Some differences Europe/USA

[Winner]

You see, this is why I find it so difficult to discuss this with people who have not ever studied political science. One year would be enough to avoid most of these misinterpretations.

Oh, is democracy supposed to be that? Funny, it isn't advertised as that. But, anyway, you say so, therefore it must be true!

And regarding definition, how would that theory be different from the communist dictatorships you hate so much?

Are you kidding? Free elections, rule of law, sovereignty, representation, free media, independent institutions controlling the government etc. Communist regime was a totalitarian system, where a minority of people rule without the consent of the majority, which is terrorized into submission. Liberal democracy has elections, therefore the legitimity of the government is periodically renewed and people have the option to get rid of unpopular government - by the means of elections.

You seem to believe that government which do anything not supported by the majority must immediately step down. That's not a democracy, that's a rule of the mob.

Didn't their leaders claim (and probably believed) they were ruling in the people's best interest? Didn't they claim to be democratic and build a political structure, centered on a single party, that did involve elections? Can it be that in the end the difference goes no further than the institutional arrangement used to split and limit power?

Already explained. They claimed one thing and did another. Democracy does not pretend, it works.

What you are defending is one possible idea of democracy, popular among politicians (as it justifies their continued monopoly on power - awareness of the contradiction it contains goes as far back as Benjamin Disraeli, whom I quoted).

I am not defending, I am explaining you how the most widespread form of government in the Western world works. There are regional differences in political culture and political system, there are also some very different forms of democracy (Switzerland), but basically all Western democracies work that way. And please, don't mess Disraeli into this without really knowing how his ideas fit in. He is certainly not the "founding father" of modern liberal democracy.

It is indeed the modern version of democracy. And, unfortunately, the people who defended it and eventually got it accepted everywhere as the western democracy might have been right - democracy is a luxury that modern societies cannot afford, that was the argument openly made by people like Edward Bernays in the early years after universal suffrage. What we needed, he argued, was the appearance of democracy, your precious system where elements of the same elite (not different elites as you claim) rotate in power, leaders who direct the people, not representatives of a public opinion which does not exist and, therefore, has to be manufactured (essentially, this amounts to keeping the 19th century liberal political system, despite the introduction of popular vote). And he would provide the industry to manufacture this.

Whoa whoa. I never said the 'elites who rotate in power' (your words, not mine) are not representative. They are, if the elections are free. It's not true that liberal democracy is not that different from previous forms of limited democracy (some kind of a new aristocracy), because it clearly is different. Some analysts have suggested that the very term "democracy" we use is wrong and offered alternatives, since "democracy" wrongly implies that people have all the power (or should have all the power), which is clearly not the case. Modern liberal democracy is based on division of power. Nobody helds it all. Not a single leader, not a single political party, not a single institution, not a single people. It is divided among many actors which participate in the system, thus ensuring that the balance will be kept and nobody will have too much of it.

A system where people would have all the power would be perhaps more oppressive and failing than some dictatorships.

I'll grant you that "western democracy" is a very stable system. It has shown it can adapt to new conditions without the need of big ruptures with the past. It's also a system easily accepted by the vast majority of the people. All of these are, slall we say, "competitive advantages" for a politicla system.
But it has its failures, it does not work without lies and deceit. And the bigger the scale of the system, the more lies and deceit you'll need to keep it working. Starting with that original one: hammering into people's minds, by constant repetition, "this is the best system available" (where this happens to be the particular form of democracy those people are under, of course).

Nobody is hammering that into anybodys mind, certainly not the government. In fact, many of the democratic politicans often say it sucks and they stick to it only because the other systems are even worse. This glorification of democracy exists in the US perhaps, but in Europe, and especially the post-communist Europe, people tend to be more pragmatic.

As for lies and deceit, that's inevitable. Politicans are salesmen - they're selling the people a particular political idea, which means they have to lie, liek the salesmen do. They exaggerate the pros and don't talk about the cons. If you ask me, I think populism is the worst enemy of present-day democratic systems. As the populations is getting dumber and less interested in politics with each passing year, it is getting easier to fool the people into voting for nonsense.

Which is why leftie parties are so popular in Europe.

But is it the best system? You can say so, but why should other people take your word for it? It is a powerfull claim, because once accepted we should proclaim that political perfection has been achieved: no further positive evolution can happen, no better system can be devised. Therefore no critics should be taken seriously when they complain about problems within "western democracy". Have we reached the end of history, is that what you're arguing for?

No, Jesus Christ spare me, I don't want to hear about Fukuyama...

End of history is bullsh*t. Modern liberal democracy is a form of government which suits the present state of the society in some countries(usually the developed ones). It is entirely possible that something better, some other form of democracy or something completely new, what will suit the future society more.

If you ask me what the better system should be, I'd give voting right only to people who passed some sort of citizenship test, which would prove they have the education and intelligence necessary to take responsibility for making decisions about the country's future.

Is this what passes for political debate where you live - claim everyone who disagrees with you is a "communist" and believe that settles the matter?

Ah, once again you're attackng the country, not the individual you're talking to? I know you long enough to know that you lean towards leftie ideas.

 

[Brighteye]

Americans can speak one European language (near enough, anyway). The author seems to have forgotten about the UK.

 

[Angst]

Whomp, I'm sorry to say so, but it's bullcrap.

Listen:

This article is clearly very pro-US.

I can't really see the accuracy in the claims the author is making...

That is true. It's speaking of how liberal and free America is whilst Europe is bound to be ruled by aristocracy with insanely formal people. They say Americans are more relaxed and free when it comes to social actions as well.

I doubt the author has never been in Europe. He does sound extremely pro-American and naught else. The only thing he was right about was that Europeans think of their own culture through their national history. But that's quite the same with America. He makes Europe sound terribly backwards as well.

Bullcrap:

"To this day the exercise of rule from the top down remains largely unchanged, and much of Europe’s class structure remains intact as well.
Americans, by comparison, have never had an aristocracy. Today rule from the top down is exercised by what should properly be described as the new aristocrats. They are the current government elite, in the form of large cadres of civil servants, functionaries, government officials, and members of parliaments and national assemblies. Their influence is well illustrated by their numbers; for example, in Sweden one in three is employed by government, and in France it is one in four."

Aristocracy? Perhaps one in three is employed in the government in Sweden, but there are no further information about the subject. How much 'aristocratic power' do these Swedes have?

"The disagreements Europeans have among themselves, about social, political, and economic issues, as well as the fervor of their disputes with each other, belie such an interpretation. "

Yeah, because there are of course only disagreements in Europe and none in America.

"The foregoing description should not be interpreted as either condemnation or praise. It merely illustrates why many Europeans do not look to themselves, but to the top and hence to government, to rule, to decide, to control, to determine, to underwrite, to patronize. "

Europeans think about the government before themselves? Are we born in non-liberal states? I'm quite annoyed reading this.

"Unlike Europeans, Americans tend to minimize formality and understate its usefulness. The result is that they normally behave as though social differences are unimportant and class differences do not exist. Americans, whether they know each other well or not, usually call each other by their first names. Europeans, on the other hand, consider that an invasion of privacy. They believe their first name belongs to them, and that no one else has the right to use it without their permission."

My friend Martin has been in America for about a year and was surprised about American 'formality'. People were seriously uptight and he've only gotten laid with two girls or such, in a whole year. People can in the States think that a girl's a slut when she kisses two guys on a night, appearantly. And I've never - ever - called another person by his surname. Except, of course, if it's a nickname, and in that case it's more personal than a first name imho.

"Europeans do not practice the kind of easy and relaxed camaraderie between social classes that exists in America. No country in Europe comes even close to the mixed-salad relationships Americans have created, which is a reflection of the continuing and largely successful efforts to break down racial barriers. Indeed, there are Europeans who remain highly critical of America’s social and racial problems, as though they had none themselves. But in fact they do. Europeans are divided into highly stratified social classes, and national and ethnic groups. There is little intermingling of either classes or races, although there are, for example, almost twenty million Muslims living in Europe. This is one of the striking, but seldom discussed differences between Europe and America; namely, the absence in Europe of any significant debate on such matters as affirmative action. Ask the English how tolerant they are of nonwhites, or ask the Germans if they really are fond of the Turks, or ask the French whether they would like to welcome more Muslims and Jews into France—a country which already has the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in Europe. Americans do not ask these questions, of course, and the Europeans seldom discuss them"

This is true though.

"Despite occasional assertions to the contrary, there still exists in Europe a powerful class structure of many levels which is experienced by anyone who lives and works in Europe; for example, the political elite, the educated elite, the intellectual elite, the labor union class, the business class, and also the factory workers, the assembly line employees, the seamstresses, and the farmers. These groupings exist in America, too. But there is a difference. Americans believe that respect can be earned, that you are judged on what you achieve, not on what social class you come from. This confidence in merit breaks down social barriers and promotes social mobility in all kinds of ways. It is, in fact, something peculiar to America which Europeans often notice and speak about when they visit the New World."

So in Europe you cannot change your class? Europe is India, we're a caste system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plIgEbggSs . And you speak French in Budapest. I know it's a bad example of all millions of Americans, but it's funny they keep showing up, innit?

"What is remarkable, from a European’s viewpoint, is that America’s social system is so pliable. It has within it the capacity to change, to overcome old prejudices, and to address the possible. America is the story of the self-made man. Anybody can operate a business. Anybody can succeed. Anybody can earn respect. Anybody can send their children to college. Anybody can be president, which in fact, is what former president Bill Clinton said he wanted to be when he was growing up. Indeed, the so-called anybodies can and do become president. Since World War II America’s presidents have included a former clothing sales-man, Harry Truman, a former peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, and a former actor, Ronald Reagan. Europe does not know this kind of mobility, and European leaders do not have this kind of background, because continental standards, expectations, and experiences make it practically impossible."

Propaganda.

"Neither do many Europeans have great respect for this mobility. It suffices to recall the ridicule heaped on Ronald Reagan for being a former ‘‘actor’’ when he was first elected in 1980, a common European bias which was repeated when former actor Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected governor of California in 2003."

The European problem with Ronald Reagan is that he did not get elected only because of his individual abilities but because he was well-known. Of course he had to do a good campaign beside it, but his reputation was of course a factor. It's the same with Schwarznegger - he's not the most rhetorical in California. No he isn't.

I do know that they appeared to have some abilities (Especially Reagan), but they probably did get elected because of their fame.

...

So sorry Whomp, but it's a bad source for reference. Very bad.

 

[Arwon]

So the original article is from some French guy claiming to speak for all of Europe? How wonderfully typical. The article is rubbish, and it's factually wrong when it speaks of social mobility being greater in the United States, which seems to be the central thesis.

I also always like to wonder where Australia and the rest of the New World fits into these types of binary schematics. Whither Canada for gods sake? If you're gonna generalise about one continent at least include the one country which can serve as an effective counterexample and comparison to America. Sloppy stuff.

 

[Arwon]

Also, on interracial marriage, did you know that VIRTUALLY EVERY MARRIAGE IN SPAIN is between a white person and a hispanic person?

 

[jessiecat]

So the original article is from some French guy claiming to speak for all of Europe? How wonderfully typical. The article is rubbish, and it's factually wrong when it speaks of social mobility being greater in the United States, which seems to be the central thesis.

I also always like to wonder where Australia and the rest of the New World fits into these types of binary schematics. Whither Canada for gods sake? If you're gonna generalise about one continent at least include the one country which can serve as an effective counterexample and comparison to America. Sloppy stuff.

You are so right. As a Canadian who's spent decades living in Europe, I can confirm that Europeans, esp. Brits, are very aware of the differences between between Americans and Canadians and overwhelmingly seem to be more understanding of the latter.
American attitudes to Canada seem to vary from ignorance to being patronisingly dismissive while we tend to view them with a mixture of exasperation, resignation. condescension and amusement. To lump these two peoples together, as the article appears to, is almost as ignorant and laughable as assuming that all Europeans automatically act and think as one. IMHO

Aussies and Kiwis, on the other hand, are exactly identical to each other, are they not?

 

[Arwon]

See that's the thing. I think American exceptionalism in both its internal positive form and external negative form is utter bollocks. Americans and America really aren't that different in either a good or bad way.

 

[Princeps]

You seem to believe that government which do anything not supported by the majority must immediately step down. That's not a democracy, that's a rule of the mob.

You contradict yourself. You say you support democracy, yet you say that democracy -- when actually practiced -- is illegimate. In a real democracy, the people would themselves vote on issues, not just appoint some privileged shady politicians to "lead" them, and their representatives would all be elected and immediately recallable. The more democratic the system and state is, the more legimate it is.

Whoa whoa. I never said the 'elites who rotate in power' (your words, not mine) are not representative.

Well, those words are representative of the reality however. The fact is that western power systems are not democratic, but very much polyarchic.

They are, if the elections are free.

Modern liberal democracy is based on division of power. Nobody helds it all. Not a single leader, not a single political party, not a single institution, not a single people. It is divided among many actors which participate in the system, thus ensuring that the balance will be kept and nobody will have too much of it.

This is absurdly naive view. It is not a issue of "balance". "Balance" one of those obnoxious elite terms like "harmony", "stability" and so forth. In reality, disguised behind these words is a system of privilege, wealth and power of concentrated groups -- and democracy is the beast that these groups must restrain with undemocratic institutions, simply because democracy, genuine participatory democracy, is a a threat to their privilege.

A system where people would have all the power would be perhaps more oppressive and failing than some dictatorships.

Nonsense.

Nobody is hammering that into anybodys mind, certainly not the government. In fact, many of the democratic politicans often say it sucks and they stick to it only because the other systems are even worse. This glorification of democracy exists in the US perhaps, but in Europe, and especially the post-communist Europe, people tend to be more pragmatic.

The hubris and obnoxious "glorification" of "democracy" by elites in the US and Europe is transparently false. Genuine democracy, one that lives in the hearts of the population and the working class, is far less arrogant and much more concerned with issues of the common person.

As for lies and deceit, that's inevitable.

Largely because of the system of privilege which you mentioned. The privileged and powerful must lie, because they must keep on to their power.

If you ask me, I think populism is the worst enemy of present-day democratic systems.

A typical right-wing line. And nearly always false.

The real problem, however, is the exact opposite. There is a great lack of election issues that are important to the people. In the US, only now the insane healthcare system is an issue in the elections, not because 2/3 of the people have been demanding universal healthcare for decades, but because finally a part of the privileged business sector, namely the manifacturing sector, is finally raising support for a unversal healthcare system, because they need to lower manifacturing costs. John Kerry, for example, never mentioned any government intervension in healthcare when he was running for president -- in spite of the fact that 2/3 of the population have pretty consistently supported publically provided healthcare. This is just one example, there are countless others.

As the populations is getting dumber and less interested in politics with each passing year, it is getting easier to fool the people into voting for nonsense.

Yes, and this is why some of the right wing parites can convince the people to vote against their own interests. And they can use their partners in the business media sector to keep the people dumbed down.

Which is why leftie parties are so popular in Europe.

The Social Democratic parties are popular because they're pretty good. They've saved entire countries from economic breakdown and survived through perilous political times, and yet provided people with fairly good governence. They're not utopian, I'm not saying that.

 

[T!ck]

Anybody can be president.

*As long as they're a christian, in a supposedly secular country.

 

[lovett]

*As long as they're a christian, in a supposedly secular country.

Read some more of the article. The author has a nice sideline in how important 'Christian Compassion' is

 

[Whomp]

You know the dynamic between Americans and Europeans is nothing if not complex.

What I find ironic is when someone gives an opinion of Europeans that's not about your refinement, culture or the intellectual life then of course it's utter crap. However, it's easy to speak poorly of Americans (I think because it elevates your image).

It's so easy to view us with

condescension, amusement

of course their McDonald's obesity

Spoiler :

,stupidity and ignorance

Americans can speak one European language

, and of course we may as well throw in brazen, arrogant and greedy. What the heck that was easy..., in fact, why look any further than Justin Webb on BBC to understand what a true Texan or American is really like. He'll tell you all you need to know about them war lovin' gun totin' folk and their love of violence.

You know it's so much easier to villify the US, than say China or Venezuela, for our indiscretions of which we've had many. This thread is becoming condescendingly clear that it's a one way street with regards what country is ok to bash.

You know what? I wouldn't have it any other way. Open is better than closed and much better than hiding under some superficial, smug and disingenuous smile.

It's a very rare sight to see a European on this board actually stick up for what Americans value. Instead, most prefer to impose their values on us. The right to bear arms, anyone?

 

[Fifty]

I agree, Mr. Whomp. It's one thing to make substantive criticism of American policies you disagree with, but the way some of the people on this board go about it, it seems to be much more a sort of jealousy mixed with anger than an actual substantive point of disagreement.

But, judging from the people who regularly exhibit the worst kind of eurotrashness (as exemplified by some of the things you quoted), its more a problem with the people who happen to be both idiots and european, rather then with europeans in general.

Moderator Action: Trolling. Let's not make this personal.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

And on the issue of politics, its always amusing to me. I remember seeing this interview with Noam Chomsky where he talked about how when he gets trotted out on TV in Canada or Europe, they LOVE it when he sits around and bashes the US, but they get very very upset when he points out that European countries, by and large, our our geopolitical b**ch when it comes to 99/100 things (and they always trot out the 1 thing in 100 as if that makes them some great independent power who doesn't almost always do almost exactly what we tell them to do )

 

[sonorakitch]

Europeans love to bash America. It is their chief political pastime. Much of my family comes from France and Italy and we all love sitting out on the terrace cutting each others' throats over the news of the day.

Doesn't bother me a bit. I'd rather belong to the group that is a bit more silent and top of the world then the group still smarting from centuries of decadence past.

~Chris

 

[scy12]

Some sides are shouting :
So in conclusions we are better than you because , among many other reasons we are more mature than you and don't jump into conclusions about you so easily that are lead by our need to prove that we are better.

 

[CaptainF]

Europeans love to bash America. It is their chief political pastime. Much of my family comes from France and Italy and we all love sitting out on the terrace cutting each others' throats over the news of the day.

Doesn't bother me a bit. I'd rather belong to the group that is a bit more silent and top of the world then the group still smarting from centuries of decadence past.

~Chris

Silent? I can't hear the silence amidst all the punditry, hubris, wars and whatnot.

 

[sonorakitch]

Silent? I can't hear the silence amidst all the punditry, hubris, wars and whatnot.

The only time I see Americans spewing their venom is in retaliation for Euros spewing theirs.

There are several threads on the top page right now which provide perfect examples.

I rarely here first strike shots towards Europeans on here...

~Chris

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's our patriotism. Us yurps just love to declare we're the best and the greatest in the world, so that always grants a few reactions. I know it's moronic to make such statements, and I'll promise I'll try harder not to do it anymore.

 

[Mise]

Whomp, it was wasn't fair criticism, it was one-sided criticism. One-sided criticism of Europe is no better than one-sided criticism of the US. I mean, the thread was titled "differences", yet all I saw was criticism of Europe. There was the same smug criticism of the US that potential candidates use to describe their 3 weaknesses in interviews; "well, I guess we could be more patient with our government-loving, freedom-hating, nanny-state comrades across the pond - sometimes I forget that they're all a little bit slower, and a little bit poorer."

Bashing the US is fun, I enjoy doing it -- for us, it's like bashing the Irish for being dim, or the Germans for losing the war -- but I don't think anyone really takes it seriously. The author of those quotes takes it embarassingly seriously.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What I find ironic is when someone gives an opinion of Europeans that's not about your refinement, culture or the intellectual life then of course it's utter crap. However, it's easy to speak poorly of Americans (I think because it elevates your image).

Does this also mean that there can be no argument about opinions of Europeans? Because when there is, it must be because the opinion isn't about our "refinement, culture or the intellectual life". Kind of strange way of reasoning, but I'll comply. I had a quote of the article with comment sitting there when I read this. It was about "loving freedom". Sensitive subject I suppose. Since my comment on said article can be nothing more than a reaction to an opinion that isn't about our "refinement, culture or the intellectual life", I might as well not make the comment at all right? I know it will be dismissed as knee-jerk reaction. Nice catch-all.

And vice versa? Well, any comment given on America must be to elevate my image. Well, I'm glad we got that settled. Seems some people can dish out criticism, but can't take it.

It's a very rare sight to see a European on this board actually stick up for what Americans value. Instead, most prefer to impose their values on us. The right to bear arms, anyone?

Goes both ways I'm afraid. Oh wait, that might be considered criticism on the US. I must have felt the need to elevate my image.

 

[Brighteye]

stupidity and ignorance ,

Americans can speak one European language

How am I calling Americans stupid and ignorant? Someone says that Americans should learn a European language, and I point out that they already know one. Am I bashing the US or defending it?
Or am I doing neither, and simply attacking yet another silly argument made by the article you posted?

It's a very rare sight to see a European on this board actually stick up for what Americans value. Instead, most prefer to impose their values on us. The right to bear arms, anyone?

Europeans frequently stick up for what Americans value, when it's a shared value. Free speech, democracy, equal opportunities... these are shared values, but many Americans act as though the US is the only supporter and exponent of these values, was the sole inventor of them and is the only nation that truly understands them.

So when you post an article which spouts a load of lies about a generic Europe (which does not exist), and regurgitates the American ideal without realising how the US actually is, Europeans will naturally feel obliged to point out that the US has not (yet) realised its ideal, and that Europe also values these things.

Obviously this appears to be US-bashing, and may even spill over into US-bashing, but correcting errors isn't the same as bashing.