They never defeated the Iraqi army

Berlusconi: The People's Will

How is it that Americans seem to accept a higher income inequality than the Europeans do, in general?

KR: That’s a good question. I am not a sociologist so I can only guess, but it might be because we have the belief – which is not true – that everybody has the equal opportunity to move up the social ladder. And so they’re ready to tolerate a higher degree of inequality: the idea is that if you work hard enough, if you put in enough hours, you can move from one level to another. If this guy’s a bum on the street it’s his fault: look at all these immigrants who have come over with nothing in their pockets and they have become middle class. So if he’s a bum on the street, then it’s his problem, let him be a bum on the street.

So there’s also a more of a belief in personal responsibility for your situation?

KR: That’s right. Society must take care of the most … the helpless, the handicapped, the elderly, and society has an obligation to make sure that people are not discriminated against, because of your race or religion or whatever. But that’s the bottom line: once society makes sure that everybody has an equal chance, then it’s his problem. It is not society’s problem to guarantee him a certain income or a certain place to live. Another difference is that Europeans tend to look down on people who are ‘too wealthy’. They would look down on a person who made 200 million dollars a year, whereas in the States people would look up to that person: Bill Gates is seen as a hero. Here he would be somebody who has too much money, he would have most of it taxed away, and it would be unseemly to care that much about money. It’s a completely different conception. In America, people don’t begrudge others for being wealthy – in fact they all have the dream of becoming wealthy.

Like Bill Safire once wrote in the Times about the “sociologist Jennifer Lopez” who sang “don’t be fooled by the rocks that I’ve got/I’m still Jenny from the block”, because people have an optimistic evaluation of their own situation, that it might be them one day?

KR: That’s right. Everybody thinks they can get ahead; everybody wants to be the next millionaire. That’s why in politics, the Democrats always loose when they try to push the class-warfare button. When they try to paint the other guy – like George Bush, the father, in 1988 – by saying “he’s an elitist from a wealthy background”, that never works.

Just like Al Gore in 2000?

KR: Just like Al Gore: people don’t care if somebody’s wealthy. It’s not considered a bad thing. You cannot push that button, and say that he’s out of touch because he’s wealthy. As a political columnist wrote: people prefer to elect wealthy individuals because they know they are not going to steal.

…this is exactly the negative depiction of the Bush Administration in European media: that it is suspicious that the government consists in wealthy individuals?

KR: Most Americans do not really believe that Bush is doing what he is doing to get money into his bank account: these people are already millionaires, they don’t need that. Americans do not think that we invaded Iraq to give some contract to Halliburton. Most real people, anyway: the far left maybe.

Whereas many people in Europe seem to believe that?

KR: Here in Europe there is this elitist attitude to for example Berlusconi – who’s a bit of a clown. People say: how come this guy is a businessman [while in office], that he’s got all these conflicts of interest? Yeah, but he was elected by the people. So why are you and the media continuing to go hard on these conflicts of interest when he was democratically elected by the people? They knew all about him in Italy, and they voted for him anyway.

You get the leaders you deserve?

KR: Yeah, they voted for him. If you read the Economist, the newspapers here, you might think Italian democracy is somehow at risk. He’s always been influencing the courts. People knew that: the Italians aren’t stupid and he won in a landslide. So if that’s what they want then that’s their business. I used to consider myself, when I was in the States, to the left. When I came to Europe I had to define left in a different way: to me ‘left’ means that government should leave me alone, whereas here, ‘left’ means government should get involved and start tinkering and decide how many hours I can work. The idea is: number one, the people should decide most things, number two: leave me alone! [laughs]. Basically, that’s my idea. In the States that would be considered “left”, while here, it would probably be considered “libertarian”.

PAGE 1

Photo (illustration): BrunoInBaghdad.com

Photo (portrait):
Francesca Luk

ark og ulandskr201103-3.htm