Do American and European values differ?

Nearly four out of five Europeans asked in one poll said they thought Americans and Europeans have different values. Almost as many Americans agreed. But the Inglehart Values Map (see p.257 of Free World) shows a much more complex picture. Do you think we have different values? If so, what’s the biggest difference?  

Debate - Page 4/13

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
>However reprehensible I may find someone's personal beliefs, the mere fact that I disagree with or do not share their beliefs should not, in and of itself, disqualify someone from holding public office.
Well, it didn´t in this case. There was no legal requirement that "disqualified" him. He just didn´t get elected, presumably because a majority of democratically elected european MPs didn´t agree with his views. What´s wrong with that?
> What matters is whether they allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their ability to lawfully and objectively do the job for which they are nominated. Here is an example: John Ashcroft was (and still is) a staunch social conservative. He personally opposes abortion. He personally believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that Roe v. Wade was a ludicrous decision that invented a "right" to abortion out of thin air, and that the decision to legalize or criminalize abortion should be delegated back to the individual states. In spite of his personal beliefs, however, in his capacity as Attorney General he made seemingly no attempt whatsoever to shred existing abortion rights. His personal beliefs did not prevent him from enforcing a legal decision that he personally disagreed with.
Well, you were lucky then. I´m not going to discuss the ins and outs of Roe vs. Wade with you, since this is yet another enormous can of worms, but my personal opinion is that John Ashcroft did a lot of other things that were, let´s say, highly debatable when it comes to individual constitutional rights. Also, John Ashcroft was not voted into office. He was appointed by the President. Different situation.
> You wrote: "...So you wouldn´t mind an outspoken Nazi getting into public office?". I wouldn't personally vote for them, because I'm not a Nazi, but they have a perfect right to run for office and get elected, like anyone else.
Quite right. But you´ll agree he has nothing to whine about if he doesn´t get elected because he´s a Nazi?
> We don't criminalize thoughts or ideas here, only actions.
Neither do we.
> You wrote: "..Or an advocate of apartheid? Or somebody who advocates legalizing murder (I mean outside of abortion or euthanasia issues)?". I'd certainly be disappointed that sufficient numbers of people would actually vote for someone like that, but once again, they have the right to run for office if they choose to do so.
And again, they have no right to complain if they don´t get elected. That´s my point exactly.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "...Ok, the Supreme Court must be wrong then, since they thought it was part of the equal protection clause (you know, that bit where it says "Nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". Fourteenth Amendment, I believe)." Yes, they were indeed wrong. That's not unusual at all, either. That's why the U.S. Congress has the right to rewrite, override and nullify U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Eh, what? Errrm, no, that´s completely wrong, afaik. Congress has the general (if somewhat limited) power to decide which kinds of cases the supreme court is going to hear. They definitely do not have authority to "rewrite, override or nullify" Supreme Court decisions. That would be a flagrant breach of the checks and balances system. > Michel Bastian wrote: "...Who said anything about the recognition of gay marriages? I was talking about discrimination because of sexual orientation, which is quite a different thing." No, it's not a 'different thing' at all, it's one and the same. The gay and lesbian community in the U.S. is making the argument that they have as much right as non-gay, non-lesbian persons to marry and to have their "marriages" legally recognized, along with all the commensurate rights that go along with marriage. The basis for their argument is the same 14th Amendment which you mentioned, and they contend that society's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is itself discrimination because of sexual orientation.
Ok, that´s settled then. Gay marriage is ok by the 14th amendment. Thanks for making my point for me ;-).
> Michel Bastian wrote: "....If somebody disagrees with fundamental values of the US constitution, would you vote for him?" Sure. Of course I would. It would depend on whether I agreed with their position and on which fundamental value they were referring to. It happens all the time. Personally, I interpret the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to mean that "The right to bear arms... shall not be infringed upon". But lots of Americans believe it means that only a designated "militia", and not "individuals", can own firearms.
Ok, let´s rephrase: would you vote for this person, even if he advocated abolishing the constitution completely? I think you wouldn´t. Such a person would not stand a chance to get elected, and quite rightly so.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "...So you wouldn´t mind an outspoken Nazi getting into public office? Or an advocate of apartheid?" So, are you claimingt that anyone who takes the traditional view that marriage can only be between a Man and a Woman, or that homosexual acts are sinful, is a Nazi?
Nope, I´m not, of course. I do claim, though, that somebody who states that homosexuals should be discriminated against in their job, in the way they conduct their life etc. is not somebody I would want in public office, especially not at a european comissioner´s level.

> Michel Bastian also wrote..."ROTFLMAO! Communists control the CGT? Oh, they´d like that, wouldn´t they? Ok, information update on french trade unions: parties DO NOT control french trade unions. It´s about as easy for a political party to control a french trade union as it is to ride a tiger.".... Excuse me, "control" was the wrong choice of words. I should have said, "And I believe that they still provide the backbone of support for the CGT, is that correct?" I did not mean to suggest that the CGT was the "official" arm of the Communist Party, I meant to state that Communists within the labor unions in general (and perhaps, though not definitely, the CGT in particular) provide the core support for the Communist Party in France.
Tell you what: you´re about a quarter right. Traditionally most trade unions, in France and elsewhere in Europe, politically lean towards the left more than towards the right. That doesn´t mean they´re all communists by a long chalk. Most of them are moderate socialists. However, they get into massive rows with most any party in power (left or right) as soon as somebody tries to pass legislation they perceive as harmful to their members. They´re not very dogmatic. Anything that will get the french workers a better deal will get their applause, regardless of whether it complies with communist, socialist, conservative or other doctrin. Anything that threatens the acquired rights of french workers will have them on the barricades. That´s what I mean by "pain in the neck". They´re not apolitical, but they couldn´t care less about "doctrin". That goes for most of the main european trade unions. So it´s wrong to say the CGT systematically supports the communist party in France. The communist party won´t get into power in France anytime soon, so the CGT (or the FO, or the CFDT; these are the main three french trade unions) will not put all their money on a lame horse. Incidentally, they don´t need to. They have enough political clout to speak for themselves. I daresay they have much more political impact than the whole communist party had in the last ten years or so. All it takes is a general strike by all three of them, and any french government will have a headache the size of the Eiffel tower, I can tell you.

Robert, Poland

I lived 4 years in the USofA (AZ and VA, among others). Yes, our values differ. But in what context? If we take - say - China or Egypt as a reference then these differences will seem trivial.
Having relocated back to Europe recently I feel a sense of relief. The political debate in the US lacks intensity and focus. Sadly, I have to agree that there are striking similarities between the climate in the States now and what I have learned from multiple sources about Germany in the thirties.
Not implying that this is the only country on the face of the Earth that is building a fascist society. But, seriously, who would worry that Belarus does so too?
We'll see.

Matt V., USA

Do Americans and Europeans have different values? So what? The question is whether we have the will to broaden our vision, set priorites and work in ways to enhance our collective futures or are we going to succumb to the childish temptation to focus more and more on issues that matter less and less. After reading many of these entries, I'm not convinced.
What surprises me is that Europeans (and many Americans) give so little credit to George Bush. Whether you agree or disagree with his policies, I'm surprised that people overlook that Bush consistently sets the agenda and generally gets results favorable to his cause. While others argue about less important things, he has the ability to remain focused on big achievements. I think we need more leaders like him around the world. Leaders willing to ask the difficult questions and see actions through to their natural completion rather than lose focus with each election cycle. This is not to say that Bush is always right, but that in order to negotiate among equals, Europeans (and many Americans) need to start engaging in debate over big issues, not the little things that drive the daily news cycle. Our futures depend on it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I disagree with Mike in London, who states that State Welfare systems (i.e. health systems) do not lead to economic destruction.
Mike stated: ....."After WWII Britain found itself on the cusp of bankruptcy, while the USA had an economic boom. Britain has dragged itself up to be currently 4th or 5th strongest economy in the world, despite it's socialist Welfare state focus. This does not seem like the road to ruin to me."
While Britain's economic performance is certainly respectable, one can only speculate on how much better Britain's economic performance would have been if Britain's economy were not weighed down by a bloated socialistic medical system that is steadily collapsing, as well as by expensive welfare programs that may prove to be unsustainable.
The U.S. has spent billions of dollars over the last 40-plus years on massive Big Government programs, trying to "cure" poverty. The result has been billions of dollars squandered for no good end, economic growth weakened during the "stag-flation" 1970s, and millions of people who are still poor and who have been conditioned to believe that their problems are everyone else's responsibility but their own. They have developed a disastrous and mistaken "victimhood and entitlement" mentality. We threw billions of dollars at poverty, yet people are still poor. The anti-poverty programs were a well-intentioned but disastrous mistake. It is time to recognize them for the mistake that they were, and to repeal them.
Americans are a decent, God-fearing and caring people who are nearly always ready to help those in need. The amount of money contributed by Americans to private charities to aid the tragic victims of the tsunami, already exceeds the $350 million in "official" aid donated by the U.S. Government.
Mike also stated: "Try taking a look at relative prison populations between the US and Europe to see how this survival of the fittest ideology pans out." There is absolutely nothing at all wrong in my opinion with having lots and lots of people in prison. They are not in prison for "being poor", "being deprived" or "being victims". They are in prison because they broke laws and harmed others, and they are exactly where they belong. That's where they deserve to be.

Michel Bastian, France

> Do Americans and Europeans have different values? So what? The question is whether we have the will to broaden our vision, set priorites and work in ways to enhance our collective futures or are we going to succumb to the childish temptation to focus more and more on issues that matter less and less. After reading many of these entries, I'm not convinced.
Which would these issues be? At the moment, the issue is the fact that the Bush administration is putting forward some values and views that are unacceptable to Europe and to many other countries around the world (including large parts of the US themselves). Unilateralism is one, flagrant breach of international law and human rights is another, war on Iraq is a third (and war on Iran is coming up, I gather). Are these issues unimportant? I think not.

> What surprises me is that Europeans (and many Americans) give so little credit to George Bush. Whether you agree or disagree with his policies, I'm surprised that people overlook that Bush consistently sets the agenda and generally gets results favorable to his cause.
True enough, but we don´t agree with "his cause" in many respects. The problem with Bush is not lack of consistency, it´s an overdose of consistency in the wrong direction.
> While others argue about less important things, he has the ability to remain focused on big achievements. I think we need more leaders like him around the world. Leaders willing to ask the difficult questions and see actions through to their natural completion rather than lose focus with each election cycle.
You could say the same thing about Chirac, Schröder or Zapatero. They didn´t let themselves be intimidated and stayed the course they were commited to against massive pressures from the US. So you see, focus is not the issue.

> This is not to say that Bush is always right, but that in order to negotiate among equals, Europeans (and many Americans) need to start engaging in debate over big issues, not the little things that drive the daily news cycle. Our futures depend on it.
Well, we are engaging in debate over these things. Actually, we´re debating rather fundamental values here, the ones that will dictate the actions of whole countries and, if you want to be dramatic about it, will determine the course of history in decades to come.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> I disagree with Mike in London, who states that State Welfare systems (i.e. health systems) do not lead to economic destruction.
<....>
While Britain's economic performance is certainly respectable, one can only speculate on how much better Britain's economic performance would have been if Britain's economy were not weighed down by a bloated socialistic medical system that is steadily collapsing, as well as by expensive welfare programs that may prove to be unsustainable.
And yet another endless topic. Ok, let´s talk about it.
The american health care system is a little different from the european ones, though not that much actually. First of all, it´s a myth that there is no systematic health care coverage in the US or that there is no public insurance system. There is, public health care is just limited to government funds for the poor and the elderly as well as public employees. The rest is taken up by the private insurance sector. Since there is no mandatory health care insurance, 14% of americans (roughly 40 million) are uninsured. That means that if they don´t fall under the government programs, there is quite a big financial risk for them if they ever have to undergo expensive medical treatments. The government is trying to remedy that situation through state and federal legislation, but the efforts are mostly peacemeal and not very well coordinated as of yet (but they´re working on it, apparently).
That´s the main difference to the european system. Also, the american health care system, due to its private nature, tends to be more expensive in cost than its european counterparts (14% of GDP vs. an average of 8% in OECD countries) and tends to leave coverage gaps for basic healthcare. Those are the drawbacks. The advantages are that if you have private insurance in the US, due to competition between the insurance companies, you´ll be much more likely to have access to advanced treatment methods than in the EU. That´s not because those methods don´t exist in Europe, it´s because they´re not covered by public health insurance. That´s the reason why many Europeans get supplementary private health insurance.
The european systems tend to have mandatory health insurance covering basic healthcare needs. It´s another myth, though, that there is no private health insurance in Europe. There are people (like self-employeds) who do not fall under public healthcare programs and who have private insurance. Also, many people have complementary private healthcare plans. The drawback in that system is the fact that it´s difficult to get advanced treatment if these treatments are not recognized as absolutely necessary by the public insurance companies. E.g.: there was a time when laser eye surgery came up when the german insurers didn´t pay for this kind of treatment because they considered that the patient could settle for eyeglasses or contact lenses.
The advantage of the european system is, obviously, that there are next to no uninsured citizens.
As far as financing goes, it´s yet another myth that the european healthcare systems are on the verge of collapsing due to insufficient public funds. Public healthcare, like private healthcare, is financed by the insureds through monthly deductions from their pay. So public healthcare, for the largest part, is not financed by the government (the only exception being the payments for the unemployed, but the american system has the same problem). In that respect, there is no difference between the two systems. The main difference, like I said, is that health insurance in Europe is mandatory and it´s mostly run by public, not private, companies or in the case of Britain, by a public body, the NHS.

So is the european system "better" than the american one? A little, because of the 40 million uninsured in the US and the higher costs of the american system. However, like I said, this problem is being worked upon by the state and federal governments, so it´s not likely to stay a problem too much longer. Other than that, there isn´t a lot of difference, really.

> The U.S. has spent billions of dollars over the last 40-plus years on massive Big Government programs, <....> It is time to recognize them for the mistake that they were, and to repeal them.
I don´t know about the american anti-poverty programs, so I can´t comment on those. I know that there is a huge discussion about social welfare in Germany in particular at the moment. The problem used to be that a german citizen who was unemployed in the past was forced to go to the public employment agency to look for work if he wanted to keep his unemployment benefits, but he didn´t have to take jobs that were "beneath his dignity". That meant that he only had to take jobs that were on the level of his qualifications. So somebody with an academic degree couldn´t be forced to take a job as a dishwasher. Now, with the new german unemployment law, this has changed. It is expected that overall unemployment benefit payments will diminish a whole lot because of that. Also, after a determined period of time (I´m not sure how long, I think something like one year after loosing your job), unemployment benefits will be cut drastically to mere subsistance levels. So there is quite an incentive to get a new job.
Another thing: I hear that in Britain, they developed a completely new way of running the unemployment agency. I hear that unemployment rates have dropped quite a lot because of that. Not sure about the details, though.

> Americans are a decent, God-fearing and caring people who are nearly always ready to help those in need. The amount of money contributed by Americans to private charities to aid the tragic victims of the tsunami, already exceeds the $350 million in "official" aid donated by the U.S. Government.
So what´s that got to do with social welfare and healthcare programs?
> Mike also stated: "Try taking a look at relative prison populations between the US and Europe to see how this survival of the fittest ideology pans out." <...> That's where they deserve to be.
I think you didn´t understand what Mike was saying: he meant that poverty is one of the causes of crime. That´s not just some kind of liberal soft-talk, it´s a proven fact. So if you want to reduce crime, one of the measures you have to take is reduce poverty. Of course, people who break the law deserve punishment, but we´re talking about crime prevention here.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote:"Ok, that´s settled then. Gay marriage is ok by the 14th amendment. Thanks for making my point for me ;-)."
Various courts in the US appear to disagree with you. Please see (below):
Federal anti-gay marriage law upheld
Judge says Florida can disregard same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind, a judge on Wednesday upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized here.
Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody as an important first step, but the plaintiffs promised to appeal.
„This is a legal shot heard Œround the world,‰ said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women‚s behalf. „But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it.‰
Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, attorneys said Wednesday‚s ruling was the first by a federal judge on a direct challenge to the law.
Moody sided with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage „stable relationships‰ for the rearing of children by both biological parents.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the ruling.
Challenging the Defense of Marriage Act
The plaintiffs, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a couple for 27 years who live in Tampa, were married in Massachusetts in July. They wanted their union recognized in Florida, where state law specifically bans same-sex marriages.
The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.
But Moody disagreed, saying the law was not discriminatory because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women.
Moody said he could not declare marriage a „fundamental right,‰ as the lawsuit urged him to do, and that he was bound to follow legal precedent.
„The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down‰ the law, Moody wrote. „But, until then, this court is constrained to hold (the law) and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid.‰
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6845356/Also:
Louisiana beefs up ban on gay marriage
Revived amendment would prevent court reversal.
NEW ORLEANS - The Louisiana Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September.
Without dissent, the high court reversed a state district judge's ruling in October striking down the amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject.
"Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage and constitutes an element of the plan advanced to achieve this object," the high court said.
The court's ruling puts the amendment in the constitution.
The amendment was sent to the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters on Sept. 18.
Legislative backers said that although gay marriages are banned by state law, the amendment was needed to ensure that courts would not authorize the marriages, as had happened in Massachusetts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6843904/?displaymode=1006

Scott Loranger, United States


text: I have found that the difference in values between America and Europe are non-existent. There is, however, a difference in values between liberals and conservatives. And because conservativism is the norm in America currently and liberalism the norm in Europe, this is where we find the "difference of values".
Liberals believe in equal-rights for all people, including homosexuals. They believe in women's rights to their sexual organs and the right to pursue life saving scientific research. Liberals believe in higher taxes if it makes their country a better place to live. They believe in nation-wide health care and protecting the environment so generations to come will have a planet that is clean enough to live on. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in guns. They believe in the Bible and in God, but not in a healthy way like that of Martin Luther King Jr. or Jesus Christ, but more like the fundamentalist and dogmatic way Osama bin Laden or the Ayatolla in Iran believes in his religion. They condemn abortion, but have no problem bombing clinics and advocating the death penalty. They support warfare in the name of oil reserves. Wide-spread liberalism in the European Union is the reason for its recent success, and the failures currently plagueing the United States can be attributed directly to our majority conservative values.

Michel Bastian, France


To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian wrote:"Ok, that´s settled then. Gay marriage is ok by the 14th amendment. Thanks for making my point for me ;-)."
Various courts in the US appear to disagree with you. Please see (below):
<...>
the amendment was needed to ensure that courts would not authorize the marriages, as had happened in Massachusetts.
Well, let´s wait what the Supreme Court will say to that, even if it doesn´t change anything concerning our argument. Like I said, gay marriages are a matter of opinion, really, but gay rights in general are a matter of constitutional interest. That means that society is not allowed to discriminate against gay people because of their sexual orientation. Gay marriage is but one small aspect of this question. Gay rights are a matter of fairness, like all minority rights, and yes, they´re part of the 14th amendment. AFAIK none of the cited decisions dispute that.

Danny, United Kingdom


I think most countries basic values are the same but our attitudes differ on certain things. I believe in free health care, I have been born and brought up in a counry with that though, and if I was born in America I I probably wouldn't. It all depends on your background, and where you were brough up. You can't judge one countries methods against another ones as what works in one country may not work in another one.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA


To Michel Bastian:
Thank you for your insightful discussion of the U.S. medical insurance system. I commend you on your knowledge and research. I think you should be careful, though, about saying Europe's various health-insurance systems are only "slightly" better than that of America's -- not because I necessarily agree, but because if you did not trumpet the European systems' supposed "superiority", someone might accuse you of being a "closet Americaine". J'accuse! *LOL*
By the way, if the offer of espresso while the court deliberates is still open, I'd very much like to take you up on that. You can order it at a Starbucks. They have those in France now, too.
I had previously written... "Americans are a decent, God-fearing and caring people who are nearly always ready to help those in need. The amount of money contributed by Americans to private charities to aid the tragic victims of the tsunami, already exceeds the $350 million in "official" aid donated by the U.S. Government. In reply, Michel Bastian wrote: "So what´s that got to do with social welfare and healthcare programs?" I think it has quite a bit to do with social welfare and healthcare programs, you big silly. Many Americans have a basic and innate distrust of Big Government, and particularly of Big Government social programs. Many Americans oppose the continued existence of such programs, perceiving them to be expensive, wasteful, bureaucratic socialistic boondoggles that extort tax monies from the hard-working and give it away to the lazy. That many Americans do feel this way, however, does not automatically or irrefutably "prove" that Americans are "cruel, heartless social Darwinists who would gleefully toss the poor into the snows to freeze and starve" (though many, many Europeans inevitably paint the picture that way, because it suits their political purposes to do so). The fact that millions of Americans have given over $350 million US in private aid contributions to benefit tsunami victims, people they likely will never even know, demonstrates that Americans are indeed compassionate and caring towards those less fortunate. Many Americans simply believe the private sector and the religious community are far more efficient, competent, capable at delivering aid to those most in need, trustworthy and more deserving of our willing contributions than some bloated and bureaucratic Big Government social welfare program.

Jimmy F. Trahan, USA


Without being saved by the United States in two world wars, not to mention the empirical Soviet Union, East Europe would be Russia and Western Europe would be Germany. The time for Europeans to critize America on ethics, morals, economics, or warfare has long since been done. Europe, like Britian, should realize there is a method to our madness. Envy and hate of success and morality are childish. Perhaps Europeans should be more retrospective in their view. The only countries that have a right to hate America are Germany and The Soviet Union because we stopped them from taking over the world. Thanks to America you can still be called French, English, Swiss, etc.... Instead of constant critizism perhaps there should be a little gratitude.

Phil Karasick, Seatle, Washington, USA


Scott Loranger wrote the following....(1) "Liberals believe in higher taxes if it makes their country a better place to live."...(2) "They believe in nation-wide health care...." (3) "Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in guns."...(4) "They believe in the Bible and in God, but not in a healthy way like that of Martin Luther King Jr. or Jesus Christ..." (5) "They condemn abortion, but have no problem bombing clinics and advocating the death penalty."... (6) "They support warfare in the name of oil reserves."... (7) "Wide-spread liberalism in the European Union is the reason for its recent success..." (8) "...and the failures currently plaguing the United States can be attributed directly to our majority conservative values."
I have the following comments: (1) Liberals believe in higher taxes, PERIOD. Whether higher taxes actually make their country a better place to live or not is a hotly debated issue, but to liberals it is irrelevent. To liberals, higher taxes are not a means to an end, they are an end in themselves. (2) Liberals believe in using Big Government to forcibly seize control of the health-care sector and to Communize health care in America, as was tried in 1993 by Pres. Bill Clinton. Americans overwhelmingly and violently oppose such measures. That's why Clinton's health-care proposal went down to defeat. (3) Millions of Americans believe in guns and in protecting gun ownership rights. Those gun ownership rights are enshrined in the US Constitution. Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment? (4) They believe that the Bible sets down rules for living which are to be followed, and that there is a clear distinction between Right and Wrong. Who appointed Mr. Loranger to "decide" what is a "healthy" way to believe in the Bible? (5) Of course. That's how it should be. Abortion slaughters the Innocent. The people being terminated by the death penalty are not Innocent. They're Guilty and have earned their fate. (6) Rubbish. Afghanistan has no "oil reserves" whatsoever. (7) What "recent success"? The supposedly "strongest" economies in the EU, Germany and France, have been in recession for years and have unemployment rates exceeding 9%. (8) What "failures"? The US economy is gaining strength, unemployment is falling, Afghanistan now has its first democratically chosen government in its history, and Iraq soon will, too.

Michel Bastian, France

to Phil Karasick:
> Thank you for your insightful discussion of the U.S. medical insurance system. I commend you on your knowledge and research.
I think you should be careful, though, about saying Europe's various health-insurance systems are only "slightly" better than that of America's -- not because I necessarily agree, but because if you did not trumpet the European systems' supposed "superiority", someone might accuse you of being a "closet Americaine". J'accuse! *LOL*
Hmph, so what? I´m tired of hearing the same old prejudices all the time on either side of the pond. I dislike europeans who demonize americans just as much as you do, but I don´t idolize America, either. Anyhow, facts are facts. If they´re contrary to public opinion (american, european or, I don´t know, uzbek), well, tough. Incidentally, I´d be a closet américain, not américaine. Drop the e, that´s the female ending. And no, I´m not a closet american. I´m a european at heart, even more than a frenchman or german. Must be my upbringing.
> By the way, if the offer of espresso while the court deliberates is still open, I'd very much like to take you up on that. You can order it at a Starbucks. They have those in France now, too.
They have it here in Cologne, too, so that´ll save me the trip to France ;-). Can I really order a coffee here for a Starbucks in Seattle? Cool. If that´s true, you´re on.
> I had previously written... "Americans are a decent, God-fearing and caring people who are nearly always ready to help those in need. The amount of money contributed by Americans to private charities to aid the tragic victims of the tsunami, already exceeds the $350 million in "official" aid donated by the U.S. Government. In reply, Michel Bastian wrote: "So what´s that got to do with social welfare and healthcare programs?" I think it has quite a bit to do with social welfare and healthcare programs, you big silly. Many Americans have a basic and innate distrust of Big Government, and particularly of Big Government social programs. Many Americans oppose the continued existence of such programs, perceiving them to be expensive, wasteful, bureaucratic socialistic boondoggles that extort tax monies from the hard-working and give it away to the lazy.
I agree that many americans distrust centralized government (or government in general) and favor private initiative. However, government programs can be quite useful (as the health care models in Europe show). The difficulty is to get a balance between government involvment and private initiative. The US have chosen to favor private initiative (with mixed results) and the europeans favor a bit more government involvment (with other, equally mixed results).
> That many Americans do feel this way, however, does not automatically or irrefutably "prove" that Americans are "cruel, heartless social Darwinists who would gleefully toss the poor into the snows to freeze and starve" (though many, many Europeans inevitably paint the picture that way, because it suits their political purposes to do so).
Yeah, well, many americans call us cowards, lazy and decadent because it suits THEIR political purpose. If we could concentrate on issues rather than on dimwit, thick-as-a-brick prejudices (and this goes for both sides of the atlantic), perhaps we could start working together again.
> The fact that millions of Americans have given over $350 million US in private aid contributions to benefit tsunami victims, people they likely will never even know, demonstrates that Americans are indeed compassionate and caring towards those less fortunate.
I´d be the last person to deny that, having lived in America. Incidentally, the europeans gave even more in private contributions, so while you´re not heartless monsters, please acknowledge we aren´t either.
> Many Americans simply believe the private sector and the religious community are far more efficient, competent, capable at delivering aid to those most in need, trustworthy and more deserving of our willing contributions than some bloated and bureaucratic Big Government social welfare program.
The european public welfare programs are not any more bloated or bureaucratic than the american private ones are. Like I said, the healthcare programs are actually cheaper and more efficient than the american private ones (don´t flame me for that, it´s an OECD report that says so, and I was as surprised as you are when I read it). So the point here is balance. Get the best of both worlds, private and public. Both systems, the european and the american one, are working on it.

 

To Jimmy Trahan:
> Without being saved by the United States in two world wars, not to mention the empirical Soviet Union, East Europe would be Russia and Western Europe would be Germany. The time for Europeans to critize America on ethics, morals, economics, or warfare has long since been done. Europe, like Britian, should realize there is a method to our madness. Envy and hate of success and morality are childish. Perhaps Europeans should be more retrospective in their view. The only countries that have a right to hate America are Germany and The Soviet Union because we stopped them from taking over the world. Thanks to America you can still be called French, English, Swiss, etc.... Instead of constant critizism perhaps there should be a little gratitude.
You´re beating a dead horse here, Jimmy. WWII has been over for 60 years now. Are we grateful to the americans for helping to stop the Nazis? Yes, we are. Should the Americans be grateful to the French for helping them become a nation? Yes, they should. What´s all that got to do with the present situation? Should we just roll over and do anything the US tell us to do, however wrong, just because of something your granddads did? No. We´d be false friends if we did that. It´s not about envy or hate of success or morality. If you think that you know nothing about us.

Peter, Republican - Princeton, NJ

Do we have different values? I am not sure that it is the Atlantic that defines any differences in values. I have lived in Paris, London, Oxford, Washington DC, Philadelphia, PA Nashiville and New York City and in all these places have found folks who share my view of the world and those who don't (some quite stridently). I have attended evangelical church services in Oxford,UK that stereotypically you would expect to see in Nashville; and watched anti-american protesters parading the campus of Vanderbilt University in Nashville that would be equally at home damning the US in Paris. I suspect that an Oxfordshire dairy farmer has a lot more in common with a Vermont dairy farmer than he does with the cosmopolitan elites of London, Manhattan and Paris. In my town of Princeton, the overwhelmingly left leaning professors at Princeton University think more like the dons I learned from at Oxford University than like local police (conservative Republicans all). I think local environment, upbringing and tradition do more to define values than abstract notions of "Europeanism" or "Americanism."

Karlito, USA

The US and European cultures spring from a common source and still have much in common. But that is sadly changing.
In the US Christianity still has an important role in the shaping of everyday values. It is not that we are all Bible thumping red necks, its just that there is a greater sense of spirituality in our values here than in Europe. The US was after all founded by groups of immigrants looking for a place to practice their religion in peace. The influx of Catholic Hispanic immigrants is working to renew US commitment to Christian values.
In Europe, freedom of religion has evolved into freedom from religion. Christianity has all but disappeared from Europe as a social or cultural force in the formation of values. Moral relativism rules the day. This is turn has left the door open to Islam which very clearly is on the rise. Higher muslim birth rates and immigration will only reinforce this trend in Europe. The murder of Theo Van Gogh should be a wake up call for Europe.
There is also a strong value based disagreement between the US and Europe around the role of International government. Europeans view the UN as the place from which legitmacy of international action must flow. A century of war and exhaustion has left the Europeans hoping that collective security will work in the 21st century despite the fact that it clearly failed in the 1930s. In the US we view the UN as an increasingly corrupt institution that is time and again, a parody of itself.
In both areas of value disagreements the US and Europe are and will continue to grow father apart due to changing demographics.
While issues of international governance can be worked out, the real differences over religion are only going to grow due to demographic changes in Europe.

Antoine, French living in the US for 13 years

Having lived in the US for 13 years, I believe that there is a clear difference of values between the US and the EU.
Europeans value reason, debate, and compromising.
Americans value emotion, appearances, and winning.
To elaborate: What I've seen of the American Educational System is quite fascinating. American kids are not taught critical sense. Where European kids are being asked to write essays, day in and day out, American kids are asked to choose between A, B, C and D.
I believe that most Americans, both on the left and right, are not accustomed to thinking in terms of rational principles, but in terms of emotional ones. They are extremely uncomfortable with subtelty and nuance. They believe that there is such a thing as black and white. Gray makes their heads hurt: All americans I've spoken to profess a horror for politics and politicians, because as soon as the conversation turns from emotional absolutes to real-life, difficult compromises, they invariably show signs of a headache.
Americans are, I believe, victims of their own marketing ingenuity. They have used advertising to train themselves to act impulsively, emotionally, and selfishly. They have warped their own vision when they replaced their cultural heritage with simplistic, formulaic happy endings. Europeans might not realize just how much Americans really think (or rather, feel) that the world is just as simple as a Hollywood flick. But why wouldn't they? It's the only frame of reference they have left.
We europeans see American media, and we chuckle. What we don't realize is that over here, they take that stuff seriously, because they have nothing else!
The vast majority of Americans also usually have no sense of history, because they have no knowledge of it. Nor of geography, nor of science, nor even of their own language: I can always tell when a non-american wrote something, by the absence of gross gramatical errors. They are, to put it kindly, mostly ignorant on most subjects.
And they like their ignorance. They're actually proud of it! America has a cult of the Average Joe that despises the intelligent, and fears the intellectual. And there's a lot of sharks in the US, who prey on that. So now the average joe is being put on a pedestal, coddled, venerated, because that makes him open his wallet. Yes, Bush is a moron. But by making a moron their figurehead, the republicans have fooled the people they exploit into thinking they represent them.
It's advertising. It's marketing. It's "message". Message is everything here, whereas facts matter little. History even less.
Recently in Germany, after the German Chancellor emphasized the need for a diplomatic resolution to the Iran issue, Condi Rice replied that it was important that they "present a united message". In this context, "message" means, of course, "troops".
So I would say that America is delusional. And Europe, if it wants to see in America some kind of reflection of itself, or a promise for its future, is delusional as well. I think Europeans are guilty of wishful thinking when they want to see Americans as only moderately different.
Moderation is not an American value.

 

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Debate - Page 4/13