Beating swords into welfare cheques

MARK STEYN: Hedonistic benefits, low birth rates—Europe needs protection from itself

by Mark Steyn on Thursday, June 3, 2010 10:55am - 309 Comments

Johannes Eisele / Reuters

The trick in this line of work is not to be right too soon. A couple of years back, I wrote a bestselling hate crime. Don’t worry, I’m not in plug mode; indeed, I shall eschew even mentioning the book’s title. But its general thesis is that the jig is up for much if not most of the Western world. “Alarmist,” pronounced Maclean’s, reflecting the general consensus of polite society here and in Europe.

Polite society has spent the years since playing catch-up. So if you don’t want your fin du civilisation analysis from a frothing right-wing loon you can now get it from the house-trained chaps at the New York Times:

“Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism . . . ‘The Europe that protects’ is a slogan of the European Union.”

Protects from what? Right now, Europe mostly needs protection from itself, and its worst inclinations:

“With low growth, low birth rates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle.”

The Times hits all the Steynian themes, including the Continent as defence-welfare queen:
“Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella.”

Absolved from having to pay for their own defence, Continentals, like Canadians, beat their swords into welfare cheques, and erected vast cradle-to-grave social entitlements. Even under the U.S. security umbrella, they proved unsustainable. Why? Because Europeans stopped breeding. And, even with unprecedented levels of immigration, they’ve been unable to halt population decline. Again, that was mere Steynian alarmism a year or two back. Now it’s received wisdom. Here’s Time magazine:

“Germany is shrinking—fast. New figures released on May 17 show the birth rate in Europe’s biggest economy has plummeted to a historic low.”

That’s true. Time doesn’t really provide much in the way of historical perspective, but, for the purposes of comparison, in 1964 West Germany alone produced 1.35 million new babies; in 2009, a united Germany managed less than half that—651,000 births. In 1964, Germany was undergoing its postwar economic boom. In the mood for a reprise? On the depleted manpower of 2010, that ain’t gonna happen.

And these days, remember, Germany has to support a continent. It’s the economic powerhouse that’s supposed to be rescuing the euro and preventing the five soi-disant PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) from having the Big Bad Wolf of reality blow their house of straw to smithereens. Dream on. “Germany’s working-age population is likely to decrease 30 per cent over the next few decades,” says Steffen Kröhnert of the Berlin Institute for Population Development. “Rural areas will see a massive population decline and some villages will simply disappear—Germany will become a weak economic power in the future.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Gaunilon

    "Socialists don't follow premise 2…"
    Fair enough, I should have said that they try to enforce equal outcomes regardless of ability…obviously they can't enforce equal ability.

    "Modern liberals want equality of opportunity (equality for the sake of freedom), while socialists want equality of outcome (equality as an end in and of itself). "
    Exactly, except that what you are calling "modern liberals" are actually "classical liberals". I'm a classical liberal. Modern liberals (modern here meaning "in the last 50 years) are what I would call "leftists" – i.e. they tend toward socialism.

    I find your definition of conservatives very bizarre. I think you mean "elitists", or perhaps "supporters of an aristocracy". Different animal.

    "It is for the same reasons that I consider Christ's teachings to be left-wing in nature, albeit more voluntary than socialism ("All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." – Acts 4:32), even if some of the more organized Churches have been right-wing institutions in practice (the hierarchy of layman and clergy, come to mind)."

    You are confusing two things: charity and leftism. To say that people should share voluntarily isn't leftism at all. It's essential to leftism to have the state forcing wealth redistribution. As to hierarchies and early Christianity, it's quite clear from Scripture that Christ was at the top of the hierarchy while He was present, and that Peter was the head of the Apostles. There was most certainly a hierarchy well before what you call "the more organized Churches".

  • Pierre

    Ah! "Today Germany, Tomorrow, Europe!"
    Now if only we can get the rest of the world to stop overpopulating…
    Look at it on the bright side: There are already 6 billion of us.
    The one thing this world needs less of is people.
    Less people….and more Soylent Green.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/RunningGag RunningGag

    Excellent explanation. But you'll go crazy trying to explain this to people on here.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I appreciate the cogent response.

    I still think your notion of conservatism is bizarre. Conservatives don't look to great men of history for guidance because those men were better, but rather because those men's ideas were good. And conservatives certainly don't hold those ideas to be "irreproachable in the truths they illuminate"….every Thomist acknowledges that Aquinas had some things wrong, likewise every Aristotelian, every Newtonian, every Cartesian, etc. The point is to judge ideas on their own merits, not on the identity of whoever brought them forward.

    "I'm not certain that Peter was the head of the disciples, so much as he was the 'most loved disciple'. "
    I'm sure you mean well here, but you really are confused. Peter was the head, whereas John was the "most loved". True, the hierarchy was not absolute, but it was definitely a hierarchy. Likewise it is clear that the apostles and Paul were in authority over the elders (i.e. bishops) across the Middle East and Asia Minor.

    "Jesus' idea then, that slaves and masters were equal before God? That was leftist thinking in its time. "
    That is what I was referring to earlier about the notion of all people being created equal (in terms of rights) being a Christian concept. It's not a leftist concept unless one accedes to the prior assertion that leftism promotes equality while rightism promotes disparity…which, we pointed out above, is a bizarre thing to accede to.

    As to your last paragraph, I agree.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      Excellent discussion, everyone!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chris_Sastre Chris_Sastre

        I agree! Gaunilon and Joseph (and you too, Crit!) almost always provide thoughtful and well-written comments, attributes much appreciated on a board where _far_ too much of the space is taken up with macho posturings and kindergarten taunts.

        Keep up the good work, gentlemen!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

    Wealth lowers birthrates; as does birth control

    Does Mark Steyn wish to deprive Europe of wealth and birth control?

    What a strawman we create…

    • Daulat Ram

      OTTAWA CENTRIST

      The ridiculous truth is that people like Mark Steyn are drugged on the fantasy that declining numbers of Western White folk can somehow be blamed on something they have taken a great hatred to: welfare spending by governments. On every count of fact and simple logic the claim proves absurd but the Steyns of our world are not going to abandon it for realistic explanations of the birth rate decline in the West…….If only because, apart from the emotional high scapegoating welfare provides these propagandists, they are actually earning good money through their ranting articles.

      • Daulat Ram

        There is NO example of a situtation where higher welfare spending by governments is known to have lowered birthrates.

        In France under de Gaulle, greater welfare spending by the government is known to have conbsiderably raised the birthrate.

        In Russia and Eastern Europe, the collapse of welfare systems is known to have accompanied shap declines in birthrates.

        In South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong – polities with low welfare spending – birthrates are much lower than in the US.

        In France, a country with proportionately higher welfare spending than the US, birthrates are only slightly behind that of the US.

        In the US itself, which Steyn claims maintains a slightly higher than replacement level birthrate thanks to its low welfare spending, the birthrate of the majority non-Hispanic White population is below replacement. Only the Hispanic community in the US has a higher than replacement birthrate, and that is a community known to have higher than average welfare payments……

        So what gives? Steynism.

  • Daulat Ram

    What surprises me most is that Steyn is given acres of space to propagate his tawdry rightwing fantasies on the birthrate – demonstrably ridiculous ideas – and no serious writer in Macleans (Wells? Coyne?) takes him to task.

    What's going in?

    • Oliver

      Have you even looked at how people react to Steyn's absolute madness articles?
      Either they blissfully agree with the nonsense he spews because it somehow makes them feel good that "right wing" ideologist takes it to the god forsaken "lefties".
      Or others realize that all Steyn is ***** and moan about everything without every offering anything positive as food for thought and dismiss his "ideas" as simple populism: all it does it get the simple minds riled up and never offers anything with any substance.

  • CLN

    If countries borrow internally only, then deficit is not a problem. Countries give up control of their economy when they borrow internationally. Look at Japan, a decade of depression, yet suffering was minimal because the borrowings were internal.

  • Oliver

    So are we done here?
    Everyone has vented and feels better about the upcoming apocalypse? Or the lack thereof?
    Oh Steyn, I have to admit your ability to generate interest is of epic proportions. Too bad most of the people who admire your writing are about as interesting as you.

    • Daulat Ram

      OLIVER:

      Life is not so easy for the Steynistas here. They thought they had a foolproof theory, but it doesn't play.

      My surprise about Macleans remains. Where is Wells?

    • joy

      Which must be fairly interesting since you are spending time here commenting, right? Learn anything?

      • Oliver

        Not really
        How are we supposed to learn anything when all that happens around the Steyn articles is either simple approval or denial.
        Look at the answer right below all the guy says is "oh yeah I totally agree and see, even all these germans I meet agree". And on the other hand we have people like me or others who simply accuse Steyn of dumbing down every issue he brings down.

        Steyn is the perfect example of a sophist: he talks a lot about a lot of things, but there isn't much value to what he says.

      • Oliver

        I'm just having fun at work really, not much else.

  • taxslave

    Even the excess of the welfare nanny state would not be so bad if there were not so many overpaid bureaucrats with their snouts in the front of the troth.
    My wife is from Germany so every summer we have a stream of German tourists at our place ranging from students to upper level civil servants. They all say essentially what Steyn has written. They are over taxed, over regulated and the immigrant population by and large is a huge drain on the system.

  • http://www.macleansfordummies.blogspot.com Karen

    Make a baby Steyn. One more for ‘us’.

  • Stephanie Giguere

    Civilisation is feminine
    (fin de la civilisation).

    • Oliver

      I guess you didn't read Steyn's article where he discribes such a statement as "unilinguophobic".

  • Ratbarf

    Go check out the 14th and 15th century muslims, they were culturaly light years ahead of Western Europeans, and are the main source for most of our manuscripts for classical works. It wasn't until we conquered most of the muslim world that they fell into a funk.

  • http://www.askdttw.com mineall

    Hi. Your post is very good and my familly like your writing style. I think you can go to my blog and? and i dont how to RECIVE. Great 4 you!

  • http://www.stalmark.pl Kotły tłokowe

    Exactly, the gap between countries is very high in terms of number of births

  • http://www.lysak.pl Fotografia ślubna

    It all depends on your earnings. Look at the amount of earnings in Poland and Germany.

  • Axel Edgren

    What Steyn does not realize is that European countries that do things he likes (don't spend money on getting women into careers while being mothers, be traditional and fetishize the homestead) have lower nativity than the really evil socialist nations, like Sweden. Iran and Japan have also realized what happens if you mistreat women.

    Heck, even the US growth rate depends a lot on people he probably does not like very much (hispanics may be homophobic enough for his tastes, but they don't give a flip about his anglo-conservative utopian dreams about jesuitical purity and libertarian masculinity).

    I remember Steyn bragging about Israel's birth rates as well. Well, yes, don't cheer to early man. Those aren't all Jews.

    So basically Steyn's response to the muslim threat is that we all must become more Christian and basically turn to Newt Gingrich for how to move society forward. Not a convincing argument.

    This is not to say I care much for Europe either. It is inflicted with bourgeois stupidity and is stripping everything around it of meaning and values as quickly as the US. It just does so with ironic flair and dourness. I don't like it here and I will move when my education is finished.

    Christianity cannot help a society against Islam. All anti-secular impulses destroy society, and Steyn is lukewarm towards secularism to say the least.

    (He is also incredibly idiotic and useless on all matters pertaining to the climate, but that is apparent to everyone retaining a basic intellect.)

  • Bill

    So a real hater emerges to spew his spleen by exercising his "repressive tolerance" eh Axel Edgren. Your mind must be a very nasty place to live. You seem to know so many things that are just not so.

  • Hezi

    The celebration of Israel's birthrate by Mr. Steyn was not about ethnicity. Mr. Steyn was just pointing out one of his themes, the seeming paradox that struggle and wars seems to lower suicide rates and induces the desire to breed, while comfort and peace highers the suicide rate and lowers the desire for children. The appreciation for life is sharpened when you have to struggle to survive,it is dulled when you are wrapped in a cocoon.
    Axel, Mr Steyn wisdom is not for the dilletante it needs immersion.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/RobinBC RobinBC

    I don't know how you distinguish a socialist nation in Europe (including Sweden)- they are all socialist. They are all declining in population as Steyn says.
    Where are you going to move to? Malmo?
    I won't ask how old you are or what job you think you will get. I think I have a pretty good idea.

  • Tim

    You think the Muslim world hates the West because of Christianity? What a laugh, Islam as a political ideology fears secularism. And why not, look what it has done to the traditional values of our society.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/outerlimits outerlimits

    When did you say you were moving? :)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Faustino Faustino

    How would you like getting stuck next to him at a cocktail party?

  • Axel Edgren

    Yes I do. I know, for example, that Steyn's mind is partially destroyed by his faith in an economically retarded model of the world where we can continue producing and consuming even if it causes a dangerous externality.

    Like all climate deniers, Steyn is willing to socialize in favor of people he identifies with, and in the process abandon all moral tenets the Western world is built on. Steyn is, through intellectual relativism, ready to let people in the third world suffer because we do not want to pay for the side-effects of our capitalistic progress. In short, he wants us to become socialists!

    Steyn is neither secular nor economically aware of the philosophical crime he wants us to keep on committing. He is a pretty low man, and there is nothing repressive about stating that. You really should not defend him, since he cannot advance society.

    BTW, where did you get the idea that I was "tolerant"? I am neither very democratic or a lover of equality. I am, for example, very contemptuous of gay rights because I think rights are something you seize by force rather than beg for.

  • Axel Edgren

    Of course wars lead to progress – everyone knows this. But wars are… Unpredictable. Israelis know this, but have learned that lesson too well and are repeating the mistakes of the people who persecuted them. Being brutal and masculine and hard-line and all that can only take you so far.

  • Axel Edgren

    Why the fuck would I move to Malmö? Their dialect is idiotic.

    I think I'll move to a proper nation like India.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Someone who is still lapping up the global warming myth after the East Anglia Climategate and uses the biased denigrating term "deniers" instead of the correct term in science of "skeptics" or "critics" has no business talking down his nose to anyone.

  • Axel Edgren

    Hahaha, little plebeian wannabe thinker and philosopher of science.

    You little munchkin you.

    No one ever managed to gain any evidence that the scientific process had been skirted from the CRU hack. It was either taken out of context or inflated by the mob you belong to. This is because none of you argue in good faith.

    I can look down upon you anyway I want, because you are of low mind and have pack instincts up to your ears.

    You know who is a climate skeptic? I am. You, on the other hand, is a "skeptic". Learn a thing or to about what words are and stop smoking asbestos cigarettes, and we may be capable of having a human-to-human conversation.

  • Robert Szeged

    Hail to Axel Edgren, the Ubermensch!

  • Trent H.

    What are those values?Name them.

From Macleans