So wrote New York Times columnist David Brooks last week.

He got that part right. Not only do the Europeans have great food, wine, clothes and architecture, but they've managed to avoid the slavish obedience to the marketplace that has left North Americans chained to their work stations, feeling obliged to work ever harder in order to consume ever more trinkets.

The corporate world has certainly been successful in indoctrinating North Americans in the mentality of full-blown capitalism, convincing us to accept its harsh divide between rich and poor.

But Europeans have traditionally been smarter. They've taken control of the marketplace and subordinated it to the needs of the population, creating a more egalitarian society with benefits for all.

Their political culture reflects this. They pay higher taxes but in return receive more social benefits: generous pensions, subsidized tuition, national child-care programs, extensive unemployment insurance, five-week holidays and lots of other stuff that we rarely hear about over here.

In recent years, the business elites of Europe have been trying to move their countries closer to the harsher North American model of unbridled capitalism, arguing — as our business leaders argue — that it's the way of the future.

But in many ways it's actually a resurgence of the past, a throwback to the 19th century-style unfettered capitalism of extreme inequality and worker powerlessness that past generations fought so hard against and ultimately rejected.

Millions of Europeans wisely seem determined to reject it again. Last week, voters in France and the Netherlands voted against a proposed European constitution aimed at establishing the dominance of the marketplace.

North American commentators were quick to denounce the vote, perhaps out of fear that people here might realize that unbridled capitalism doesn't have to be the way of the future, that we too could have generous social programs.

So, for instance, Brooks, the Times columnist who acknowledged the deliciousness of European life, went on to argue that the European model is outdated, that — for all its appeal — it's just "not flexible enough for the modern world."

In fact, European-style social welfare systems do nothing to prevent a country from being highly competitive in the modern world.

If you doubt this, check out the latest findings of the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, which ranks the economic competitiveness of more than 100 countries around the globe. Among the top six globally competitive nations are four European countries that have extremely comprehensive social welfare systems — Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Altogether, 15 European countries rank in the top 30.

Right-wing commentators find it best to ignore this reality. It's easy to see why — it utterly destroys their argument that generous social welfare systems undermine competitiveness.

Europeans have been skeptical of the right-wing dogma. They understand that life can be both delicious and globally viable.

Right-wing commentators here are really hoping you won't grasp this.