Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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.

The point of my replies was not to point out the trivial truth that points of view exist and are to some extent incommensurable, my point was to correct for the misinformation you're giving out here about how "at rock bottom" the american constitution, and the "ingrained distrust" (which only breeds apathy) will protect you against any abuse of power whatever, whereas in Europe this happens as soon as a new government comes to power, and to point out (although I haven't the faintest why you're forcing me to) how manipulation of the popular opinion has happened in the US far more recently, and with far worse results for the rest of the world, than it happened in germany and italy (although the latter is debatable, given berlusconi).
Furthermore, I pointed out that while CCTVs might not be ubiquitous in the US yet, every other measure you can think of when it comes to checking the population's movements is, all because of a single event, and that I did not really see why you think the british case is any worse than your own, given your statements to the effect that "this could only happen in europe, where checks on what can and cannot be done are nonexistent".
In conclusion, my point wasn't even that "we look at government differently" (even though I don't believe for one second that your institutionalized fear/scepticism of the federal government is helping you "fight the good fight"), but just that you're presenting a cock-and-bull version of Europe, which you contrast with a near-utopian version of the USA.
What is the point of talking if, even after 440 posts, "Europe" is still being described as a monolithic, communist/totalitarian-leaning, constitution-less place, populated by people willing to give up all of their rights at the drop of a hat to whichever populist dictator comes along next; nor do or did they even care to have these fundamental, unalienable rights to begin with?
Sure, Europe "has its own problems", but talking about Europe like Fox News would, talking about how the fact that the continent has seen continuous occupation for a while now "proves" that we're "at bedrock" still a bunch of absolutists that would despair as soon as the government didn't do something for us is beyond inane.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

What is the point of talking if, even after 440 posts, "Europe" is still being described as a monolithic, communist/totalitarian-leaning, constitution-less place, populated by people willing to give up all of their rights at the drop of a hat to whichever populist dictator comes along next; nor do or did they even care to have these fundamental, unalienable rights to begin with?
Sure, Europe "has its own problems", but talking about Europe like Fox News would, talking about how the fact that the continent has seen continuous occupation for a while now "proves" that we're "at bedrock" still a bunch of absolutists that would despair as soon as the government didn't do something for us is beyond inane.

What he said.

After reading most of the posts here i got the same impression.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you give us an example of a public healthcare system that is a "tyranny", please?

Every public health care system is a tyranny. Yours in England. The one in Canada. Medicare and Medicaid in the US.

In all such systems, your control of your medical care is subordinate to the mandates of a governmental third party, rather than to the decisions of you and your doctor, on the basis that the government is paying for the care and gets to call the shots (so to speak.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Every public health care system is a tyranny. Yours in England. The one in Canada. Medicare and Medicaid in the US.

In all such systems, your control of your medical care is subordinate to the mandates of a governmental third party, rather than to the decisions of you and your doctor, on the basis that the government is paying for the care and gets to call the shots (so to speak.)

That is incorrect. If I dislike the treatment that I receive on the NHS, I don't have to use it. I have the freedom to choose to opt for private medical care if I wish to, and I can afford to do so.

[jæd]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Every public health care system is a tyranny. Yours in England. The one in Canada. Medicare and Medicaid in the US.

Please go and look up what "tyranny" is. If it includes "lots of professionals working their asses off and trying to care about people while never getting enough backing from the govt" you may have a point.

Originally Posted by Harmon

In all such systems, your control of your medical care is subordinate to the mandates of a governmental third party, rather than to the decisions of you and your doctor, on the basis that the government is paying for the care and gets to call the shots (so to speak.)

Given I have very direct experience of both the US and the UK systems that is almost completely incorrect. If you are very rich then you could, in theory, pay for your own treatment completely. At some point the vast majority will need some type of Govt intervention....

[Ea]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

...
What is the point of talking if, even after 440 posts, "Europe" is still being described as a monolithic, communist/totalitarian-leaning, constitution-less place, populated by people willing to give up all of their rights at the drop of a hat to whichever populist dictator comes along next; nor do or did they even care to have these fundamental, unalienable rights to begin with?
Sure, Europe "has its own problems", but talking about Europe like Fox News would, talking about how the fact that the continent has seen continuous occupation for a while now "proves" that we're "at bedrock" still a bunch of absolutists that would despair as soon as the government didn't do something for us is beyond inane.

*lol* Exaggeration hopefully furthers the understanding - it does feel like this sometimes

BTW, isn't it only UK that does not have a formal constitution?

[HarryT]

The UK does have a constitution - an unwritten one, based on common law and 1000 years of legal precident. Constitutional questions not uncommonly arise in the House of Lords - the highest British law court. For example, the government has recently announced that they are going to revisit two current constitutional issues: the ban on Roman Catholics becoming Sovereign, and the fact that it is the eldest son who becomes Sovereign, rather than the eldest child (eg Princess Anne, the second eldest child of the current Queen, is only 10th in line to the throne because of this).

[Ea]

Sorry, I sort of knew this, but should have clarified I meant a formal, written constitution.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The UK does have a constitution - an unwritten one, based on common law and 1000 years of legal precident. Constitutional questions not uncommonly arise in the House of Lords - the highest British law court.

The historian David Starkey was on the BBC yesterday, he said there were only two countries in the world were clerics were automatically part of the governing system - Iran and the UK (cos bishops make up part of the House of Lords here).
Much of the discussion here seems to be about the UK, but that isn't always representative of Europe as a whole.

Away from politics, I think American culture is more sentimental than European (no sad endings in Hollywood films!).
European culture is more cynical.

Generally speaking of course.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The historian David Starkey was on the BBC yesterday, he said there were only two countries in the world were clerics were automatically part of the governing system - Iran and the UK (cos bishops make up part of the House of Lords here).

That's why they are called the "Lords, Spiritual and Temporal" - the Bishops being the "Spiritual Lords" and the rest the "Temporal Lords". I believe, though, that there are "conventions" about what the Bishops do and don't involve themselves with.

As you say, certainly not typical of the rest of Europe!

[jæd]

Originally Posted by Ea

Sorry, I sort of knew this, but should have clarified I meant a formal, written constitution.

Why would you want one of those...? It would be out of date in no-time and you'd have spend your time amending it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

the decisions of you and your doctor

And since it really is the doctor that decide what he is willing to do then this is a tyranny also then according to your broad definition of tyranny?

[jæd]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As you say, certainly not typical of the rest of Europe!

Its like there was this large continent that has been inhabited for hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years. And these people had their own countries with different languages and cultures and things.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by jæd

Its like there was this large continent that has been inhabited for hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years. And these people had their own countries with different languages and cultures and things.

North America has been inhabited for thousands of years. What's your point?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by jæd

Why would you want one of those...? It would be out of date in no-time and you'd have spend your time amending it.

No. A constitution sets up the very basic parameters a country operates within (at least ours does) - it does not, and should not, go out of date that easily.