H annah Arendt wrote, as I recall, once somewhere in " power and authority" of the different political traditions in the U.S. and Europe. The democratic development was due to some differences in these traditions, Arendt suggested, in old Europe, unlike the young American soil: in Europe had to look at the revolutions against their own government, own against the state. In other hand, America was the struggle for the independence of any state, who was at that time already perceived occupiers. In addition, there was still the West: Even then the white screen, projection of dreams and desires: And most of all empty and to fill yet. Freedom had to be right there.
the democracies of Europe on the other hand, were bought with blood: the guillotine, you could say it was also the whole dilemma that Europe was yet: She was the rational killing machine of the coming to consciousness people. The guillotine was thus quite a bit of the madness that was playing on the European continent, anticipate and even managed this in a sense, already with one. The other side of the barbaric European, democratic nation-state Society was thus from the very beginning here.
contrast, the development in the U.S. example: perhaps because of the konstantierten of Arendt difference, or at least the myth of "free land grab ': Where's seemingly nothing, you could create something new. Totalitarianism spared the United States may for that reason.
was also the U.S. by this absence of the state and the critical distance from state institutions and a hotbed of civil society participation and action: The pioneers were a result of circumstances indeed no other options but to organize themselves.
what extent is this really true or just a projection, plays no role in the end. If you read, however, such as Walt Whitman or Henry David Thoreau, one can easily imagine that this is not just a myth but a true story is in the core: the libertarian fruit grew well in the U.S..
But it was also in the U.S. to develop a two-edged sword: The Tea Party movement is a sign for it. Because fundamentally, these people just build on these libertarian ideals: the rejection of the state, self-empowerment and individualism, and of course, "Freedom, freedom, freedom", but without question "for whom" and ".? to do what "
too surprising: In the 60s and 70s seem the U.S. left have also somehow had claims to these "holy" ideals. Now the place is also occupied by the right. How do they ever?
But the most surprising: the politically successful movements in recent years, almost all of the rights emanating from acting, just as if they were moths, are attracted by the light And still more than that. They are both a symptom and amplifier of the Problems in one.
the democracies of Europe on the other hand, were bought with blood: the guillotine, you could say it was also the whole dilemma that Europe was yet: She was the rational killing machine of the coming to consciousness people. The guillotine was thus quite a bit of the madness that was playing on the European continent, anticipate and even managed this in a sense, already with one. The other side of the barbaric European, democratic nation-state Society was thus from the very beginning here.
contrast, the development in the U.S. example: perhaps because of the konstantierten of Arendt difference, or at least the myth of "free land grab ': Where's seemingly nothing, you could create something new. Totalitarianism spared the United States may for that reason.
was also the U.S. by this absence of the state and the critical distance from state institutions and a hotbed of civil society participation and action: The pioneers were a result of circumstances indeed no other options but to organize themselves.
what extent is this really true or just a projection, plays no role in the end. If you read, however, such as Walt Whitman or Henry David Thoreau, one can easily imagine that this is not just a myth but a true story is in the core: the libertarian fruit grew well in the U.S..
But it was also in the U.S. to develop a two-edged sword: The Tea Party movement is a sign for it. Because fundamentally, these people just build on these libertarian ideals: the rejection of the state, self-empowerment and individualism, and of course, "Freedom, freedom, freedom", but without question "for whom" and ".? to do what "
too surprising: In the 60s and 70s seem the U.S. left have also somehow had claims to these "holy" ideals. Now the place is also occupied by the right. How do they ever?
But the most surprising: the politically successful movements in recent years, almost all of the rights emanating from acting, just as if they were moths, are attracted by the light And still more than that. They are both a symptom and amplifier of the Problems in one.
0 comments:
Post a Comment