Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With respect, Ralph, the division of the US government into the three branches of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, was precisely to provide an equivalent system of "checks and balances" as is represented by that which exists between the Monarch and Parliament in the UK.

Can you give an example of something that a British government could do, but a US government could not?

Here's on very close to home, here. The US government can't grant a perpetual copyright. The British Government can, (a al Peter Pan).

[HarryT]

That was done via a special clause in the Copyright Act - an Act of Parliament. What precisely would prevent a US government from doing the same?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That was done via a special clause in the Copyright Act - an Act of Parliament. What precisely would prevent a US government from doing the same?

Our constitution explicitly forbids a perpetual copyright. This was part of it from day one. So it doesn't matter what our Congress passes, it would be turned over as unconstitutional.

Here's another one, broader and more sinister. The British military serves Her Majesty, and by devolution, Her Majesty's government. The US military does not serve the US government. It's officers and enlisted personnel are sworn to uphold the constitution. Now our government follows the constitution, which defines it's powers, and as it's is constitutional valid, and the military follows it's orders. But it does so because the government is an expression of the constitution, not as an entity in itself. If a government were to decide to pitch out the constitution, the military would be legally in the right to overthrow it, in the name of the constitution.

Edit: Actually in that circumstance, they would be required to overthrow the government.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Our constitution explicitly forbids a perpetual copyright. This was part of it from day one. So it doesn't matter what our Congress passes, it would be turned over as unconstitutional.

OK, then, it could be done as an amendment to the constitution, could it not? The constitution is not "set in stone" - it has been amended many times, and things that were prohibited have been re-permitted, eg the prohibition on alcohol.

Here's another one, broader and more sinister. The British military serves Her Majesty, and by devolution, Her Majesty's government. The US military does not serve the US government. It's officers and enlisted personnel are sworn to uphold the constitution. Now our government follows the constitution, which defines it's powers, and as it's is constitutional valid, and the military follows it's orders. But it does so because the government is an expression of the constitution, not as an entity in itself. If a government were to decide to pitch out the constitution, the military would be legally in the right to overthrow it, in the name of the constitution.

But you're talking "theory", Ralph. Let's take a practical example: I believe that the US constitution explicitly prohibits detention without trial, and yet that is precisely what has been going on for the last few years at Guantanemo Bay. The military forces involved did not refuse to obey their orders on the grounds that they were unconstitutional, did they?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, then, it could be done as an amendment to the constitution, could it not? The constitution is not "set in stone" - it has been amended many times, and things that were prohibited have been re-permitted, eg the prohibition on alcohol.

Agreed, but the path is very difficult. First you have to get the Federal government to pass it with a 2/3 majority, then you have to get 3/4 of the states to pass a ratification (which says that they agree with the change) through their state governments. 10-15 years for a change, very public,and it can still be stopped short at any point in the process. The Equal Rights Amendment for women never made though the ratification process. That was the last attempt (in the early 1970's). Good luck getting a change for perpetual copyright. While under the British system, it's just a vote of parliment...

(Actually I stand corrected. An amendment first pass in 1789 was finally ratified in 1992. It controls how congressmen can vote for pay raises. That is number 27, the first 10 of which were added to the constitution in order to get it passed. 17 changes (one of which cancelled another) in 200+ years is pretty hard to change.)

Originally Posted by HarryT

But you're talking "theory", Ralph. Let's take a practical example: I believe that the US constitution explicitly prohibits detention without trial, and yet that is precisely what has been going on for the last few years at Guantanemo Bay. The military forces involved did not refuse to obey their orders on the grounds that they were unconstitutional, did they?

I don't want to get hung up on Guantanemo Bay. It would take a page to describe the legal finagling. Basically what do you do with unlawful combatants (spys, saboteurs, and the like). Traditionally, they were shot without trial....

[zerospinboson]

Our constitution explicitly forbids a perpetual copyright. This was part of it from day one. So it doesn't matter what our Congress passes, it would be turned over as unconstitutional.

*shrug*. So they make it a 500 year term. What's the difference?

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But fascism was elected in Italy and Germany. In Great Britain, they did a TV show in the 1960's, The Prisoner, about a man under continuous survellance, with the premise that such was a bad thing. Now most of London is under continuous survellance (be seein' ya!). My point is that there is no inherent cultural <you can't do that, no matter who you are> in European viewpoint of government. Only those of the government you elected at the time, which could be swapped out at any time you please for another government that could do whatever it was elected to do, without limit, that it's electorate felt needed to be done.

I see. So all the NSA wiretapping, the increased push for logging travel movement (and 10 year retention), the taking fingerprints of every visitor the USA, and the patriot acts are all good, but "CCTVs are what orwell is made of"? I really haven't the faintest what you're hinting at by saying that "fascism was elected" in Europe, though. Popular support is easily had. Just look at the US. Communism is on the rise, so what do you do?
You quickly invent a shooting at a boat incident in order to be allowed to invade Vietnam, because you're "afraid of the takeover of Asia by communism".
Later, after decades of interventionist US policy, which results in resentment especially in the ME, 9/11 happens, so you invade two oil-rich countries and bomb a few others; here, in London: the Underground is attacked, in Madrid the trains are bombed, in Ireland you have decades of IRA and basque separatist/religious violence happen; and yet all without silly wars.

Even if that was to scrap all freedom or the market economy.

Yes, we're just crypto-communists waiting to come out of the closet, whereas protectionism (and bailouts?) never happen in the US. (or was it that these actions are condoned by the part of the electorate you don't approve of, and are as such unamerican?)

I'm not saying that that choice is currently in the cards, but there's no cultural worldview saying that to do so is inherently evil. the people in power do what they have been granted power to do, just like an absolute monarch...

Right. And McCarthyism didn't happen in the US, because the population would never approve of that. Nor the past 8 years of scaremongering leading to lots of civil rights going *poof*. And you're now saying that GW didn't do all of that because "he could", ("I'm the decider") he only did what the populace asked? i.e., what is the difference you're trying to point me towards? That abuse of power, and collusion between elected officials and megacorporations only happens in Europe?
Where is the American "you can't do that" in all of this?

Harry, Zerospinboson, my statement is an obvious burr under your saddle. But your responses acutally back up my thesis. Let me rephrase -
What is the inherent limit that a government cannot do, if elected, in Europe

Yes, because you're saying things that are so slanted my chair fell over.
Because I say that you're talking bullshit, I'm proving the fact that we have absolute government here? There must've been one heck of a premise I'm missing somewhere.
What does "inherent limit that a government cannot do" mean?
Are you talking about some sort of legal thing?
Because, like I said in the part you didn't quote, we *do* have constitutions here too. Got them some time ago, too. Furthermore, have you heard of constitutional amendments? Anything can be done just as easily in the US via those as they can be here. Just have two subsequent governments that can get a 66% vote and you're there. There is no such thing as "something nobody can do".
Extraordinary rendition, "enhanced interrogations", and lots of other neat words invented after 9/11."enemy combatants" were invented so as to be able to ignore the geneva conventions, they didn't get the right to a fair trial because they weren't "american citizens" (nor did some bearded americans receive the right to Habeas Corpus), and another bunch were speedily hidden in prisons, where they also couldn't call their lawyer.

Or are you talking about the "moral fibre" of americans, which they have in spades, whereas we have none? Because where, exactly, is the "thing that could never happen here", whereas it "easily could" in sheep-ly Europe?
Because that's what you seem to be implying here, and that's what I was referring to when I said you were spouting bullshit. That impolite fiction that "some things would never happen here" (whereas elsewhere, where governments are absolute), and especially that that is all made possible because you rightly distrust your government, whereas we are so stupid as to not to do so.
And yes, that to me seems as good a reason as any to experience a "burr" under my saddle. The overconfidence is rather distasteful to me.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by thomasmorus

Sorry this ist just not right: Overall there are 399 Nobel prize winners in the EU verus 309 in the US ( mayby not 100% correct as some are doule counted) (see list in wikipaedia) Also if you compare individual countries you find 102 in Germany , 113 in the UK which gives them a much higer average per acapita then the US

You are responding to a different issue than that which I intended to address. I wasn't counting and comparing numbers of Nobel prize winners on either side of the Atlantic. Rather, I was attempting to point out that in the US people in the listed categories are also considered "important" and (sort of) celebrities (albeit a different kind than the scandal-rag sort). Not a comparison with Europe, but a response to an earlier assertion that Americans care only about jocks and entertainers.

Xenophon

[Greg Anos]

Zerospinboson, cultural slants are what we are talking about. Does the US have cultural slants? Absolutely! Do they sometimes do thing that their culture is against? Absolutely! Do we think those things are good? Absolutely not!

But Europe has its clutural slants, too! You are not the level playing field, and everybody else is slanted. I have been trying to point out the differences, and why they are differences. Neither side is the level playing field. Until you recognize that every culture has its own slants, including your own, you can't meaningly talk about the differences.

The slant that seems to be hitting the hot button is the how the acquistion and use of governmental power is perceived differently by the two cultures. It is a bedrock issue in understanding the differences between the two culture. I have been using as neutral a tone about discussing the differences as I can, in this lively discussion. Go through this entire thread and you won't find my saying the US is best, or right, once. But only when you understand the basis of your own culture's basis for governmental power can you compare it to other basises.

[HarryT]

You are of course correct, Ralph, in saying that we have a different cultural perspective. Many European countries have 1000+ years of "government", whereas the US was formed in a war against a government which was perceived as being oppressive to the peoples' interests (although the "truth" of that is highly debatable!). I suppose that it's only natural that that fact alone must give us a different "slant" on the role and importance of government in our respective societies.

I don't think that anyone here is saying that the US or European approach is "right" or "wrong", but we all perceive that they are undeniably "different" to one another.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you give an example of something that a British government could do, but a US government could not?

Not follow the law? As I understand it CIA etc. must follow the law (or should) but the corresponding British organizations do not have to follow the laws (as seen in British TV series like The Black Flower were the good guys ends up being blown up by some government organization...).

[HarryT]

I've not heard of that, Tommy. Was this supposed to be some sort of "documentary" series, or fictional? The government certainly has to follow the law, and can be (and often is) prosecuted when it fails to do so. British judges are famously "independent" of government "control".

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've not heard of that, Tommy. Was this supposed to be some sort of "documentary" series, or fictional? The government certainly has to follow the law, and can be (and often is) prosecuted when it fails to do so. British judges are famously "independent" of government "control".

No it was fictional and I just added it as a "joke" since it was a TV series that was critical about nuclear power. Maybe I misremember the title. But I have seen a lot of British TV series that ends in a bleak view that the government or state for its own interest kill people.

But this is something I have seen described in non fiction texts about spy organizations and how they work differently in different countries. But maybe I misunderstood something or is not remembering correctly.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The attitude that "the government is my enemy and is trying to harm me" does seem to be a uniquely American perspective (not one, I know, which all Americans share!). I've often seen it expressed by Americans, but never by a European. We may not always agree with what our governments do, but I don't think that any of us actually believe that our government is actively trying to harm us.

Harry, perhaps you have forgotten that the US was founded on this belief, which was patently true at the time. Therefore a distrust of Govenrment is part of the US heritage.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But you're talking "theory", Ralph. Let's take a practical example: I believe that the US constitution explicitly prohibits detention without trial, and yet that is precisely what has been going on for the last few years at Guantanemo Bay. The military forces involved did not refuse to obey their orders on the grounds that they were unconstitutional, did they?

Harry, your example is not a good one, because it assumes that the Constitutional prohibition applies to the detainees, that your interpretation is generally agreed to by members of the military, and that the military expresses its disagreement with orders by refusing to obey them.

Your reading of the Constitution is not, in my view, and that of four of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, correct. The 6th Amendment to the Constitution says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." Note the words "criminal prosecutions." Are the detainees held at Guantanamo "criminals?" Not that I can see. I say this not to argue the point, but simply to point out that the question is a close one, not a clear one, and therefore your putting it forward as an example is not good for that reason.

Then there's the question of whether the military thinks that the detainees have a legal right to a trial. Although I have not served in the military, my father was a career soldier, and I grew up on military bases and within the context of the career military culture. I think I'm on pretty solid grounds that the career military regards the detainees as enemies, not criminals entitled to Constitutional rights. So your example is poorly chosen, because it assumes - incorrectly in my view - that the military agrees with your interpretation of the right to trial.

And finally, there is the question of how the American military reacts to unconstitutional orders. First, let me say that in addition to my background as a military dependent, I am also a lawyer and a student of American political and military history.

Our military is subordinate to civilian control. It does not "refuse to obey orders." Rather, what happens when the military disagrees with orders is that the officers resign. This is what happened in the American Civil War, when Southern officers, like Robert E. Lee, resigned their commissions in the U.S. Army rather than take arms against succession, which they believed to be constitutional.

Had the military, or any substantial portion of it, considered that the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo violated the Constitution, what would have happened is that officers appointed to command positions at the base would have submitted their resignations.

In this case, your example doesn't work because you and - maybe - Ralph seem to be assuming that the military in this country would overthrow a civilian government that was acting in an unconstitutional fashion.

But it wouldn't. It would just resign in sufficient numbers at the upper level of the officer corps that the government would find itself unable to function, militarily. The American people would take over from there.

[thomasmorus]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Harry, Zerospinboson, my statement is an obvious burr under your saddle. But your responses acutally back up my thesis. Let me rephrase -

What is the inherent limit that a government cannot do, if elected, in Europe?

Look over the last thousand years. People and politican entities traded back and forth like trading cards. Not true? Look at England's adventuring in the continent ca. 100-1500. Burgundy being given as a wedding present?

(But we're modern now and such things can't happen now...)

But fascism was elected in Italy and Germany. In Great Britain, they did a TV show in the 1960's, The Prisoner, about a man under continuous survellance, with the premise that such was a bad thing. Now most of London is under continuous survellance (be seein' ya!). My point is that there is no inherent cultural <you can't do that, no matter who you are> in European viewpoint of government. Only those of the government you elected at the time, which could be swapped out at any time you please for another government that could do whatever it was elected to do, without limit, that it's electorate felt needed to be done. Even if that was to scrap all freedom or the market economy. I'm not saying that that choice is currently in the cards, but there's no cultural worldview saying that to do so is inherently evil. the people in power do what they have been granted power to do, just like an absolute monarch...

Sorry this is not correct
Fashism was not elected at least not in Germany and In Austria:
In Germany the highst voting part the fashist got was 33 % in 1931, in 1933 when the siszed the goverment they only had gotten 31%. But the president gave Hitler the power to form a minrity goverment that was when the nazis sized the Power
In Austria it was even more an accident: The austrian constitution had no privion to call an assambly except through the Speaker and his two vice speakers. When all three resigned on the same day nobody except the cahnclor had the suthrity to call the natianla assambly together and the chanclor sized they Power (to be later made part of Nazu germany )
I am not shure about Italy.