The rise of the social democracies in Europe following WWII may be the most important event in world history. While each of them is economically patterned around modified free-market systems, each insures social protection for their populations all their lives. Due to a recent relative flat-lining in their economic growth, it is sometimes now argued that cutbacks in social programs will become necessary, but it is doubtful their populaces would stand still for significant reductions in social services. They have also come in for some criticism, internationally, for their practice of providing liberal subsidies to their agricultural and/or industrial sectors. So, there is an obvious need for tweaking these shortcomings; however, these nation-states stand almost alone in the world in affording their people the highest lifestyles and life-expectancy in the civilized, techno-industrial world; anywhere, really. Almost equally important today is the model they provide both advanced (America, take heed) and emerging nations to aspire to, while also helping undergird any cultural theory of a nation’s internal peace and international stability based on economic equity.

Noam Chomsky argues that in America there is a long-standing class battle between the haves and the have-nots in which the rich abhor the notion of “solidarity” (of the people), and seek to maintain, at almost any cost, our mainly economic inequities. His point is seconded by many who have observed that in Western Europe the community is emphasized over the individual. Of course, Chomsky also champions libertarian, by implication, at least, (anarchist) socialism over these social democracies that have arisen in Europe, but I believe a realist reading of history supports the notion the public in most nation-states is ultimately passive, politically, and, except perhaps in rare instances such as the early Israeli kibbutzim, will not long remain dedicated and active in his libertarian socialist state. The bureaucratic programs in a social democracy perform a kind of “fail-safe” function that, while they may not always be ideal, remain functional for even the most isolated individuals. This is absolutely vital in preventing the dysfunction of the system supporting a thriving culture. Chomsky would obviously admit life in Israel is not what it once was, to say the least; while the standard of living there is, overall, quite high, in Western Europe it has also dramatically increased over these last sixty years—and without massive foreign aid.

I suppose my view is, at bottom, rather conservatively liberal in basically accepting the rationale of these social democracies as something, that with really only moderate tweaking of our own system, could be implemented here, and certainly there is a great call made for that, at least indirectly. One hears everywhere, for example, the number 43-million, or some similar figure, as representative of those Americans who have no health insurance coverage. There’s an implicit demand here, as well; a demand for our government to come up with a system—usually, the single-payer system is the one mentioned—to correct this inequity. There’s a huge battle over this, of course. The radical Rightwing is not lying low any longer. W wants to dismantle social security—whatever his cover story, and the Republicans (alas, with the aid of many Democrats) try to siphon off as much of the treasury as possible to the Military-Corporate Complex and its fellow-travelers.

I know specialists in the social programs of the various European countries involved will hasten to point out their relative shortcomings, but I would insist on the term “relative” to describe those shortcomings, especially when one considers how they compare to our tattered and ragged attempts to patch over the huge gulfs that exist here between those who are well-off and those who aren’t. In fact, I am astonished more comparative studies have not been done by our media on the subject—and then, again, I am not surprised. When Bill and Tommy went after welfare mothers little or no mention was made of either the fact they are treated far more sympathetically, financially and otherwise, in Western Europe or that many modern economists view the fact labor as a housewife and mother finds no valuation in our capitalist system as more an outrage than an oversight. And when this is viewed in light of the probably trillions in corporate welfare and tax loopholes, it is seen in the sorry light of the scandal it is. I mean, the meanness of it all—and the resentment of so many Americans, most of them—by definition—themselves poor, towards the AFDC mothers makes for a most unflattering portrait of who we are as a people. And there’s Big Bill Clinton grabbin’ aholt of those impoverished “welfare queens” by their gingham hems for political gain. I think he was richly deserving of his “Monica” fate—as is W, having wasted his presidency on a terribly wrong war that will haunt his history.