The EU: Nightmare of the Right

We’ve been tracking the US hard-right’s increasing take-over of British Eurosceptic rhetoric for some time; first it was Tom Tancredo who thinks there’s a secret plot to replace the dollar with the “Amero”, now it’s Ron Paul who’s scared of the “North American Union”. The major difference is that he makes an explicit link:

“The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ol’USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.

The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans through the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our own military to police the world.”

The interesting thing here is that he lines up with a US hard-right view in government that any kind of multilateral agreement with binding force is unacceptably oppressive, but frames it as being directed at individuals in the US; how responsible, I wonder, are the more prominent people who agreed with him in the 1990s for the Bush administration’s lawlessness? To some extent, the drive to reject any legal constraint on executive power sailed under the flag of rejecting any constraint on sovereign power.

Amusingly, of course, critics of the EU from the left tend to assume that it exists to impose covert US (or, you know, something) control on sovereign polities, which if left alone would certainly choose true socialism. Propagandistically, we can’t catch a break; uniting the extremes is often held to be a sign that you have the support of the reasonable, but quite often it’s just that you’re dull.

6 thoughts on “The EU: Nightmare of the Right

  1. There is an anti-Europe strain on the American right, but I don’t know if you could call it Euroskeptic. I mean, nobody is saying “country X is worse off for joining the EU, and country Y should stay out”. It’s more a sloppy muddle of irritation at Europeans (pacifistic welfare staters! ingrates!) along with a vague but strongly felt dislike of supranational institutions generally.

    Paul and Tancredo may not be the best possible examples. Paul is barking mad and won’t get 5% of the vote anywhere. (Cue a libertarian commenter getting very excited about Paul’s fundraising.)

    Tancredo, much the same, although he’s more mainstream — he represents a significant, if repulsive, strain of American conservative thought. But the “Amero” is just another variant on “poor dirty dark-skinned MEXICANS coming to pollute our sacred body fluids”. It’ll make you vomit in your mouth a little if you study it too long, but it’s not remotely about /Europe/.

    Doug M.

  2. — Paul is barking mad —

    I’m glad you said that, Doug. Whenever people start talking about world elites plotting to impose supranational government, one suspects they also believe the Protocols are the genuine article.

    Alex,perhaps what these right-wingers are reacting to is the way the executive of the modern state tends to become just ‘a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie’ ?

  3. Just stumbled into this site. Pretty hard left so I’m headed for the door. On my way out though just a short comment. “the Bush administration’s lawlessness? To some extent, the drive to reject any legal constraint on executive power sailed under the flag of rejecting any constraint on sovereign power.” Wow! Talk about no constraints.

    Please cite references, with explanation, of the, presumably, manifold instances where the Bush administration ignored a court decision on the legality of mechanisms established to enhance national security. No, not administrative decisions made before court review, which is a primary function of the courts since the founding of the republic, but after such a review.

    Some of you might want to read “The Rule of Law In The Wake of Clinton” published by the Cato Institute in 2000 to see a real “Administration Gone Wild.”

  4. Alex, Paul has been a fierce critic of the Bush administration since Bush came into office. He was actually willing to criticize the Bush admin’s Iraq policy when Bush was riding very high, which makes him a very rare bird among politicians.

    If you’re going to criticize Paul, can you criticize him for policies he actually supports? He is very against giving up US sovereignty, but he’s also against the idea of an unchecked executive, and he hasn’t exactly been quiet in his opposition.

  5. When do you think the Feds will implement the Amero currency?
    Do you think the Amero will be just as worthless as the current dollar? Do you think things will be far worse if they do bring in the Amero?

    What things can we expect to see (economy, society, housing, food, energy, foreign relations ect..) when they do bring in the Amero?

    If I were you I would start buying gold and silver coins which I am.
    Because those coins will be worth more than the dollar and the Amero.

  6. When do you think the Feds will implement the Amero currency?

    Never.

    Do you think the Amero will be just as worthless as the current dollar?

    Much more so. It doesn’t exist.

    Do you think things will be far worse if they do bring in the Amero?

    Clearly – things must be bad if you’re introducing a nonexistent currency.

    What things can we expect to see (economy, society, housing, food, energy, foreign relations ect..) when they do bring in the Amero?

    Pigs, hurtling through the sky.

Comments are closed.