Two articles I read today have a link that’s not immediately obvious. The first, at the Adam Smith Institute Blog, Facts about Millionaires, points out a survey done in Europe:
In 1999 a quarter of US households were poor (with less than $25,000 pa). By this standard 40 percent of Swedish households would be considered poor. Of course, some prefer to measure poverty relatively. In this context of US poor households, 45.9 percent own their own home, 72.8 percent have a car, and 77 percent have air conditioning.
I don’t like quoting surveys or polls due to their inherent errors in assumption, but I lived in England and France in the 1960s, and see some validity from personal experience. People in both countries still used chamber pots, a supermarket was unheard of, and few owned automobiles.
I also think the selection of a household income for a poverty line is deceiving. My parents have an annual income of less than $25K, but wouldn’t consider themselves to be in this group. Their house is paid for, Dad plays golf regularly, Mom goes to the casino boats and plays her slots, and they buy a new vehicle when they want. How many people below the poverty line have cable TV and cell phones? Many people in Europe don’t have phones in their homes.
The second is a book review by Carlin Romano, one of Joe’s compatriots with Knight-Ridder. The book, Dangerous De-Liaisons: What’s Really Behind the War Between France and the U.S., covers additional territory.
Colombani and Wells speak with casual confidence of the two personalities who sparked the latest tiff – Bush and Jacques Chirac. Both presidents, they agree, exude “arrogance” in different ways, with Chirac a worldly elitist who finds Bush and his team not ready for prime time, and Bush a populist sort convinced of Chirac’s pretentiousness and duplicity.
But the two also provide historical perspective. Throughout the marriage, the United States has wanted to lead, and France hasn’t wanted to be led. For Colombani, the core of all French-American differences can be traced to the contrast between Bonaparte and Washington, the former seeking to become “emperor,” the other willing to “give up his power.” He’s aware that French leaders, more than American ones, typically exhibit imperial temperament.
At the same time, he pinpoints a variety of U.S. policy stands – e.g., support of the death penalty, tolerance of gun-abetted violence, a perceived goal of weakening the European Union so it can’t rival the United States – to which many French, like other Europeans, thoughtfully object.
I don’t agree that we “tolerate” gun violence, but so be it.
What links these two stories? I think it shows up in our own differences at home. As a practical matter, there are far fewer people in this country living in poverty than the statistics show. The issue is more about where do you draw the poverty line, and how do you define the word itself? Immigrants in earlier days talked about coming to America “where even the poor people are fat.”
In Europe, people expect the government to take care of them. We have folks here who want the same thing. Yet when you cede that much authority to the political elite, you end up with Europe. For some, that would suit them well. But they don’t quite grasp what it means. Patriot Act? Amateurish legislation. Hate Crime Laws? Hate Speech laws better serve the government’s purpose.
Emperor, or President? Your choice. I think I’d prefer the opportunity to become a millionaire.