals do not bring up the subject of Hitler at the drop
of a hat in order to settle historical debates. The point
is to intimidate people into signing on to the contemporary
liberal agenda. Austrians, like everyone else, must abandon
any sense of nationhood, cultural identity and historic
tradition. They must open their borders to more and more
immigrants. And they must get over the idea that they are
part of a Christian civilization. Here is how that New
York Times article goes on: "Aging populations,
low birth rates and European reluctance to do many menial
influx inevitable. Europe and its immigrants
need each other
.So, it seems, Europeans' sense of
identity must change to reflect growing political union
and more mixed populations." If it is "inevitable,"
why do the Austrians need to be persuaded of this? Indeed,
why be scared of Haider at all? He has obviously embraced
a losing cause. "European states have never really
seen themselves as 'lands of immigration'," the Times
goes on condescendingly, "The recent invitation to
Turkey to join the European Union reflects a broad push
to make Europeans see themselves differently, not in juxtaposition
to a vizier's head, but in acceptance of the common humanity
of the guest worker. The rise of Haider demonstrates, however,
that the battle for Europe's soul is far from over
European Union wants, henceforth, to be on the side of liberty,
democracy, human rights, the rule of law and an end to ethnic
persecution. It was for these values that it says it went
to war in Kosovo. Many Europeans cheered
battle for a pan-European identity, able to accommodate
both Christianity and Islam, has only just begun."
the Europeans have to "accommodate" themselves
to Islam whether they like it or not. Their "sense
of identity" must change whether they like it or not.
And if they don't like it, let's just bring up "Hitler"
to settle the matter Interestingly, none of these articles
addresses the issue of whether Islam today is a particularly
tolerant religion. It is always the Europeans apparently
who are intolerant. They are the bigots. Yet which is more
tolerant: Contemporary "Christian" Europe or the
Islamic world? The answer is fairly obvious, which is why
our elite would much prefer to harp on about Hitler.
its attitude towards Austria, the Clinton Administration
is once again demonstrating its obsessive anti-European
prejudices. Europe apparently is filled with racists, bigots,
anti-Semites. Europeans are forever ready to march under
Hitler's banner. This American bigotry serves to provide
the United States with a justification to continue its dominance
Europe. The Europeans obviously cannot be trusted to run
their own affairs. When they are not being pusillanimous,
they are failing to "modernize." When they are
not failing to "modernize," they are being "xenophobic"
or "anti-Semitic." In its contemptuous disregard
for election results, the United States is providing itself
for a rationale to intervene anywhere. Some "humanitarian