The European Model

EUROPE POINTS THE WAY

I have just finished an article by a Belgian newspaper editor (Paul Belien) regarding the financing of political parties and political campaigns in Europe. Every American concerned about the future of private property and the extremism of the environmental and animal rights movements should become familiar with the growth and current status of European political financing. It is a classic example of the “bait and switch” of the radical animal campaigns in this country and the manipulation of the government appetite for growth and power that has been the enemy and bane of freedom since time began.

It seems that a few years ago Europeans became exasperated with the way the rich folks and businesses were “buying” political candidates. Like the environmental and animal rights operations in Europe and in North America; here we had a “problem” that we “had” to “solve”. As in the US, simply making such contributions public in a timely manner (so that we could consider it when we vote): the European answer was “new” laws; new bureaucracies; limits on citizen rights from the amount they could contribute to someone they were REALLY in favor of, or when they might contribute, or when they could run ads, or campaign for them, or what they might purchase on radio or TV or in the paper for instance); AND GOVERNMENT FINANCING. As in the US, only more power at the highest level of government could “fix” the problem.

German political parties now receive 1/3 of their financing from the government. Scandinavian political parties receive about ¾ of their funding from government. France, Spain, and Belgium have even higher percentages. Both individual countries and the European Union (EU) government provide these subsidies. In most nations, companies may not contribute to politicians and individuals may not contribute more than $725 per year. The political parties receive their subsidies based on the number of votes they obtain, but not really.

Two years ago, the Dutch government stopped payments to the oldest political party in the country because it only runs men for political office. Last month the Dutch Supreme Court overruled the government and said every party should be subsidized. The case will now go to the EU Court that is expected to overrule the Dutch Court and stop the subsidies.

Belgium is now emboldened to stop subsidies to the party that advocates the independence of Flanders, Belgium’s Dutch-speaking northern half. The reasons? “The party is a racist organization and therefore has no right to exist” and “a state cannot be forced to subsidize its ‘mortal enemies’”. Between these actions and the $725 contribution limit, these party’s days are numbered as are their beliefs.

Not to be outdone, the EU Parliament has “decided that only parties which form transnational alliances with likeminded parties in other European countries and which ‘accept the fundamental European values’ are entitled to receive government funds”. Translation; subsidies should be denied to opponents of further European political integration (like the defeated but still alive and incrementally adopted EU “Constitution”) and continued elimination of national sovereignty (things like an all-powerful EU central government over national governments that do as they are told in, eventually, all matters).

Does anyone see the model here for what the US federal government and state governments are doing today? Ask yourself why European governments are acquiescing? The answer is the same as to why US state governments are acquiescing to all these federal laws stripping property rights, eliminating state authorities, and outlawing citizen activities that were formerly under state and local government jurisdiction. The US state politicians and bureaucrats are, just like the national politicians and bureaucrats in Europe, anticipating “more” money from Washington just like their European counterparts are hoping for “more” from Brussels. While the supporters of European political integration are, just like their American counterparts, individuals and groups that want to force others to live as they want them to live (i.e. more authoritarian government to raise taxes, control where you live, how you travel, what you eat, protect things like wolves; and eliminate everything from guns to animal husbandry to logging to rural homes to roads to fishing to hunting to trapping and such things as bullfights and pets and fur and more than one child and parental authority and on and on): they feel free to impose these things but are violently opposed to any attempt to modify or restrict or even question what they wreak. Hence, these European government campaigns to eradicate their political opposition utilizing these laws originally justified to “clean up political financing” and “stop the business control of politicians”. This is what I write about when I mention things like my state Senator being attacked by animal rights advocates for not supporting ever-more draconian penalties for cockfighting as way to eliminate this champion of gun rights and responsible taxation and government spending.

As this “government by government for government’s sake” juggernaut takes off, the four major European political groups (Christian-Democrats, Socialists, Liberals, and Greens) have proposed to limit subsidies to their groups only. (NOTE: Do any American readers identify with any of these 4 parties?) Now nobody would have ever mentioned this result or believed anyone that warned about this (eliminating all parties except those that favor the status quo) when these “new” laws to “clean up” political financing were debated and passed. Any attempt to accuse these 4 parties or the European Union government or even national governments of intending to do this would have been laughed out of town and marginalized as nutty. These are “honorable” people with “pure” motives: just like the kiddies at the animal shelter and the lady who “loves” “her” horse and the pre-vet youngster wanting to “save” the mink or the deer or whatever. “Har, har, har”, he says that if we pass an Endangered Species Act private property will disappear and state fish and wildlife agencies and Universities will become mere extensions of federal demands; that if we pass a Marine Mammal Protection Act we will never again manage any marine mammals; that if we pass an Animal Welfare Act we will destroy the use of animals for medical testing in the US and wind up having this done in China and then passing a subsequent federal Act to cover pets the same way; and that if we outlaw horse slaughter in the US some people may sell their unwanted horses to Canadians or Mexicans so we will need another law to stop that too: all the while vilifying opponents and eliminating opposition just like these European zealots. Things only get worse and more restrictive: there is no room for, nor debate about, other directions or reforms.

Some great thinkers have emerged from Poland in recent years. A “Euro-skeptic” member of the European Parliament from Poland has observed, “This is exactly how the communists maintained themselves in power in my country. They didn’t ban elections – we had elections every four years. They just banned their opponents from contesting the elections.”

I am sure that most Americans shake their heads about how Europeans are allowing themselves to be pushed further down the road to socialism and beyond. Most Americans see that this is weakening their economies and depreciating the quality of European life for families and communities as well as individuals. European’s traditions and freedoms are dwindling like aquatic life in an increasingly polluted stream. Most Americans would agree that we are sure lucky to live in a “free” country where such things “don’t happen”.

What most of us don’t want to see is that the same thing is going on here and that unless we stop it, this European scenario will repeat itself here with the same disastrous results and the same sort of resulting society that we see under dictatorships and despots all around the world today and in so many history books. Unless we are vigilant and willing to fight for our freedoms, we might as well migrate back to where we came from and the last one out the door can turn out the lights and turn it back over to the “romantic” internecine tribalism and savage “Native Ecosystem” surroundings that we have allowed ourselves to come to imagine as preferable to the United States of America.

Jim Beers
2 January 2008
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.