In a recent discussion I had on Twitter, we ended up comparing today’s European Union to the United States of the 1790’s. This was born out of a discussion between whether cutting or increasing government spending is ‘working’, but it shifted quickly towards the US and EU. I’ve long held that the EU is destined for failure in its current form and should even be dissolved before it’s too late and too much damage is done, and though one could argue too much damage has already been done, I’m not going to here. A counter came that I would’ve said the same thing about the colonies of America in the late 1700’s and that the situations are very similar. The basic line of thought is if the US was able to do it, Europe should also be able to because the differences between the two are minimal. I disagreed because the differences are more than meets the eye, and since it’s very hard to put this out in 140-character exchanges, I’ll do it here. This is a long one even for me.
The similarities are striking, no doubt. We’re talking about a collection of entities (colonies or states for the US, countries for the EU) aiming for unification under one banner. The entities are fairly near one another in geography and they have similar-ish roots and origins, having more or less ultimately descended from the Roman civilization. From a monetary policy perspective, we both have central banks (the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank) with common currencies (the US dollar and Euro), which is among the advantages of unification. But, here’s the thing. The differences are even starker, and they matter here. I think that ignoring the differences is a crucial mistake here that will lead to an erroneous conclusion. There are several key fundamental differences between the US and its colonies then and the EU and its countries now.
So, what are the major differences between the US of the late 1700’s and the EU of today, and do they matter? I’ll lay out five broad differences here and why they matter, looking at the members themselves, the relationships between the members, incentive to unify, history, and leadership.
First, look at the constituents themselves. With the US, we’re talking about a collection of colonies that were a couple centuries old. It’s about 300 years between America’s ‘discovery’ to America’s breakaway from the clutches of Europe to become the only real nation of size in North America (aside from various Native American nations), geographically separated by thousands of miles of ocean on both sides.
Also, remember that we’re talking about colonies, not sovereign countries, and the speed of the transition matters enormously here. The colonies were on their own for a very short period of time. The time between the victory in the Revolution War and the ratification of the Constitution was under six years. The English surrendered at Yorktown in 1781 and the Constitution was ratified in 1787. Also, the Revolutionary War was relatively short at 5-7 years (leaving wiggle room for whether you view the start of the war as the Battles of Point Pleasant or Lexington and Concord or the signing of the Declaration of Independence), though the tensions had been brewing for 10ish years prior (again with wiggle room since the Sugar and Currency Acts were from 1764 and I view those as the real start of tensions). This is a very fast timeline.
With Europe, we’re looking at countries that have been sovereign for ages. I’m talking several centuries for even the younger countries and even several millennia in some cases. Per Roman lore, their republic was founded around 753 BCE, so in that case, you’re pushing 3,000 years. The Greek city-states predate even the Roman republic by several centuries. 300 years is America’s full history from discovery to independence, and while 300 years is not an insignificant chunk of time for Europe, we’re still talking about the continent that fought the Hundred Years’ War.
So, two points of human psychology come into play here, and we can fairly apply human psychology to national psychology in some respects, seeing as how nations are fundamentally made up of people. One, as people age, they naturally tend to become more engrained in their ways and less receptive to change. Seriously, try convincing your parents that you’re right and they’re wrong about anything and tell me how it goes. Two, along those lines, when you’ve had freedom for such a long time, you’re very reluctant to give it up. Again, if they’re in old age, try telling your parents that they shouldn’t do some of the things they used to do and see what kind of reaction you get. The importance of the youth of the American colonies and the quickness of the transition from colonies to Articles of Confederation to Constitution cannot be understated and human psychology presents a parallel example.
Second, look at the history of the relationships within the wholes. No doubt, the colonies had their share of individual spats with one another, including some violence, both before and after unification. However, aside from the Civil War several decades after America’s unification, there was nothing like what European nations have had with each other throughout their entire history. Not only does Europe have a longer history as detailed above, but they have a longer history of conflict. From the Roman days (Pax Romana aside) to the Hundred Years’ War to the Napoleonic Wars to the two Great Wars and so on, these are nations that have fought with and against each other for millennia. The Americans simply got along better with each other than the Europeans historically have.
There’s also more personal psychology at work here. The US was able to quickly forge a shared identity. The geographic distance from Europe made the American colonists shift in relatively short order (a few generations) from tending to view themselves as Europeans to viewing themselves as something different. In the early days of the colonies, Americans did tend to view themselves as New Yorkers or Pennsylvanians or what have you, but the Founding Fathers were able to shape a national identity to create an American people. Today, most people in America tend to view themselves as Americans first, then Pennsylvanians or New Yorkers. Sure, there are exceptions like Hawaii and Alaska (due partially to geographic isolation from the other 48 states) and Texas (it used to be the Republic of Texas and they’re very proud of that).
Contrast that with Europe. Every European I know today without exception says they’re French or German or whatever first, not European. They don’t say, “I’m from Europe.” They say, “I’m from Portugal.” The national pride, the pride of heritage, is very strong. That comes from centuries/millennia of being the Greek or Italian people, etc., and this wasn’t anywhere nearly as deeply engrained in the American colonists as it is in today’s Europeans. Would they eventually consider themselves Europeans first? Maybe, maybe not. Would the resistance to transitioning be stronger in Europe than it was in colonial America? Almost certainly.
This lack of strength behind the common identity leads to anxiety and tension. Even today, the tensions are still there. The German people are getting increasingly tired of having to use their strong economy to bail out their troubled neighbors in the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain), and remember, one of the biggest sources of European conflict throughout the 20th century was the rest of Europe’s inability to cope with the economic expansion of Germany. It’s not unreasonable from a historical perspective to view these bailouts as yet another effort to check Germany’s growth along the lines of the reparations following World War 1 and the division of Germany via the Berlin Wall following World War 2. I’m not saying Germany’s going to go on the warpath again, but they’re rightly annoyed.
Third, the US colonies had a major incentive to unify beyond the efficiencies to be had. Despite our victory in the Revolutionary War, there was always the threat that the European powers would set their sights on America once again. The War of 1812 is an example, but the Napoleonic Wars largely kept Europe’s attention focused closer to home and the Monroe Doctrine made it clear that the Americas were ours, allowing the US to entrench and expand. Even 50 years later, during the Civil War, the English and French were very close to recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate sovereign nation, but ended up not doing so. Further still, we had the Spanish-American War in the 1890’s, though the Spaniards were hardly a danger to us by that point.
Does Europe have a comparable incentive today beyond the unification efficiencies? Methinks not. I don’t see the present economic strife as a strong enough incentive. The recent economic strife may even act as a disincentive because a major contributing factor to the recent economic strife was this move to unify, and I think some of the people of Europe (at least Germany) are starting to realize that. I don’t see a serious military threat to them at this time (mainly due to the US acting as a guardian, Germany’s current lack of belligerence, and the fact that China, Russia, and the Middle East appear to be more focused on more local issues). Again, more psychology is at work here. Without the incentive to unify, it doesn’t happen. They need some carrot and some stick, and I really only see carrot.
Fourth, consider that history is on my side here. Every effort to unify Europe under one flag has ultimately failed (some more spectacularly and disastrously than others), from early efforts by the Romans to more modern efforts by Napoleon and Hitler. The Roman Empire was probably the closest Europe has come to such unity and they were able to keep it going pretty well for a very long time, and even one of the greatest civilizations of all time eventually failed to maintain it. Europe puts their own spin on the tradition set forth by the Greek city-states, who were notorious for not getting along well with each other, then banding together to repel an outside threat, only to revert to disliking each other shortly after the threat is resolved. Europe has been historically ineffective at unifying itself, and even though this doesn’t mean that they won’t get it right eventually, history says it’s not a smart bet.
By contrast, the effort to unify the America succeeded and still endures. To be fair, the United States had to do a couple reboots of sorts during our history, too, but again they’re small potatoes compared to what Europe’s had. Coming out of the Revolutionary War, we had the Articles of Confederation before we had the Constitution, for instance. However, as I mentioned earlier, the transition was very swift. The Founding Fathers quickly recognized that the Articles of Confederation were destined to fail and scrapped them to work on the Constitution. We had a Civil War a few decades later, too. In any event, the United States has had a far less rocky path to unification.
Fifth, and this is I think the biggest x-factor, America has simply had better leadership. The Founding Fathers were arguably the single greatest collection of political minds anywhere ever. Abraham Lincoln’s leadership to preserve the Union during the Civil War was, on the whole, a historical masterpiece of leadership excellence. I simply do not see the leadership capability in Europe today to make this work like we had in the US and I can’t see anyone making a reasonable argument that Europe’s current leadership is on par with that of America’s during those two periods. The European leaders were far too slow to recognize the dangers of their present arrangement and address them.
In a nutshell, there are several obstacles to the unification of the EU today that were not present to the unification of the US in the late 1700’s. The members, their relationships, the lack of real incentive to unify, the historical record, and the weak leadership of Europe are all factors that work together to prevent the EU from functioning properly.
I went on for quite a while here, but it sets the stage for some more stuff I’d like to go into here, including why forming it in the first place was not only a terrible idea, but it should have been recognized as such at the time. I’d even like to discuss not only the case for disbanding the EU, but how it can be done because I do believe it’s possible and the wisest course of action. And my backlog grows.
