Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: sirana on May 20, 2007, 06:55:22 PM
-
In the "Second Rule" post Simon had some interesting thoughts about the recent discussions (especially the one in the tolerant/intolerant thread) being about issues (like abortion or homosexuality) that "Only Americans Talk About".
He has deleted the original post, but I think the points he raised are still interesting to discuss.
As a German who regularily visits American forums and watches American TV I definitly have the feeling that issues like abortion and homosexuality come up way more often there than in the German forums I visit.
From what I gather from the American public debate these issues are very alive in politics.
This is surprising to me because in Europe (or at least in Germany) politically these are pretty much nonissues. And it isn't because one side had clearly won the debate and everybody agrees on it, because the situation is not that much different than in the US.
Abortion is legal, but only if you have taken part in a so called "Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung" (a consultation with special organisations) and if you are less than 12 weeks pregnant.
And while we have something like civil unions for gay people, they are not allowed to marry.
So there is still much room for heated discussions. But we simply don't have much of a public debate over it and there is not many people who are really unhappy with the status quo.
So I'd like to know if any of you have any ideas why these issues are subject of such fierce debate in the US, but not in Europe.
When I first read Simons post my first thought was that it had something to with the fact that people in the US are in average more religious and therefore care more about these questions, but that seems a bit too simplistic to me.
-
Just as a very naive idea and not based on hard facts. I´m happy to be disagreed with as it´s just my uneducated opinion (I´m no political scientist). Maybe it´s based on the idea of what moral (to horribly delve into a different thread briefly) each culture holds higher? Which maybe be based on the religon and maybe not.
In Germany in the last election it was joblessness and conservatism that were the greatest issues. Those were based on very real economic issues and a cultural bias against the extreme Right which has been educated into the society heavily since WWII.
In Australia politics is often run by the media, and it has a very big "cut down the tall poppy" type sydrome about it. This seems to be based on distrusting all in political office (which I could draw thin threads back to the founding of the country).
America has a lot of religious conservatism. Of course this has a bearing on it´s politics and what it considers important to discuss.
-
American politics are much more conservative than European politics. IIRC, our liberal political party is about in the same place as your mainstream conservative political party.
-
I believe it has a lot more to do with Political Chicanery - a sort of magician's distraction technique. Most people I met in the States didn't really so much care if gay people got married or not, but those that did really cared, and made a big deal about it! So, the Republican party pretty much got those people fired up, to distract pretty much everyone else from things like no national health care, the war in Iraq, and so on.
-
A lot of that has to do with location, too, I think. Where were you in the States, Slic? Where do you live now?
-
Slic beat me to my point but I'll say it again anyway. :P
For a long time, abortion was an issue largely used to distract people from less emotional issues. It was extremely effective. Almost everyone has an opinion, both sides are close to equal in number and almost no on ever changes their mind. Abortion is much more likely to get people's dander up than budget deficits. Gay marriage is used the same way, but it is just more recent.
Elections in the US are not won by who attracts the most voters as much as it is who can convince their voters to actually show up and vote. For example, the younger demographic, (voters under 25) largely were on the Democrats side in 2004. Unfortunately, their turnout was very low, which is historically typical of that age group (also unfortunate). Campaigns are designed to do two things - convince your followers to show up and discourage the other's followers from showing up.
-
Slic and ClintMemo have it exactly right. Politics of distraction--working up a fervor over "flag burning", "gay marriage" and other non-issues as an excuse to refuse to act on much more important things. Interestingly, these issues only come up at election times, and not much action is ever taken on any of them.
It is a unique problem we have because our founding father (Jefferson) was (overly, INMHO) enamoured with the Roman Empire and modelled the United States on ancient Rome rather than more contemporary models. No Parliament, a Sentate and "Peoples House", with an institutionalized 2 party system which (if you look at how it really works) absolutely prevents a 3rd party President. With 2 parties and many more than 2 schools of political thought, these parties form coalitions within themselves to try to get 51% of the vote--balanced like a razor, even a few votes can shift the balance. So neither side can afford to alienate even the crazy person vote. And all elected Representatives are total whores to contributors to fund their ads--usually Corporate interests. Very broken system.
-
A lot of that has to do with location, too, I think. Where were you in the States, Slic? Where do you live now?
I lived in Indianapolis, IN from 2002-06, I'm back in Canada now; specifically Waterloo, ON.
-
Why, we're nearly neighbors. I'm in Iowa. :-)
I have a transsexual friend in Indianapolis who has specific reason to be afraid (often of physical harm) when people go off on anti-homosexual tangents. It may just be the groups she's interacting with, but she fairly frequently reports having overheard such rants on her livejournal (once a week or so).
-
Slic and ClintMemo have it exactly right. Politics of distraction--working up a fervor over "flag burning", "gay marriage" and other non-issues as an excuse to refuse to act on much more important things. Interestingly, these issues only come up at election times, and not much action is ever taken on any of them.
I aggree with you that the politicians only pound on these issues because it emotionalizes their followers and "Gets-out-the-vote (tm)".
But the real question in my oppinion is, why do these sort of tactics work better in the US (and are therefore used more often) than in Europe. I can assure you it is not because European politicians wouldn't stoop so low if they saw any chance that it would help them.
It is simply that in Europe these ideas don't really resonate with the public. Any politician who would by try to e.g. score political points by publicly vowing to end legalised abortion would alienate a big proportion of the electorate, even among the people that don't like abortion.
Why aren't Republicans who don't think abortions should be criminalized or who don't have made up their minds alienated by the pretty extreme statements nearly all of the Republican candidates have made about Roe v. Wade.
And similarliy, why don't feel Democrats, who don't like Gay marriage, alienated by Democratic politicians who publically declare they support it.
I am also not sure it really has something to do with the US system of gouvernment.
Britain for example has a (more or less) two party system as well, but abortion and homosexuals are not debated more than in Germany from what I gather.
And shouldn't it even be the other way round? In a system with two big parties every politicians has to be careful not to offend any potential voter (which includes the undecided). In a system with many small parties it should be easier, not more difficult, to have a single small party (let's call them the ANTI-Abortion-Party) that rants against abortion, because they only have to get a small portion of the votes and therefore don't have to fret about offending people.
And there are many countries that have two different chambers of parliament (Germany has the Bundestag, more or less a House of Representatives, and the Bundesrat, where the different regions are represented., Britain has the House of Lords and the House of Commons.)
-
American politics are much more conservative than European politics. IIRC, our liberal political party is about in the same place as your mainstream conservative political party.
But the legal situation regarding abortion and gay marriage isn't that much more conservative than in many European states. In some states of the US abortion is legal even in the 24th week of the pregnancy, whereas in Germany it is only legal till the 12th week and you have to take part in a counseling programm.
And there are Civil Unions for gay people in some states of the US whereas e.g in Italy there is no Gay marriage and no civil unions.
And I think in the US there are both organisations and politicians on the left who would fight nail and teeth if somebody tried to e.g. limit abortions to the 12th week of the pregnancy.
-
Sirana, this is interesting, because I am inclined to go in two directions on this discussion.
But the real question in my oppinion is, why do these sort of tactics work better in the US (and are therefore used more often) than in Europe. I can assure you it is not because European politicians wouldn't stoop so low if they saw any chance that it would help them.
First, if we are going towards, Europeans are smarter than Americans, I think this is specious. Like, "oh look at the fat Americans" and then the Germans and English started surfing the net while eating pizza as well, and got just as porcine. Sometimes America leads a trend, but Europe catches up. This is common local prejudice (things are better here--insert wherever here is) but it doesn't hold up well under scrutiny.
I will mention I have lived in Germany (ex-military) and spent time in France. My ex-wife was a German citizen, so I am not totally ignorant of Europe.
Does not France now have a right wing President, ala George Bush, elected on head scarves for Muslim High school girls?
Second, The Parlimentary system is a relief valve for extremists on both the left and right. If you are an issue voter you have a Party for your issue. This is not true in America. There is not a single "Green" in the American Congress--they led Germany for a decade.
Germans get elected on issues like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Gruene-Ja-Plakat-gen-food1.jpg/496px-Gruene-Ja-Plakat-gen-food1.jpg)
A total non-issue here.
-
First, if we are going towards, Europeans are smarter than Americans, I think this is specious. Like, "oh look at the fat Americans" and then the Germans and English started surfing the net while eating pizza as well, and got just as porcine.
I was in no way trying to say that Europeans are smarter than Americans, because I know that is simply not true. And I wasn't saying that the way Europeans handle these issues (very little public debate about it) is in any way better than the way the American public handles it.
What interested me was the fact that there obviously are differences in the way Europeans and Americans react to these topics and that there have to be reasons for it.
And I really wasn't trying to make this a post about right wing vs. left wing. Sarkozy is surely a right wing politician and while I wouldn't say he was "elected on head scarves for Muslim High School girls" Immigration and seperation of Church and State were definitly important issues in the French Presidential Election.
Furthermore, immigration and integration are topics that are as hotly debated (and as much used for political gain) in Europe as they are in the US. But abortion and homosexuality (and flagburning for that matter) are not.
These seem to be questions about which Americans have much stronger oppinions than Europeans and I am interested why that could be the case.
Second, The Parlimentary system is a relief valve for extremists on both the left and right. If you are an issue voter you have a Party for your issue. This is not true in America. There is not a single "Green" in the American Congress--they led Germany for a decade.
I absolutely agree. We have currently Socialist or Communist parties in a number of Europeans countries and a couple of extremely right ones as well. But that should make it even more easy for any small party to make abortion or homosexuality their prime issue because they don't have to worry about offending anyone.
while we have some micro-parties in Germany that are centered around these (some small christian parties on the right and a feminist party on the left) they never even came close to getting the 5% that are necessary to get into the Bundestag.
As an aside, the Greens didn't "lead" Germany for a decade, they were junior partner in a coalition with the Social Democratic party and the Green party in Germany is much less extreme in almost all political views as the Green party in the USA.
-
I live in one of the largest Cities in America, and it has only one major Newspaper--owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch also owns the dominant local Television Station, and of course the "Fox" news. The massed media control this one single James Bond villian has on this country is unsettling... must be an evil Australian plot. ;D But I know he has major inroads in Britian as well. (On the other hand Britian jumped into war as well--coincidence?)
I am, of course, noting that Media sets the national debate and has been complicit in focusing on non-issues like these. We have centralized our media ownership into a few hands, those hands have a point of view, and have no credible state supported equivilent of BBC.
-
I think the centralized media ownership issue is worse than you say.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch
ABC is owned by Disney
CBS is owned by Viacom
NBC is owned by GE
These are all big companies with their own business agendas. There have been many stories swirling around for years about how company A suppressed a story because it went against the best interests of the news organization's owners.
Radio is just as bad. Most of the radio stations in my home town are owned by Clearchannel. There is only one newspaper (owned by Ganette).
-
Ditto on the horrors of media monopolies.
I disagree that the presence of civil unions is only slightly more liberal than what you see in most American states. The states in the US that have civil unions are in the sharp minority, and many have laws specifically barring gay people from marriage.
In re: abortion, you're talking about Germany, yes? Does Germany have socialized medicine? If so, I'm not necessarily willing to say that abortion laws are more conservative than the ones here. There may be restrictions we don't have, but certainly in places like NZ, access to abortions is much more possible than access here. In the US, we have states where there are only one or two abortion clinics. I;m pretty sure there's at least one state where there aren't any abortion doctors in residence, due to threats on their lives, and people fly in from elsewhere to perform abortions a couple times a week. While abortion is legally guaranteed without as many strings, it can be practically very difficult to obtain, depending on where the woman lives and how much money she has.
Also, Europe's not really a monolith in the way it deals with these issues. I'm pretty sure there are European countries that have more liberal attitudes toward gay marriage and abortion than Germany does. Spain, for instance, seems to permit gay marriage -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain. Switzerland has neither any reason requirements, nor any gestational limit -- http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html.
(Meaning that it seems to me it's a little more precise to ask: "Why don't these issues have legs in Germany?")
-
Also, Europe's not really a monolith in the way it deals with these issues. I'm pretty sure there are European countries that have more liberal attitudes toward gay marriage and abortion than Germany does. Spain, for instance, seems to permit gay marriage -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain. Switzerland has neither any reason requirements, nor any gestational limit -- http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html.
(Meaning that it seems to me it's a little more precise to ask: "Why don't these issues have legs in Germany?")
I am mainly arguing from the German perspective because obviously that is the one I am most familiar with.
Regarding gay marriage you are right. There are three countries in Europe that allow gay marriage (Belgium, Netherlands, Spain), a few that don't allow any partnerships (Italy, Poland) and the big majority has some or other form of civil unions.
So the situation is all in all more liberal on gay marriage in Europe than in the US.
But my main point was not that the legal situation in Europe is as conservative as in the US, my main point was that Americans care more about both abortion and gay marriage than Europeans do.
And this is not only true in Germany, this is true all over Europe. While there are occasional minor discussions about both these issues in European countries as well, I can only think of no country where they are as heatily debated as in the US.
And I believe that the different legal situation is not the sole reason for this discrepancy.
-
It's probably not the sole reason.
I would make the argument, though, that -- at least for people on the left -- some of them are not fighting because they're more or less satisfied.
I mean, I support same sex marriage. If civil unions have to be imposed because marriage is a religious word, then I really have no idea why the government is giving marriages at all. I'm an atheist; why is it less offensive for me to be married officially, when it's a religious institution, than it would be for my gay friends to be married? I'd be happy with the government just giving civil unions, and having marriages only granted by churches.
Likewise, I support abortion on demand without apology.
But if I had some abortion rights, and some right to get married, and no one actively trying to take them away from me, I can see where I would shut up and get to worrying about other things in life.
And since more people in your country are what we'd call liberal, there may be a larger number of people who have reason to be placid.
Certainly that can't be the whole reason why there's less of a fuss in Germany, but I'd submit that's potentially part of it. What's your media like? For that matter, what are your hot button issues?
-
Speaking as a Brit, I think there is general apathy here in relation to politics. We have been described as a nation of shop keepers. If that means insular and self concerned, then I think it's accurate. It would take something very extraordinary to get people to talk politics in a pub or on a lunch break.
Football (soccer) seems to rate a lot higher on most peoples agenda than any political consideration.
This is a generalisation of course, and entirely my opinion.
-
On the topic of the differences between the ways people of various nations conceive of politics, an essay by James Trimarco (author of "How Lonesome a Life without Nerve Gas" -- http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2007/06/essay_third200706?currentPage=1
It was published in Vanity Fair.
-
I think the centralized media ownership issue is worse than you say.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch
ABC is owned by Disney
CBS is owned by Viacom
NBC is owned by GE
I hate the US news media as much as anyone, but it's neither centralized nor a monopoly. The above quote proves this. There are also numerous magazines that are published by different companies. Other than the BBC I am completely ignorant of UK news sources. And I am aware that the two big examples of state-owned media, BBC and NPR, tend to be hostile towards the government. But I would prefer several privately owned news sources than one government owned one.
-
Certainly that can't be the whole reason why there's less of a fuss in Germany, but I'd submit that's potentially part of it. What's your media like? For that matter, what are your hot button issues?
The tv Germany is a mixed bag. You have the "Öffentlich Rechtlichen" a bunch of channels that are financed by mandatory fees and commercials. Two of them (ARD, ZDF) are pretty big, the rest are local and regional channels. The news that are shown on these channels are pretty decent and a lot people (although getting less) get their tv news there.
Then there is the ca. 15 bigger private channels that are owned by 2 big companies (Pro7Sat1MediaAG which is owned by two private equity companies and the RTL-group which is the biggest European TV company. )
The news that are shown on these channels are more infotainment and sensationalist than the ones on ARD/ZDF, but to varying degrees. NTV a 24-hour news channel owned by RTL-group has pretty decent news, but at RTL2 90% of the time is devoted to Paris Hiltons jailtime and Britney Spear's hearcut.
Mostly the news don't have much of a political spin behind it and are pretty objective, but special political segments or reportages on ARD/ZDF are pretty leftleaning.
Even on private channels the news segments don't feel as "showy" as many of the American 24hour news channels.
Regarding newspapers the image is much bleaker. The BILD is the biggest newspaper in both Germany and Europe and the 3rd biggest in the World, selling 3.5 million every day. It's a very aggressive tabloid style newspaper that rants against "freeloaders", politicians and pretty much everything that crosses its way. It routinely manipulates facts and prints deliberately untrue statements.
The next biggest paper is the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which only has acirculation of 400.000.
Bild is leaning pretty much in the direction of the CDU, Germans conservative party, but also publishes some aggressive articles against "overblown capitalism".
The former chancellor Gerhard Schröder once said "In order to gouvern I only need Bild, Bams (the Sunday edition of Bild) and TV"
Most of our hot-button issues at the moment are tied to unemployment. People taking advantage of the Unemployment insurance is something that comes pretty often from the right, the left counters with poor grandmothers that have to survive on catfood.
General minimum wages (we only have them in specific sectors right now) and job security also come up regularily.
Immigration and integration is also something that is debated pretty hotly. Terrorism and the curtailing of civil liberties also sparks a lot of discussions both from the left and from the right.
Religion is pretty much out of the picture, except when it is Islam. There were some pretty intense debates whether Islamic teachers should be allowed to wear headscarves in school.
Environmentalism is also big, though not as big as it was 10-15 years ago.
The German part in the War on Terror (small as it may be) is debated in newspapers and the public, but not so much in the political arena (where everybody except the socialistic Linkspartei has more or less the same oppinions)
-
Immigration and integration is also something that is debated pretty hotly. Terrorism and the curtailing of civil liberties also sparks a lot of discussions both from the left and from the right.
Ditto for the U.S. I'd bet this is a good starting place for comparative politics that actually approximates apples to apples. Immigration is also interesting in the U.S. because it often divides politicians along lines that differ from party, such as agricultural states vs. highly urbanized ones and border states vs. the rest, and so on.
In Germany, are political stances on immigration usually party-based?
Religion is pretty much out of the picture, except when it is Islam. There were some pretty intense debates whether Islamic teachers should be allowed to wear headscarves in school.
Sounds like a topic that overlaps with immigration and integration.
-
Germany is an unusual case, because half of the country had a fairly intense athiest policy for generations... Wikipedia points out "Currently, there is a wide difference in the religiosity of East Germany and West Germany. According to a poll conducted by the World Values Survey in 1999, just 30% of East Germans who gave a response believed in God, compared to nearly 77% of West Germans" This leads to much lower Church attendance in Germany, on average. East Germany: "The average church attendance is now one of the lowest in the world, with only 5% attending at least once per week, compared to 14% in the West according to a recent study." In contrast "Gallup International indicates that 41% of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services."
If you wonder why topics related to religion are debated more in the US than Germany, you don't have to go much further than that.
-
What are the voter turnout rates like in Germany and elsewhere in Europe? In Kentucky (over here in the U.S.), we had a primary election for state offices (including the governorship) and had a whopping 15% turnout - which is typical.
When I went to vote, the line consisted of myself and one other person.
-
There were some pretty intense debates whether Islamic teachers should be allowed to wear headscarves in school.
I think some of that drizzled over into American media reporting. Pretty scary stuff, IMO. (Cuz forbidding women from wearing religiously mandated gear, and thus preventing them from being in the public square, is totally supportive of women's rights. Can't let women go about choosing what they want to wear.)
-
Wow, I agree with palimpsest! Cool.
I've been following this thread and find it very interesting, although I haven't had anything to add. I wonder now, though, what role national pride/patriotism plays in European politics. In America, there are many people who think the USA is the best thing that ever happened to the world (whether they're right or not), and that sense of pride influences a lot of our politics. Flag burning has been mentioned: There are many who feel that you don't insult the USA! and that drives them to be concerned with this issue that has very little practical relevance.
Does similar feeling exist in European nations? That could explain a lot of differences.
-
There were some pretty intense debates whether Islamic teachers should be allowed to wear headscarves in school.
I think some of that drizzled over into American media reporting.
The drizzle effect is probably the result of a number of American legal cases and suits pending on the headscarf/school issue (http://www.pluralism.org/news/index.php?xref=Headscarves+in+the+Classroom). The primary difference appears to be that in the U.S. it is generally students, not teachers, who are asked to remove their headscarves. This is a slightly more complicated issue, as our government has already decided that kids don't have equal rights to adults, and that they can be overruled in matters of free speech and personal rights in the context of school.
For those of you who are interested in a cross-cultural comparison of Germany and the U.S. (http://www-math.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html), I found this guy's analysis to be pretty insightful. He points out the non-statistical nature of his observations, but I imagine he's just as cogent as any single individual on this board.
As a starting point, he says very interesting things about the different ways in which the two countries discriminate (http://www-math.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html#discrimination).
Most amusing sentence so far, on the credit-spending and non-saving lifestyle of most Americans: "If they do save, then they usually use the money to speculate (they call it "invest") in the stock market, which is again much too insecure for the average German." Ha. This is because, in his eyes, Americans are optimistic and risk-tolerant.
-
In Germany, are political stances on immigration usually party-based?
In German politics pretty much every political stance is party-based. Since you don't vote for the politicians for the area where you live but for a party list for the whole country (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that is in essence how it works) politicians have to make sure they don't do anything that goes against what the party leaders say. If you vote against party line in a couple of bills you're chances of making carreer in that party are getting very slim.
On immigration the CDU(conservative party) is pretty much anti-immigration as far as it is feasable, the Greens embrace it wholeheartedly and the Social Democrats are pretty much in the middle. The socialist Linkspartei is a bit schizophrenic on the subject; on the one hand they don't want to be seen as anti-immigration and try to promote that view, but one of the leaders has repeatedly issued statements in the the essence of "Immigrants are taking our jobs". The FDP (the liberal party, although liberal isn't used in the way it's used in the US, they promote a more capitalistic approach than all other parties) have more or less the same mindset than the Social democrats.
Pretty scary stuff, IMO. (Cuz forbidding women from wearing religiously mandated gear, and thus preventing them from being in the public square, is totally supportive of women's rights. Can't let women go about choosing what they want to wear.)
I absolutely agree. And I am ashamed to say that I live in a Bundesland (Baden-Wuertenberg) where there is now a law which forbids teachers to wear headscarves.
And for reasons that I don't really understand that law didn't get struck down as unconstitutional by the Suppreme Court of Baden-Wuertenberg.
This is especially incomprehensible since the court explicitly allowed teachers who wear Christian religious gear (we have a small number of nuns and priests that teach at public schools)
What are the voter turnout rates like in Germany and elsewhere in Europe? In Kentucky (over here in the U.S.), we had a primary election for state offices (including the governorship) and had a whopping 15% turnout - which is typical.
When I went to vote, the line consisted of myself and one other person.
In comparisson to the US the voter turnout is pretty high in Germany. For national elections it's more than 80% on the average, state election about 65% and communal elections about 55%.
Although it should be noted that you don't have to activly register in order to vote, you get sent an "invite" about 2 weeks before the vote and with that (and your Personalausweis, a mandatory ID-card) you can cast your ballot.
Wow, I agree with palimpsest! Cool.
I've been following this thread and find it very interesting, although I haven't had anything to add. I wonder now, though, what role national pride/patriotism plays in European politics. In America, there are many people who think the USA is the best thing that ever happened to the world (whether they're right or not), and that sense of pride influences a lot of our politics. Flag burning has been mentioned: There are many who feel that you don't insult the USA! and that drives them to be concerned with this issue that has very little practical relevance.
Does similar feeling exist in European nations? That could explain a lot of differences.
I think it differs very much, according to what country you live. In Germany Patriotism is pretty much frowned apon, as it is still connected to the Third Reich. It is getting less strong with time, but still politicians have to be very careful with rhetoric that can be interpreted as overly patriotic. And there is only a small percentage of the public that would e.g. hang a German flag in front of their house.
-
The drizzle effect is probably the result of a number of American legal cases and suits pending on the headscarf/school issue.
(Actually, for me, it was because I'm an active feminist blogger.)
-
One of the great things about a parliamentary system is that you're NOT voting for a person. You're voting for a party. The fact that in the US we have to vote for people makes it a lot more difficult. Of course, the real problem with politics is that these days you can't vote for who you like -- you can only vote for who you dislike least. Or, as I put it, for the candidate who's going to take away the least amount of rights you care about.
If I ever move to another country, it'll probably be Australia. It's a nice place to live, and it has Sean McMullen and the girl who runs ifeelmyself.com (NSFW URL), and it's close to New Zealand as well. Plus, I don't think it has a lot of really "important" nuclear targets, so if we get hit with a nuclear winter, it's more likely that good chunks of Australia will still be standing. At least, I think so.
-
One of the great things about a parliamentary system is that you're NOT voting for a person.
I shudder at the thought of the U.S. with a parliamentary system where Bush runs the show. I'm sure conservatives had the same thought when Clinton was elected (along with a majority in both houses) in 1992. (I'm not trying to start a republican vs democrat debate.)
It seems like we are always voting for the lesser of two evils, or as a co-worker used to say, "the evil of two lessers".
-
Flag burning has been mentioned: There are many who feel that you don't insult the USA! and that drives them to be concerned with this issue that has very little practical relevance.
Does similar feeling exist in European nations? That could explain a lot of differences.
Talking in generalities again. Brits reaction to their flag being burnt by the latest bunch of extremely angry people would be "huh". The act of burning a flag just seems daft, a waste of time, silly. We dont attribute that much value to the flag it has no meaning.
Of course there are exceptions to this apathetic view point. Those in the forces may well feel different. Also our own extreme nationalists can be vocal in its defence, but again, most people say "huh" to their ranting.
As we all know the Iranians are good at burning flags. I've often worried about the poor little guy over there who's stitching American flags in his back room against the day they are needed for burning. Is he in danger from the authorities, what if they came in. Wouldn't he be accused of being a spy or some such.
-
One of the great things about a parliamentary system is that you're NOT voting for a person.
I shudder at the thought of the U.S. with a parliamentary system where Bush runs the show. I'm sure conservatives had the same thought when Clinton was elected (along with a majority in both houses) in 1992. (I'm not trying to start a republican vs democrat debate.)
It seems like we are always voting for the lesser of two evils, or as a co-worker used to say, "the evil of two lessers".
Contrary to what some of my liberal friends think (I'm a conservative, but NOT a republican), I don't think Clinton was that bad. He had his bad points policy-wise, and he couldn't keep it in his pants, but overall the country was okay with him in charge.
If the democrats had fielded someone who didn't suck, I might've considered voting in that direction in 2000 and 2004. (Of course, I didn't vote for Bush either.)
Thing of it is, Bush is not the head of the republican party. He wouldn't really even be considered a major functionary. He was a state governor. If we had a parliamentary system right now, Bush wouldn't be eligible to be PM because he wasn't a Congressman or Senator.
The other thing is: in the US, you have state governors and a US president. In the UK, for example (and IIRC) the only four "governors" are the heads of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The situation's a little different when you have 50 state governors, some of them extremely powerful and others not so much.
This might be a good opportunity for another thread, but if the US was a parliamentary system, who would be the PM? (select from sitting senators and congressmen/women) I know who I'd LIKE it to be (*coughRONPAULcough*), but... who...?
-
..... and he couldn't keep it in his pants....
Now THAT is a huge point of difference between Europe and the US. Germans (and most European countries I know of) couldn´t give a flying squid what any politician does in the bedroom (or on the desk for that matter). Sex/affairs/love triangles/whatever makes absolutely no difference to someones ability to lead or govern.
-
I've been reading this thread, and I think I'll advance a theory:
It seems like Americans tend to be more idealistic while Europeans tend to be more pragmatic. I.e. Americans are concerned with doing the right thing, while Europeans are more concerned with doing the practical thing. Americans think values. Europeans think cost/benefit.
Flag burning: Brits say "It's just a cloth, who cares?" Americans say "That's an insult!"
Engineered food: Americans don't see a moral issue there, so we don't care.
Gay marriage: Americans bicker over whether it's right or wrong. Europeans ask "What's the harm in it?"
Sex scandal: Americans are offended by immorality because they want their leaders to be role models. Europeans shrug because their overriding concern is that leader be effective.
It seemed to me like that basic difference in outlook could account for most of the the differences we've been talking about.
-
I've been reading this thread, and I think I'll advance a theory:
Your theory seems to flatten what is probably far more complex than such generalized examples can illustrate.
I'll pick on one of said examples to demonstrate:
Sex scandal: Americans are offended by immorality because they want their leaders to be role models. Europeans shrug because their overriding concern is that leader be effective.
The British, to take a random European example, would likely feel differently about the sexual mores of their Queen than of the average politician. Not that she ever would, but if the Queen were to get up one day and decide she wanted to be a stripper, I think plenty of Brits would be outraged. In our country, the head of state is also the manifestation of the state (or the incarnation, if you tend to the metaphysical) and so different societal expectations apply. In many European countries, politicians are just the guys that run the place, not the embodiment of the nation (or state, or town, or whathaveyou).
Also, let's not pretend that political sex scandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profumo_affair) are a uniquely American thing.
-
You seem to be agreeing with me by accident, Anarkey. Your illustration falls into line exactly with my theory: To Americans, leaders are a national symbol and embodyment of values. Idealism. To Europeans, they're "the guys who run the place." Pragmatism.
You don't vote for kings so I'm not sure to what extent a monarch would figure into discussions of politics. As I understand it, the Queen is only a symbol, and not a leader in any practical sense. (Brits, please enlighten me if that's off.)
-
You seem to be agreeing with me by accident, Anarkey.
Allow me to attempt a second run at this, as I do not agree with you. I'll leave less of my argument unstated this time:
You propose that Americans are idealists and Europeans are pragmatists. You support this argument with the outrage a sex scandal causes in this country. I rebut, explaining that a sex scandal causes outrage in this country not because Americans are idealists, but because they revere their leaders as a representations of their country. I explain that the corresponding figure, the figure who represents the soul of the nation in the United Kingdom (the Queen) would cause equal outrage with sexual indiscretions (the idealist reaction, in your hypothesis). In other words, you have drawn a false parallel between political figures in both countries. Our nation's leaders wear more hats: political leaders + embodiment of nation. I demonstrate that the same exact reaction exists in both countries, so long as you apply it to the equivalent figure (the embodiment of nation figure). And, as an aside, I provide an example of a political sex scandal in Britain, just as a reminder that none are immune and that these issues are complicated and don't flatten well.
-
I do not particulalry agree with Mr. Tweedy's position either, because I saw great examples of idealism while in Europe--probably much more so than in the United States. Idealism in the sense of believing the human race sould evolve beyond war, take care of the environment, belief in the European Union as a force for good--they were a pretty idealistic lot. Flags? Many EU members are trading "State" allegiance for "Federal" -- each State in America has a flag, but outside of Texas, Americans don't pay them much mind.
Now in the sense of Puritanical Moralism, the United States has that all over Europe. I don't think that should be confused with Idealism. See my previous post re Church Attendance.
Anarkey, in your model, who is the "Queen" in Germany or France? Seriously, these are big countries in Europe and I am not sure your idea of shifting embodiment of national spirit holds up well outside of England. I just tend to think many Europeans are a bit less sexually inhibited.
-
Anarkey, in your model, who is the "Queen" in Germany or France? Seriously, these are big countries in Europe and I am not sure your idea of shifting embodiment of national spirit holds up well outside of England. I just tend to think many Europeans are a bit less sexually inhibited.
I've been thinking about that. While my model works for a lot of European countries (more than just Britain has a monarchy -- the Scandinavian countries, Spain, The Netherlands, etc. -- and Vatican City has the pope), I'm not sure what corresponds in countries like France and Germany. Germany, as sirana has discussed, may have a diminished sense of national identity since they struggle with the legacy of the world wars. France's national identity seems to be placed in their environment: their language, their artistic legacy and their architectural marvels. In Italy, I might guess the land itself represents them.
But no, I wasn't trying to make the argument that Europeans are less sexually inhibited than Americans. In my experience, they are far more liberal about sex. You've only got to look at the boobs on the cover of any high-end European fashion magazine to realize that. I was just trying to make the point that even so, they can still have sex scandals, and even so, they can still become morally outraged over a public figure's sexual behavior. That public figure is just less likely to be a politician.
Obviously if a people don't feel the need to anthropomorphize their nation, and instead place their identity in stuff like language or landscape, then the sexual scandal thing doesn't apply. (Though I will make an argument, partially in attempt at humor, that the French don't like their language sleeping with anybody else's). This is also my point: it's not the same from country to country. You can expect there's something that describes national identity and gives cohesion, but that something isn't always going to be the same -- that's why we talk about cultural differences.
And yes, I would definitely count faith in an organization like the EU as idealism. I think the idea of labeling a whole continent "pragmatist" and the U.S. "idealist" is a gross oversimplification.
-
Hmm... I've been staying mostly out of this one, because I think the issue is so complex (and emotive to both sides) that any comments are likely to be oversimplifications... Its a really interesting issue, but still, a tough one.
On the other hand, there are just a few too many ways to bring down an argument about idealism in the EU just by mentioning the grittier points of the last 30 years of our history. In some ways its a bit unfair because each country is a seperate unit, but I think it makes a certain point:
1) Self Determination: there have been violent, idealistic, separatist movements in almost every large European country in the last 25 years. The IRA, ETA, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are only the most obvious examples. There is also Corsica, Brittany, Scotland, Transdniesta. Separatism is a much bigger problem in Europe than the US, and is fundamentally idealistic.
2) Europe's record over the past 40 years in terms of revolutions that ended in liberal democracy is close to unparalleled in human history. Lets pick some names: Spain, Greece and Portugal (all in the 1970s), Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1991, and the in the early 0's we have Ukraine and Serbia. Revolutions are fundamentally an idealistic act.
On the other hand, Secession is barely an issue in the US at all. Just look at the Second Vermont Republic and Conch Republics to see how seriously it is taken.
I'm not claiming these are assets, or good things.. But there appears to be a perception that revolutions in Europe are "business as usual", which is patently not the case... Slovenia is now adopting the Euro, after being the first to secede from Yugoslavia, this is not business as usual, this is history happening on our doorstep - but very quietly...
I'll give a more robust discussion of these issues when I get a chance, because I think this is an extremely interesting topic... But for both sides its far too easy to slip into defensive mode. We are definitely different from each other, but nothing is cut and dried.
-
I've been reading this thread, and I think I'll advance a theory:
It seems like Americans tend to be more idealistic while Europeans tend to be more pragmatic. I.e. Americans are concerned with doing the right thing, while Europeans are more concerned with doing the practical thing. Americans think values. Europeans think cost/benefit.
Flag burning: Brits say "It's just a cloth, who cares?" Americans say "That's an insult!"
Engineered food: Americans don't see a moral issue there, so we don't care.
Gay marriage: Americans bicker over whether it's right or wrong. Europeans ask "What's the harm in it?"
Sex scandal: Americans are offended by immorality because they want their leaders to be role models. Europeans shrug because their overriding concern is that leader be effective.
It seemed to me like that basic difference in outlook could account for most of the the differences we've been talking about.
Or as Terry Pratchett (I think) has said, "An American says 'I don't understand that, what's wrong with him?' and a European says 'I don't understand that, what's wrong with me?'"
-
this is not business as usual, this is history happening on our doorstep - but very quietly...
Very true--and the Euro is the new Dollar for the world. How about: The European Union is occupied with serious issues of the day, such as expansion and consolidation of it's Union, and forming what is in effect a single Federal "country" which is larger more populous and diverse than the United States, and this activity fully satisfies everyone's need for politics, whereas the more complacent United States is content to "fiddle with the deck chairs on the Titanic" by debating non-issues as it declines as a superpower? ;D
-
You know, I'd rather not see "abortion" used as a rallying cry to make sure that progressive -- say -- Catholics are more likely to vote Republican than otherwise, but "women's issues" are not irrelevant or less important than "men's issues."
-
Very true--and the Euro is the new Dollar for the world. How about: The European Union is occupied with serious issues of the day, such as expansion and consolidation of it's Union, and forming what is in effect a single Federal "country" which is larger more populous and diverse than the United States, and this activity fully satisfies everyone's need for politics, whereas the more complacent United States is content to "fiddle with the deck chairs on the Titanic" by debating non-issues as it declines as a superpower? ;D
Very elegantly stated, Michael...I particularly like the declining superpower notion. I'm willing to meet you halfway on that assesment, to be sure, but I'm not willing to cede that European nations don't do some of their own deck chair re-arranging. In fact, while Simon nicely summed up some real important and progressive moves that have taken place, I notice he declined to mention the elephant in the room: Russia. Yes, Ukraine had a succesful revolution and today has a democracy, but only because Russia bungled Viktor Yushchenko's poisoning. They'd have been way happier if the Orange Revolution had failed (and btw, I have all the admiration in the world for Yuschenko - he's a hero, afaic). Russia itself seems on the verge of turning into a dictatorship every day and is backsliding toward tyranny atrociously. The Chechen Republic's not exactly going the way of the peaceful democratization, either. And Belarus is still a repressive dictatorship, innit? I suppose you'll foist Kazakhstan off on Asia, but there's a pretty horrific tyrant running things there.
So, yeah, doing some great things, but it's not exactly all milk and honey yet.
-
A general question for the Europeans in the thread...
Is there any isolationist feelings about the EU? I remember thinking, when I first heard someone proposing an EU, that when they finally get everyone together and trade flows freely between EU members, that they may find that they don't need anyone else. They could build a big fence around the whole place and not let anyone else in.
Also, as far as the EU being the next super-power, seeing as we, in the U.S. have squandered our opportunity so badly, the world might be better off with someone else as the biggest kid on the block besides us.
-
You know, I'd rather not see "abortion" used as a rallying cry to make sure that progressive -- say -- Catholics are more likely to vote Republican than otherwise, but "women's issues" are not irrelevant or less important than "men's issues."
FWIW, palimpsest, I did not read Michael's suggestion of "non-issues" as relating directly to abortion, though I see now abortion was mentioned in the thread earlier on. I thought he was referring to the flag burning/gay marriage/sex scandal/gmo stuff that Tweedy brought up more recently in the thread. I suppose for the people who want it, gay marriage is far from a non-issue, but I read Michael as saying it was a non-issue because it should be allowed (going from the earlier cited number of countries in Europe that do civil unions comments plus the fact that he seems to be Europe supportive so far). Likely that's too deep an inference on my part, and I appreciate you voicing - as ever - the importance of gender awareness and privilege in the context of our conversation. I honestly didn't think he meant to imply that abortion was a non-issue, or that it was a non-issue because it was about women. In fact, I had to read your comment three times before I could figure out what you were getting at (and if I've misunderstood, feel free to correct me).
I'm sure Michael will also correct me if I misinterpreted his angle.
-
No, that's what I meant. And I'm sorry if I misread Michael.
It happens not infrequently in intra-liberal conversation, though, that someone will suggest that gay marriage and abortion aren't as important as other issues, and should be conceded to the conservatives. I think Kos suggested during the last election that we should give up on abortion altogether.
-
It happens not infrequently in intra-liberal conversation, though, that someone will suggest that gay marriage and abortion aren't as important as other issues, and should be conceded to the conservatives. I think Kos suggested during the last election that we should give up on abortion altogether.
Which would be a bogus position, you're right, and I'm glad you said something. I was never a faithful Kos reader (I'd read his blog only when linked from other places I read regularly, such as Making Light), and I'm certainly not going to start now. Still down with Orcinus, though.
-
Ok, I'm invested now, I'll jump right in to this debate, so excuse me if I kick back now with a cup of tea and hold forth:
I stand up with Michel completely and say I find some of the key examples of American exceptionalism really weird, particularly in the way they effect the debate. Gun Control/Abortion/Gay marriage/Death Penalty/Flag Burning - they all baffle and repulse me, this was the reason I blew up at the tolerance debate. These issues get a massive amount of air-space in the US, you guys really care about them, but by comparison in the EU these issues just don't get any traction at all, honestly... Take a look at this extremely minor BBC news article:
The BBC on the liberalisation of abortion in Portugal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6350651.stm)
There is a "debate" attached to this piece, and a glancing look will show that about 50% of the people who cared enough to pay comment were non-Europeans. As you can see, the EU is mostly liberal about it, but Malta, Poland, Ireland and Spain are all pretty illiberal. And yet there is no pan-European pro-abortion coalition, and it's left almost entirely down to a national political level. The EU does not get involved, and no-one asks them to. Anyway, I respect Steve on this and I don't want to wade into a big debate on abortion, I just wanted to point out the most blatant example of the EU really not caring about an American issue.
When I sit down and think about it, I think a lot of the reason for this is that it is government's and elected officials who decide what issues are "European Level" issues, as opposed to national level. In the US there is a national level media (something completely lacking in the EU) that lobbies on these social issues, whereas EU level lobbying is almost entirely economic/national politics. This means the US-wide media drives these issues up to the top of the political debate, and they end up as federal. In Britain almost no-one considers themselves to have any right (or reason) to have an opinion on the Irish abortion question. Further, because we speak so many different languages, it's not really possible to have a pan-European media-debate on the issue in any coherent way. While in parts of the US where democracy would lead to an abortion ban, New Englanders/West Coasters feel a real investment in the issue. For me, and where I am probably with the Daily Kos on this, is that these issues never go away, in which they are very similar to Europe's Secession issues (I am near universally opposed to secession). They drive the debate for decades, and they contaminate all of politics with the extreme polarisation they cause. I find the way American's discuss Abortion (and the way the Scots discuss Secession) utterly toxic. On the other hand, I'm not a citizen of your country, so I only see the effect on the debate, not on people's lives.
this is not business as usual, this is history happening on our doorstep - but very quietly...
Very true--and the Euro is the new Dollar for the world. How about: The European Union is occupied with serious issues of the day, such as expansion and consolidation of it's Union, and forming what is in effect a single Federal "country" which is larger more populous and diverse than the United States, and this activity fully satisfies everyone's need for politics, whereas the more complacent United States is content to "fiddle with the deck chairs on the Titanic" by debating non-issues as it declines as a superpower? ;D
This on the other hand is dead wrong... Because the fact is most Europeans don't even notice what is happening to the state of the union. The vast majority of people in my country couldn't find Romania on a map, let alone Moldova or Macedonia. and almost no-one pays attention to the ins and outs of EU accession and integration. This goes back to the issue of a pan-European debate/media, because it doesn't exist. I'm not sure if I consider this a good or a bad thing, the lack of a debate means that much of the bile of self-interest/gossip politics is kept isolated at a national level, whereas the EU level of politics can pretty much get on with doing what it's doing. The problem is this leads to a lot of mis-understanding and a pretty huge lack of accountability, and people get pretty angry about it. You only have to mention the words: Russia (particularly gas), Turkish Accession, EU Constitution and Agricultural Subsidies in a room full of disparate Europeans to cause a god-awful fight. In most European countries, because the actual progress on a supra-national level is invisible (no-one notices) then what is seen is the minutae of a body that isn't accountable to the national debates (and secession demonstrates just how nationalist the EU is) and people get angry.
Mention the Euro to a Brit/Swede and you wont hear an analysis of whether it is in our economic interests, but a national level view on keeping the pound/krona.
If Europe could manage to hold a pan-European debate I imagine it could be every bit as caustic as it is in America, the south of Europe is predominantly Catholic/Orthodox Christian and this plays a much stronger role in their politics than in the central north where Protestantism/The Enlightenment emerged and which are predominantly agnostic. Financial debates would smash between the rich West and the poor East. Integrationist debates would riot between the original seven nations and Britain/Scandinavia would get a kicking for their fundamentally exceptionalist views. But these debates don't happen, because we are divided by language, and because of this no-one feels the need to force the other side to accept their view.
So yeah, my two cents in this is that it comes down to Europe's status as a quasi-confederacy and America's status as a federal state.. With the added effect of different languages isolating the debates to a national level, while people generally trust the supra-state to get on with doing what it's doing. I guess what I'm saying is that the EU represents histories grandest attempt to take the politics out of politics. The media continues to do the job of checking the government for corruption, but it cannot force the government to take sides on wedge issues, because there is no single individual to lobby, and no executive powerful enough to force it through. It's democratic accountability (people still vote for their representatives) but people don't actually follow what their representatives are doing. Is politics without the politics a good idea?
When I talk politics, I always go for the systematic features, because they are the easiest to analyse. But I think there is more to America/Europe differences than just political/media systems... I think there is much to be said for how people individually view the world in both sides of the pond... Because while the EU lent on many countries over some of these issues (No capital punishment is a criteria for EU accession), others just happened because Europeans are in general agreement on it. The EU has made very few moves on Gun Control on a supra-national level, but nonetheless it doesn't feature in everyday life in the EU in any way like it does in the US. A good example would be how on almost all these issues Canada shares something approaching an EU viewpoint, but it's not at all due to European political influence, and comes down to similarities of culture.
-
Simon -
A couple of questions. You've used some vocabulary that I'm not familiar with, and though the context is clear, I'm a little hung up on the particulars.
What did you mean by "Second Vermont Republic and Conch Republics"? I thought maybe you were talking about Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands. Then I decided maybe you were talking about Hawaii (but Hawaii is a state), then finally I decided I didn't actually know wtf you were talking about and I should just ask.
Twice you've used the word "exceptionalism", once referring to America and once referring to Britain, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you elucidate?
Can you give a (very) basic rundown on the requirements for EU admission? I'd heard the no death penalty thing before, and I've also heard some stuff about agricultural normalizations (removal of tariffs and sanitary rules, in particular) and economic requirements, but I'm a little shady on what entering countries must adhere to. Are there any EU specific human rights declarations that all parties are signatory to?
It'd be interesting, also, to hear from someone pro-secessionist. Any Basques in the room? America's secession issues were decidedly solved during the civil war. As an American I find it hard to understand the country splintering thing, especially in places that weren't artificially nationalized by the Soviets. Sometimes in the red/blue debate you hear blue state folks talking/joking about jetissoning red states because they're an overall drain on the economy. It's not serious. The blue states cannot form a viable country. (Then again, I don't believe Quebec could form a viable country, but that doesn't stop their secessionist movement). In general, I believe Americans think the sum of our states is greater than the individual parts and would never again dream of splitting it up. So, in a sense, the secessionist disputes are kind of like watching a train wreck for us (just as some of the other debates seem to be for you).
As I said before, I think discussions of immigration and race relations would probably find lots of parallels in both the U.S. and Europe, though I notice no one has yet taken me up on explaining immigration questions and issues in their own European countries and/or in the EU.
Addendum: I think that refusing to discuss an issue because it will never go away is bogus reasoning. Poverty, war, human trafficking and tyranny never seem to go away, but I don't think because of that the topics are not worth addressing.
-
The problem is this leads to a lot of mis-understanding and a pretty huge lack of accountability, and people get pretty angry about it.
Simon, you can't really have it both ways--if people in Europe don't care about the EU, losing the pound for the Euro, admitting Turkey and allowing Turks free access to travel and live in Europe, if they are really totally oblivious to it all, then how is it they are getting angry? And do they suffer their anger in silence or talk about it? (Which was my point--you DO talk about it).
I do consider England a special case, because it has always stood somewhat apart from Europe, and as the progenitor of America, has some special personality quirks it passed on to America: Much more puritanical, sexually, (even named after a Queen: Victorianism) a bit more imperial (wasn't that long ago it had it's own empire) and so more an intermediate case between Europe of today and America (hence that old "special relationship'). That England could still manage to mount a sex scandal 50 years ago doesn't mean it matters much in France today.
***
Heinlein once wrote that "Romantic Times call for practical people" --one of the ironies he observed in life.
When people devote their lives to arcane "isms" that have no practical significance--flag burning, gay marriage and in general, meddling with how other people live their lives--it is a sure sign they have too much time on their hands. In a Maslow sense, all their practical needs are satisfied: they have plenty of shelter, food, safety, all the things a life requires. It is really a reaction to boredom, and a sort of hobby. Practical issues of survival trump those things instantly. Practical issue abound in Romantic times.
-
There is a secessionist movement in the state of Vermont.
http://www.alternet.org/story/50056/?page=1
IIRC, there are secessionist movements in about 15 other states as well (including California).
They are all very small, but the fact that they even exist is a bit startling.
I think a lot of it is a combination of anti-Bushism and the ability of the internet to allow dispersed people with similar ideas to find each other.
-
Anarkey -
Simon -
A couple of questions. You've used some vocabulary that I'm not familiar with, and though the context is clear, I'm a little hung up on the particulars.
Sorry, about that... I find this a really interesting topic, and so I wrote something a bit beyond a forum post.. I'll probably adapt it and stick it on my blog today, Excuse me if the discussion was a bit too heavy on details that only someone who'd studied Europe's structures would have a handle on.
What did you mean by "Second Vermont Republic and Conch Republics"? I thought maybe you were talking about Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands. Then I decided maybe you were talking about Hawaii (but Hawaii is a state), then finally I decided I didn't actually know wtf you were talking about and I should just ask.
I didn't think of the issues you mentioned, but the only examples I could come up with for Secessionist movements in the US are The Conch Republics (A joke movement by the Florida Keyes in the - I think - 80's to declare themselves independant of Florida due to a "border" florida imposed on them). The Second Vermont Republic is a current movement in a similar vein, by people sick of the US gov. Neither were intended to be the least bit serious (as far as I can tell).
Twice you've used the word "exceptionalism", once referring to America and once referring to Britain, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you elucidate?
There's a wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism) on the topic somewhere... Basically America sometimes stands outside global debates, in exactly the same way that Britain stands outside EU debates... Some have suggested that this is self-reinforcing. Being perceived as a big enough fish to stand outside gives that country a degree of freedom that other's don't possess.
There, sorry for going off on one like I'd eaten a dictionary... I'll respond to the rest of your comments later in the day, little busy now.
-
I'm giving you all uncharitable readings at this point, because I find this conversation really frustrating. I'm sure that there's a lot of common ground, but I can't really deal with the framing here -- "real" issues versus "unimportant" issues.
I mean, the thing is, I agree with it. Gay rights are polarizing; they don't hurt anyone; it's an issue that's been used to whip up Republican base support.
But calling it a non-issue -- which, you know, Frank does in _What's the Matter with Kansas_ too, where he dismisses the whole thing as a culture war -- is really insulting to the people whose lives are actually affected.
This is one of those places where I think the conflation between opinions on extreme ends of the continuum is really damaging. People on one side are arguing to - for instance - stop gay marriage, when there's no injury to them whatsoever in allowing it to happen. People on the other side want to be able to see their partners in the hospital after grievous bodily injury.
To conflate both sides as equally ridiculous is, itself, really problematic. (And I do understand there are lots of reasons why we have this tendency in conversation: Durkheim's tyranny of the majority, the Overton window, the dominant (American) cultural metaphor of democratic-vote-as-moral-good which infects our vocabulary and tends to trump the idea that minority rights deserve protection from the majority, the concept of debate as an intellectualized exercise rather than something that affects real people, attempts to preserve civility in environments like this which lead to wanting to deal with opinions in a kind of mathematical away so that nothing sounds particularly offensive... and so on.)
Anyway, I'm off to Wiscon, and I also need a break, so I will probably enjoy those things simultaneously. May your conversation be fruitful.
-
Hello guys,
I really really didn't intend that one to come out as a landmine... Honestly. I was actually far more interested in discussing the minutae of how the EU works, than discussing the American debate. But, in brief response to the previous comments:
I think the details of the Culture War have been discussed elsewhere pretty well... But to put it simply: I consider that at a certain point the effect on society of the discussion can be worse than the effect of the polarising issue. I think that in many cases there is a significant separation between the issue, and the effect that issue has on politics. In the case of the American Culture Wars - I think these wars are revolting. If I were effected by the issues, I would care passionately, and I am pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, etc etc etc. But I'm not talking about the issues, I'm talking about the culture war. What I was getting at in my previous discussion tho, was that I think these are an issue because America is a federal state. Without Roe V Wade, half of the south would go anti-abortion, and people would have to go to California to get one... Just like the Irish come to Britain to get one. And no-one would care.
This is not intended as a criticism of the US, It was intended as an observation of the differences between how politics works in our countries.. I'll try to come up with another substantive post soon explaining this in a slightly less offensive way (really didn't expect the flak to be honest).
Addendum:
To be straight.. All countries have culture wars of some kind, because everyone cares about the nature of what people are doing in their community, and a national level media does whip these things up. In Britain people fight tooth and nail on ASBOs (don't even ask, its a legal way of forcing your neighbour to behave unwritten laws), battle titanically about other peoples diets, smoking, CCTV against young hooligans... This is all social engineering, and the wonderful thing about the EU is it is completely kept out of social engineering... That's the point I was trying to get at... Social engineering is necessary, but it should be (as much as possible) kept at the lowest possible tier of government.
-
It happens not infrequently in intra-liberal conversation, though, that someone will suggest that gay marriage and abortion aren't as important as other issues, and should be conceded to the conservatives. I think Kos suggested during the last election that we should give up on abortion altogether.
(I was looking for a place to quote from. This is probably the best I could come up with.)
There's another podcast I listen to where the host just went through an abortion. I left her an audio comment telling her that even though I am pro-life, I respect her decision even though I disagree with it.
I think a fair amount of pro-life people are in that camp. At least, I hope they are. I hope they're willing to stand up and say "I believe what I believe, but your beliefs don't directly harm me, so I'm going to tell you I disagree and then let you do what you believe."
I worry that the religious basis for many of the polarizing arguments (gay marriage and abortion are the biggies) is preventing otherwise-at-least-partly-intelligent people from having a real debate about the issues. And the politicians have to dumb it down so much for the ignorant masses that the rest of us who can form and defend a coherent opinion get lost in the shuffle.
Also, I find it interesting that the people who are the loudest proponents of gay marriage and abortion being legalized are some of the loudest proponents of taking away other forms of choice, like school choice, some free speech (ie: the religious kind), and in Joe Lieberman's case (at least, back in the late 90s) the choice to play violent video games.
What a dichotomous political clime we live in.
-
(Puts on Moderator Hat)
People are locking onto abortion again.
We need to chill just slightly. No one in this thread has said anything against anyone's civil liberties. The topic was "why are certain things a big deal in one country and non-issues in others".
Since no one is being attacked, no one needs be defensive.
That other conversations on other forums had something else, or went somewhere else, should not be directly germane to this topic or forum.
Please try not to start yet another argument over abortion, and keep it in some way related to cross cultural comparisons.
Thank you.
(Takes off Moderator Hat but leaves it nearby)
-
When people devote their lives to arcane "isms" that have no practical significance--flag burning, gay marriage and in general, meddling with how other people live their lives--it is a sure sign they have too much time on their hands. In a Maslow sense, all their practical needs are satisfied: they have plenty of shelter, food, safety, all the things a life requires. It is really a reaction to boredom, and a sort of hobby. Practical issues of survival trump those things instantly. Practical issue abound in Romantic times.
I have to agree with palimpsest on this, it sounds like privilege talk. Gay marriage isn't about white, straight males therefore it is abstract and the preoccupation of people with nothing better to do?
I was with you on flag burning/sex scandals being abstract questions but gay marriage? Just because it doesn't directly apply to you doesn't mean it's insignificant. Just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't have real day-to-day effects on the lives of others. And while I'd prefer to stay out of the reproductive rights end of the argument since you specifically requested it and I'm actually more interested in the minutiae of the EU just like Simon, I am obligated to state that I find it offensive that someone without a uterus is suggesting this is an "abstract" problem with no real world consequences, and positioning themselves as the rational member of the discussion while doing so ("not devoted to arcane 'isms'").
So, you know, if you're NOT saying that gay marriage and abortion have no real world effects and are useless mental exercises, now would be a good time to explicitly say so.
-
There's a wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism) on the topic somewhere... Basically America sometimes stands outside global debates, in exactly the same way that Britain stands outside EU debates... Some have suggested that this is self-reinforcing. Being perceived as a big enough fish to stand outside gives that country a degree of freedom that other's don't possess.
Ah, see, if you'd just said Manifest Destiny (yes, everything I know I learned from Schoolhouse Rock), I'd have known instantly what you were talking about. Thanks for the link and clarification.
-
Ah, see, if you'd just said Manifest Destiny (yes, everything I know I learned from Schoolhouse Rock), I'd have known instantly what you were talking about. Thanks for the link and clarification.
Conjunction junction
What's your function?
....sorry had a schoolhouse rock flashback
(owning the DVD's will do that :P )
-
So, you know, if you're NOT saying that gay marriage and abortion have no real world effects and are useless mental exercises, now would be a good time to explicitly say so.
Obviously the person who feels oppressed--or has fear of potentially being oppressed--feels strongly their rights are, or may be, potentially violated. This is a valid concern. But what is the motivation of the oppressor? Why do they care what you do with your body, who you have sex with, how does it affect them what you do? Why do people have the time to devote to oppressing you? This is what I am speaking to. The United States has become a nation of busybodies minding each others business, and that is due to an excess of disposable time. The busybodies are equally pernicious on the left as the right--for example, throwing paint on people who wear certain valuable clothes becasue they are offended by fur. "Being offended" is a national pastime. People feel it is acceptable to not accept other's choices. I do view it as a symptom of a nation in decline.
You asked me to clarify, so I did. Anything further on this would be getting sucked into an off topic debate.
-
So do you think that people in the U.S. generally have more free time than people Europe?
-
So do you think that people in the U.S. generally have more free time than people Europe?
That is a very good question. The people who work in America work pretty hard--officially less holidays, longer work week, and less vacation than most of Europe, but our "American Association of Retired Persons" has 34 Million Members at present. There are still many stay at home spouses and under-employed types--usually on some form of disability. Problem is the numbers are not good. Our way of calculating unemployment statistics are wildly inacurrate and designed to make the number as small as possible, to make the economy and politicians look good--it is easier not to be counted as unemployed than counted.
My argument is that meddlers get to be meddlers becasue all their basic needs are met and they have free time to kill. With that in mind free time is not the only factor, Maslows hierarchy is. Requires free time plus nothing personal to worry about or work on--this is when you start addressing abstractions.
As an example, my grandparents kept a small farm in addition to their other jobs--when they had Sunday Chicken they had to kill the bird and clean it first. My mother didn't have a farm, but kept a Garden. I do none of these things, and pay someone to mow my lawn. Each generation worked, but I have tons more disposable time.
-
I've been trying hard to be good here and not say anything that could be construed as inflammatory, fomenting, insulting or otherwise bad, but I feel like I really need to say something in defense at this point. Between Anarkey, Michael and Palimpsest, I and people who share my beliefs have been handily characterized as bigoted, misogynistic oppressors. There have been lots of examples. Here's one concise enough to quote:
But what is the motivation of the oppressor? Why do they care what you do with your body, who you have sex with, how does it affect them what you do? Why do people have the time to devote to oppressing you? This is what I am speaking to. The United States has become a nation of busybodies minding each others business, and that is due to an excess of disposable time.
You can say whatever you want (free speech and all) but you should be aware that you do not understand at all what motivates people like me to be, for instance, opposed to abortion. You don't seem to grasp my motivation or my thinking on these topics. You ask, Michael, what motivates the "oppressor," which means me, in this case, but I know that if I give you my simple, honest answer, you will take reflexive offense and won't even listen. I would encourage you to at least try to understand where your opposition is coming from instead of dismissing everyone you don't understand as a "busybody."
-
Mr. Tweedy, I did not identify you as an oppressor, nor did I think of you when I typed what I did. I tried to be as balanced as possible and took pains to point out other abstract examples not at all related to abortion so as not to engage in yet another useless internet flame war about abortion. The mention of that word is a red flag that brings intense hatred from both sides. That I labelled it a useless discussion was enough to bring outrage, but useless it is. Pro-choice believe in pro-choice for deeply held beliefs of freedom. Pro-life believe in pro-life for deeply held values of the sanctity of life--these are terminal human values which are essentially immutable--it is in your basic personalities and was set in stone by late adolescence. They will never agree with you, you will never agree with them. Shouting at each other about it provides only heat never light.
It is the policy of the owner of this board that this not go there, which is why I am trying not to let it go there.
-
Obviously the person who feels oppressed--or has fear of potentially being oppressed--feels strongly their rights are, or may be, potentially violated. This is a valid concern.
You asked me to clarify, so I did. Anything further on this would be getting sucked into an off topic debate.
Good enough for me. I'm no longer offended. Thanks for clarifying. Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of EU minutiae (I apologize for the thread derail).
-
Necromance!
Since the Politics in Britain thread has had a bit of play, I want to see if anyone has anything more to add to this discussion, or if someone new wants to join in.
Also, there's an election on over here that will cost about $2.5 billion (Presidential+Congressional+States, Source: BMJ (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html)), which would probably pay for most of the elections in Europe.
-
If I ever move to another country, it'll probably be Australia. It's a nice place to live, and it has Sean McMullen and the girl who runs ifeelmyself.com (NSFW URL), and it's close to New Zealand as well. Plus, I don't think it has a lot of really "important" nuclear targets, so if we get hit with a nuclear winter, it's more likely that good chunks of Australia will still be standing. At least, I think so.
OBSF: On the Beach by Nevil Shute.