During the first half of 2017, it became blatantly clear that the US and most European countries seem to drift in different directions. The great divide is visible to even the most inattentive observer. But most experts aren’t surprised. The tectonic shift began earlier. If we take a close look at the eight years before, during the presidency of Barrack Obama we can see that the US shifted their focus from Europe towards the Pacific. And in the eight years before that, during George W. Bush’s presidency, many European countries tried to distance themselves from the US.
The “great divide,” as I would call it, goes back into the mid-90s and grew over time. Only now it has become so obvious that it became a topic of public interest.
Most Europeans don´t understand Americans, and most Americans don’t understand Europeans.
Why is that?
Well, mostly because the majority of people live in their own bubbles or echo chambers. And those who don’t, those few transatlantic experts on both sides of the pond, they don´t reach their fellow countrymen efficiently enough to make a dent.
I´m talking about us. We (and whomever reads this certainly belongs to the group I´m talking about) are forming our own bubble, our own echo chamber – and we are suffering from exactly the same symptoms, first and foremost: We can´t see it!
We think we know each other because we’ve traveled extensively in the US or Germany, because we have friends in New York, Berlin, Los Angeles, Paris, Chicago, London, Washington DC, Rome and Miami. Our networks are strong in all major cities on both continents. Nevertheless are we surprised that the American people voted Donald Trump as president and that the British voted for Brexit.
We are astonished that there are people who doubt climate change, who oppose same sex marriage, who are opposed to mass immigration and who dislike the concept of open borders. Interestingly, these people exist on both sides of the Atlantic. And even more interestingly, these are the people we tend to blame for the growing gap between the US and European countries.
I know my thesis might not be popular in our circle: Maybe it´s not them, maybe it´s us?
Maybe we are to blame for the developing rift in transatlantic relations. Because we live and work in big coastal cities, in ultra-progressive urban areas, our way of thinking has adapted. We have become the pioneers of improved transatlantic relations by incorporating topics like gender equality, multiculturalism and environmentalism. By doing so we have disenfranchised large chunks of the population who don’t like that kind of thinking and alienated them also from the idea of closer transatlantic relations.
We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to promote progressive thinking or do we want to promote transatlantic friendship. Both at the same time might not work – as the past few decades have proven over and over again.
It is my opinion that we might get better results if we start talking to the people in rural areas and listening to their concerns. Let´s ask farmers in Kansas and the Bourgogne, let´s talk to coal miners in West Virginia and South Wales, let’s listen to assembly line workers in Youngstown and Rüsselsheim.
Their stories, their questions and their view of life might be very different from what we know from our friends in Silver Lake-Los Angeles, Berlin-Friedrichshain, Williamsburg-New York or Canal St. Martin in Paris.
Instead of making fun of the suspected mental retardation of hillbillies who live in the “fly over states,” we should engage them in conversation, try to find some common ground and pave the way for bridging the gap.
But in order to do so we have to rethink the way we recruit “experts” of transatlantic relations. We have to look outside Ivy League schools, outside established think tanks and outside NGOs who are fighting for gender equality, multiculturalism and environmentalism. That´s a tough one, because it requires us to leave our comfort zone, to leave the beaten paths and to question our way of thinking and our past decisions.
There is hope – but we have to change our way of thinking.
Dear Christian,
I absolutely agree with you that our way of thinking is unbalanced: we rely too heavily on elite/renowned institutions for experts to solve transatlantic issues and don’t source enough information from equally as important, but less well-known, establishments and individuals. And it’s often exactly these kinds of “forgotten” subjects who the coastal elites need to listen to and learn from to find common ground on the cleavages plaguing the transatlantic relationship.
Hi Christian, thanks for your article! The headline says it all: talking WITH each other is what we are aiming for. The role of fake news seems to influence a lot whether we talk about or with each other. Probably a way too big question for the actual frame of your article, but I am still curious to hear your thoughts on this: what could we do to minimize the negative effects of fake news on the image of the transatlantic relation? Let’s try to find an approach 🙂 Thank you ! Best, Felicitas
Christian,
I think that self-reflection is always the first step in successful unification.
To add on to your proposal, we could find commonality with those that have beliefs in the middle (for example, one may support subsidies for solar, but still drive a car with gas, etc.). It is finding a common ground without holding the ground to one side or the other.
Great topic!
Brandy
Felicitas,
Thank you for your question!
“Fake news” is indeed a real challenge – No matter if it is created by simple error, for-profit or by political actors. But I also think that fake news needs a fertile ground in order to flourish.
We can´t stop fake news from being created, but we can try to sterilize the soil for it.
What does that mean?
People trust fake news, because they distrust our established media. And to be honest – some of that distrust is well deserved. The moment our media decided that reporting news is not enough, that to interpret it, to present it in a certain narrative, to educate their customers and to shape their opinion, our media did themselves a disservice. It might have been well-meant, no doubt. But the aphorism “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” rarely applies so well as in this case.
In order to fight fake news, we have to reestablish trust into our media. But that is not the job of government, but of the media (and people who “make” media”).
Christian, thank you for this great article that holds the courage to question ourselves. Being from working class background, I could not agree more with your assessment of the elitists and their echo-chambers that barely address the ‘ordinary’ citizen – and if so in a sometimes derogatory and ignorant manner (http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/twitter-tauber-101.html, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/15/australian-millionaire-millennials-avocado-toast-house).
You posed the question: “Do we want to promote progressive thinking or do we want to promote transatlantic friendship,” with regard to progressive agendas like gender equality, multiculturalism and environmentalism. While I am all for listening to the people, when it comes to issues of human rights, for me personally human rights always win. Hence, I would push for gender equality and multiculturalism even if people oppose these ideas, simply because those who are affected by the changes are silenced as well on both sides of the Atlantic. What do you think?
Christin, thank-you very much. That is a great question!
In regards to human rights, I agree with you 100%. We shouldn’t sacrifice our commitment to human rights on the altar of transatlantic friendship. But, do we really have to? I don’t see it that way.
I truly believe that human rights are important to “ordinary” citizens. What we might have to do instead: We should check our definition of human rights. I am afraid that the definition of human rights which we as modern, globalist academics are holding is not necessarily the same definition which “ordinary” citizens have or the definition which the original founders of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” had in mind in 1946.
Topics like “gender equality”, “multiculturalism” and “environmentalism” might be linked to human rights in our understanding, but they are most probably not what comes to mind first when working class people are asked about their views on human rights.
They think about human rights as rights which protect them from intrusive governments; their right to speak their mind without anyone policing their words and constantly checking for political correctness or their right to own property.
I’m not debating that there might be more to human rights than those few examples. I’m just trying to say that our views on human rights differ strongly from the views on human rights of average citizens – Another divide we have to overcome.
Christian,
You’re correct on a number of fronts. The Atlantic divide has steadily grown in the post-Cold War era through today. There isn’t enough dialogue that takes place between urban and rural residents. The gulf between urban and rural residents needs to be addressed in a meaningful way. And in many sectors we need to move away from those long established schools of thought that created some of today’s ills.
While I recognize that this is a somewhat idealistic thought piece, I don’t think it can ever be so simple as “listen to what other people have to say”. Where do things go when the traditionalists that you are advocating for still maintain a hard line on being against multilateralism, multinationalism, and/or Atlanticism? Furthermore, how do you build consensus with people that might not believe in your right to even exist?
The thing that I feel is missing in your argument is that it’s not just on progressives, academics, or urban dwellers to reach out to those unlike them, it’s also incumbent upon those unlike them being willing to listen, share and evolve alongside said urban dwellers. And, rather than just talking, it would be a much better use of time to both show rural residents what they can gain from better transatlantic relations and also how it helps them preserve the way of life that they’d rather live.
Hi Christian, Thanks for this inspiring piece. I agree that we should reevaluate some of our own assumptions and attitudes. You’ll find some similar ideas in my piece “Get out of your comfort zone” (http://atlantic-expedition.org/get-out-of-your-comfort-zone-5-steps-to-reinvigorate-transatlantic-relations/). Do you have any specific suggestions for recruiting new transatlantic voices? How about Jasmin’s idea of identifying “Atlantic Ambassadors” (http://atlantic-expedition.org/atlantic-ambassadors-influencer-marketing-as-a-driver-of-transatlantic-relations/) Do you think that would be a good vantage point? Best, Carolin
Great point, Christian. I completely agree that simply pitting together those who are not necessarily fervent about transatlantic relations as the other group will pose a tremendous barrier to the initiative. Beyond just hearing such groups out, how do you propose engaging them constructively and building support? I know one common point of contention is the perceived effect of trade, which might be an interesting starting point to discuss.