Politics in the US vs. politics in Europe

[Rachel Swirsky]

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.)

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[Anarkey]

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.  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., 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.

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.

[sirana]

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.

[Rachel Swirsky]

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.)

[Listener]

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.

[ClintMemo]

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".

[FNH]

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.

[Listener]

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...?

[wherethewild]

..... 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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[Anarkey]

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 are a uniquely American thing.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.)

[Anarkey]

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.

[Michael]

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]

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.

[Simon]

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.

[Listener]

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?'"

[Michael]

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?   

[Rachel Swirsky]

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."

[Anarkey]

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?   

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.

[ClintMemo]

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.

[Anarkey]

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.

[Rachel Swirsky]

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.

[Anarkey]

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.