by John Ross Schroeder and Jerold Aust
N
ot so long ago liberal commentators in the United States spoke of the European economic success in glowing terms—indicating that social democracy works. They praised the European dream of collective responsibility and worldwide consciousness—leading to a better tomorrow for mankind. They also intoned about the European guide to better capitalism—really as much socialism as the market could bear. One or two liberal observers were even asking Americans if they were born on the wrong continent. Yet recent events have shown these views to be somewhat embarrassing. Gideon Rachman wrote in the Financial Times: “The normal processes of democracy in Italy and Greece had been unequal to the economic crisis. The European Union’s repeated failure to find a solution to the debt crisis—and so secure the future of the euro—illustrated that pan-European politics were working no better than the national variety”
(“Our Age of Mounting Indignation,” Dec. 30, 2011). Historically the Europeans who immigrated to the new world for a better life have since established their own methods in the political and economic fields. The American way of life has a brand all its own, including its take on capitalism. Though far from reaching the ideal, overall it has proved more economically successful than the more planned and regulated economies of other nations. Yet there can be little doubt that the present American administration favors the European social model. So will the European model then become the dominant force in the United States? Certainly President Obama has challenged traditional U.S. economic strategy and tactics—seeking to “spread the wealth” by taxing the rich, increasing government spending and initiating costly social programs such as his new, much more pervasive health-
American isolation: Will history repeat itself?
approach is Washington’s track record in its association with international bodies. The American Spectator’s review of The New Road to Serfdom by Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Southeast England, stated: “In his chapter on America’s position in the world, Hannan points out how just about every international body or agreement that America seeks to join is poisonous to her republic. International judges seek to undermine the Constitution, while the ‘human rights’ establishment celebrates anti-American dictators. In every area, these global institutions eschew the American ideal of actually doing something about a problem in favor of the bad European habit of confusing declamation with action—except when it comes to actions that undermine American sovereignty” (“Two Roads Diverged,” December 2010-January 2011). Columnist Stephens tells why America is probably the only viable candidate for a more isolationist approach to the world’s problems. “It [America] is the most secure . . . It is rich in natural resources. New technology in oil and gas extraction has transformed the energy industry. The US is headed for selfsufficiency in energy, and by some accounts could become a significant net exporter” (ibid.). Although the United States’ economy is increasingly becoming more integrated into the global economic framework, its potentially isolationist tendencies are not that far from the surface, and there are now some signs of their possible emergence out of the woodwork. After all, America’s first president, George Washington, did warn the country to stay clear of foreign and especially European entanglements. Still, as Philip Stephens concludes: “A world of everyone for themselves would leave everyone poorer.” We look forward to a coming true utopian age promised in the Bible—ending our troubled relationships first with God and then with one another. To learn more, request our free booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom. (Sources: Financial Times [London], The American Spectator.)
A
ll who are familiar with U.S. history in the 1930s and early 40s know that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, many members of Congress tended to be isolationist in their approach to foreign wars, particularly the conflict in Europe. However, President Franklin Roosevelt certainly helped Britain, as much as the political climate at the time would permit him. But is America now beginning to enter another
“Just about every international body or agreement that America seeks to join is poisonous to her republic.” isolationist phase? Gideon Rachman reported in the Financial Times: “The death of the leader of al-Qaeda allowed Barack Obama in effect to call an end to the ‘War on Terror’ as the organising principle of US foreign policy. The withdrawal of American troops from Iraq at the end of the year sent the same message and set the stage for a similar pull-out from Afghanistan over the next three years” (“Our Age of Mounting Indignation,” Dec. 30, 2011). Weary of knotty problems and troublesome conflicts on a global scale, could America eventually decide to go it alone? Philip Stephens, also a columnist for the Financial Times, stated: “For its part the US is retrenching. It has grown tired of wars and has been piling up deficits and debts. Barack Obama has announced big cuts in the Pentagon’s budget. America will be more sparing in its deployment of military might. Europe will have to look after itself and much of the greater Middle East will be left to itself” (”How a Self-Sufficient America Could Go It Alone,” Jan. 13, 2012). One of the reasons some observers and citizens in the United States may contemplate a more isolationist
16
The Good News
How high could gas prices rise? head of Iran’s state oil company said “T heSunday that the price of crude will reach
$120 to $150 per barrel, as officials in Tehran prepare to discuss a ban on crude sales to European Union countries in retaliation for an EU embargo . . . [Iran] says the embargo will hurt the West more than Iran, in part by causing a spike in prices” (“Iran Oil Official Says Crude Could Reach $120 to $150 Per Barrel, Downplays EU Embargo,” The Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2012). C u r r e n t l y, the lowest price of gas in the United States is around $3.00 per gallon, far lower than in most of the rest of the world. Could $4.00 a gallon—or even higher— become the new U.S. norm? Nations can and do use oil as a weapon. If oil sold for $150 a barrel, the price of gas would jump to about $4.30 per gallon. How many can afford to fill their tanks at that price? And how would this affect the price of everything else— including essential foods and basic needs—that must be transported by vehicles also burning higher-priced fuel? Much of the world is already skirting the edge of the abyss financially. More economic disruption could lead to increasing international conflicts and the rise of dictatorships not unlike what preceded World War II.
Photos, from left: Photos.com, Wikimedia
Where is America headed?
care legislation, and his recent rejection of the proposed oil pipeline between Canada and Texas (which would have added tens of thousands more jobs). A Wall Street Journal editorial stated: “Obama has done nearly everything he wanted. That’s the problem” (“The State of His Policies,” Jan. 26, 2012). This November’s national elections may decide just how much farther Americans are willing to travel down the road in quest of European-model socialism. Will the outcome of these U.S. elections turn out to be a referendum on whether or not the United States should become an honorary member of the European Union? To fully understand America’s role in the world from God’s point of view, download or request our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. It will give you the essential historical and biblical background to understanding the severe challenges facing America and the British Commonwealth of English-speaking nations. (Sources: Financial Times [London], The Wall Street Journal.)