I read an article in The National Interest about Germany. It struck me a a bit odd and so I forwarded it to my German daughter-in-law for her take.  To put a kind face on it, we agreed that it was all about point of view. Then a few days later she sent me this map. Oh yes, this is exactly the situation.

To say that The National Interest is a conservative news source is a bit of an understatement. It was founded by Irving Kristol after all. The writer of this particular article, Jacob Heilbrunn, has a blog at The Huffington Post, that favourite of Pharyngula.

Here’s a quote from Heilbrunn’s article.

In other words, Vauban, for the most part, epitomizes how Germany would like to be seen abroad—enlightened, progressive, reflective, pleasant and virtuous. And, in many ways, it reflects the tamed and docile West Germany that England, France and America hoped would emerge after World War II.

Rather a nice example of textual inversion (perhaps textual subversion? textural inversion?). What is not said here is far more important that what is. The two sentences at once remind us of Germany’s ferocious past and its danger to us and at the same time suggest its emasculation. They “would like to be seen” next to “tamed and docile.” Nice. It generates a nest of common (but not very mature or reasonable) feelings, an emotional texture, which like the map, says south is the new north.

Here’s another gem:

Gregor Gysi, who has just stepped down as one of the chairmen of The Left, managed the party’s reinvention by grabbing hold of economic and foreign-policy issues. A clever and sinuous rhetorician, as an attorney he represented clients requesting an exit visa from the national prison known as East Germany.

A “clever and sinuous rhetorician?” Lovely. Bring in the snake and every right-thinking American knows exactly who Gysi claims as “Father” for the Fatherland. And the “national prison known as East Germany” – well, not as subtle as the snake reference but I don’t think subtle was the point.

Here’s a quote about Germany from a US government site (Department of State).

Despite persistence of some structural rigidities in the labor market and extensive government regulation, the economy remains strong and internationally competitive. Although production costs are very high, Germany is still an export powerhouse, and unit labor costs have decreased in the last decade. Additionally, Germany is strategically placed to take advantage of the rapidly growing central European countries. The current government has addressed some of the country’s structural problems, with important tax, social security, and financial sector reforms.

“Despite”? Perhaps it is an “export powerhouse” because of the social security net provided the citizens? Perhaps the economic debacle in the US might be partly blamed upon the social unrest within its borders? Could we call the US an “import powerhouse?”

Here’s an interesting tidbit from the CIA files. German unemployment is said to be at 8.20% for 2009. The United States is said to be at 9.4%. Hmmmmm.

And the percentage of the population below the poverty line? Germany 11% the US 12%.

(If you’re interested in German economic stats try here.)

So, I’m losing my cool. Let me just backstep for a moment and say this is about point of view. We need to be careful reading things, thinking things through. We all have a history which guides us in our interpretations. Germany 11% – US 12%. What this really seems to say is that despite rather large ideological differences between Merkel and Heilbrunn, and the represented National policies, the outcome is pretty much the same. The big difference is how the people feel about it and what happens to those human beings when they lose their jobs. In Germany the government steps up to help. In the US this is not something one can take for granted – there really are people who get told “sorry, you’re on your own”.

I am going to close with another quote from Heilbrunn.

Instead of resembling the martial country of yore, then, Germany has begun to reach even further back into its history, mirroring the provincial and musty duchies of the eighteenth century that vexed the German romantics who preached unification and national greatness. It has achieved the first, but it’s no longer interested in the latter for itself or, indeed, for Europe.

So if we are going to back in history for a national snapshot of contemporary intent, what is Heilbrunn advocating? A return to the policies (human and economic) that led to the American civil war? In that case “unification and greatness” came because the powerhouse of the conservative was beaten in war. I suspect this wasn’t what Heilbrunn was thinking of when he brought up the return to history spiel.

Some Americans have a oddly romantic attachment to the slave-states (and their economic and social policies) and with that romanticism, a rather inverted perspective. I mean, there are still people who think slavery a good worker procurement program, but Heilbrunn? Surely not.

Those beaten southern states wanted to control the destiny of the Nation and it seems to me a good thing that they didn’t get the chance to take plantation economics to the world stage. Surely Heilbrunn doesn’t intend Dixie to win this time? Can you imagine the results?