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 5/13

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

Scott, USA

I' ve read on this site that the Europeans have lived with terrorism - i.e.,
"We ARE with you on fighting terrorism believe it or not. But in a more steady manageable fashion. After all, WE have lived with terrorism for decades. And thousands of people have lost their lives because of it."
Well, you are right. However, I, as an American and most likely speaking for a large majority of Americans, do not want to "live with terrorism."
Maybe that is what makes us different now. We want our children and their grandchildren to live life to the fullest. I do not want to live with terrorism like I do not want to live with socialism, communism, dictatorships and every other terrible social and political disorder.
America has made major mistakes in its past but given its history, our track record in the last 200 years is much better than Europe, or for that matter Asia and Africa. The main reason is we move forward - we might take two steps back every now and then but we know by moving forward, we will progress.
Europe needs to start acting like a major player and stop talking - it is quite tiring to listen.
Good Luck concerning demographics and military spending.

Alex Paterson, Europe

To all:
They sure do, thank heavens

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

While I respect Antoine's views and cherish his freedom to express them, I believe his opinions represent an oversimplification of America and of Americans' values.
I believe that American kids are quite capable of exercising critical thinking. I certainly wrote more than my share of essays. I certainly was not limited to 'Choice A', 'Choice B' or 'Choice C'. I believe that most Americans, both on the left and right, are quite capable of thinking both in terms of rational principles and in terms of emotional ones. I believe that Americans can adequately handle a certain amount of subtelty and nuance.
Where we Americans differ, I believe, from Europeans is that while we can recognize subtlety and nuance, and recognize a certain amount of "gray area" in addition to black-and-white issues, we don't allow ourselves to be hopelessly bogged down by nuances or complexities to the point that we lose sight of the larger, simpler, black-and-white issue.
To Americans, subtlety and nuance are things to be duly noted, but never to be allowed to distract from the central issue or purpose. To Europeans, subtlety and nuance seem to be an end in themselves, proof positive that they "understand the entire rich diversity and complexity of views".
Europeans have always enjoyed the habit of portraying Americans as being supposedly simplistic, simple-minded bumbling buffoons who reduce complex issues to black-versus-white choices and one-line political slogans, a habit which Antoine continues. And Europeans almost reflexively appear to abhor the idea that anything can ever be a stark, simple issue of good versus evil, right-versus-wrong. When Pres. Ronald Reagan declared the former Soviet Union to be an "Evil Empire", Europeans were horrified and ridiculed Reagan as being a supposed "ignorant simpleton", "incapable" of recognizing that "the issues of Communism and Capitalism are too complex to be reduced to a question of Good versus Evil". Yet, when all was said and done, Reagan was shown to have been Right and correct all along. It wasn't a complex issue laden with subtleties and nuances. It was a stark, simple issue of Right versus Wrong. Communism was an immoral, inherently Evil system.
Europeans, believing that Communism and the Soviet Union could never be "defeated" and therefore had to be "accommodated", perceived Reagan to be a dangerously unstable Imbecile for his "simple-minded" belief that Communism was Evil and Morally Wrong. The Europeans were horrified by Reagan's actions in confronting Communism and thought he'd bring about Armageddon.
As it turned out, Reagan's black-versus-white view of the West vs. the USSR, and his singleminded determination that Capitalism and Freedom would "Transcend" Communism and Dictatorship, were proven to be absolutely correct. He stared down the Soviets and their fellow-traveller allies in the so-called "peace movement" over the deployment of Cruise and Pershing II missiles. And it was the Marxists who blinked first. To the Europeans' astonishment, befuddlement and (to a certain extent) fury and bitterness, the USSR abruptly collapsed.
Americans do have a certain sense of history, contrary to Antoine's comments. We remember and commemmerate historical events all the time. What we do not do is allow ourselves to become prisoners of History. That is why we do not have a 1,000 year legacy of hatred over battles won and lost 50 generations ago, as the Brits are still contending with in Ireland. The ability to forget, to forgive and to move on is a crucial reason why we recovered from a devastating civil war.
Antoine contends that "America has a cult of the Average Joe that despises the intelligent, and fears the intellectual". He is mistaken. Americans do not despise the intelligent, nor do we fear the intellectual. However, neither do we worship them or elevate them to a "superior" position. We don't worship at the altar of a supposed "superior intellect". We believe that America offers Opportunity to All, not merely to the "Superior Intellect". Europeans are still wedded to the attractions of Class Warfare, still subtly convinced that a leader must be someone "Superior" -- from the "right" and priveleged social class, the "right" schools and universities, the "right" background. Hence, their unabashed rooting for John Kerry, an Irish-American Brahmin from a wealthy Massachusetts family and educated at exclusive schools. And, also hence, their disdain for Pres. George Bush, a blunt, plain-spoken single-minded individualist untroubled by the myriad complexities which Europeans use as an excuse for not accomplishing change. And, hence, the wonderment and astonishment in places like Austria when Arnold Schwarzenegger is elected Governor of California.
Why do Europeans marvel at the election of AH-nald to Governor -- so much so, that Austria recently issued a stamp in his honor? Because, in Europe, in his native Austria, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a bodybuilder and an actor of somewhat limited range, would never have been considered to be sufficiently "superior" to ever be considered for a political career. He couldn't have gotten elected in Europe. In plain English, it couldn't happen in Europe. It could only happen in America.

Michel Bastian, France

To Antoine:
I think I´ll have to rise in defence of the US this once, believe it or not.
> 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.
IMO you´re thinking stereotypes too much here. Neither do the europeans have a monopoly on reason, nor is there an american monopoly on showmanship and appearances.
> 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.
Ooh, careful there. I wouldn´t say that american kids aren´t taught critical sense while europeans generally are. For example, I have always disliked the traditional french way of teaching, where a teacher stands in front of a class and rattles off his courses while the class just basically takes down everything he says without any possibility of interaction between the teacher and the pupils. Fortunately, this is not the norm anymore nowadays, but I have personal experience of french teachers that basically only taught one thing: taking down notes at lightning speed. So I wouldn´t sound off about "european" educational systems too much without making a distinction between the different EU member states.

> 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.
Again, this is a dangerous generalisation. American society is quite diverse and so are their ways of thinking. I have experienced examples of both, emotionality and rationality, but I´ve never seen a case where emotions completely overrode rational thought when push came to shove. Indeed, one of the gripes I have about the Bush administration is that it acts out of type in this respect.
> Gray makes their heads hurt:
No, because they´re not any more stupid or gullible than europeans are, but it´s true many (not all by far) americans are prone to think in absolutes. So are a few europeans, btw. But don´t equate the way the Bush administration thinks or acts with the whole american nation.
> All americans I've spoken to profess a horror for politics and politicians,
So do most europeans I know.
> because as soon as the conversation turns from emotional absolutes to real-life, difficult compromises, they invariably show signs of a headache.
I´ve never experienced that. In fact, most of the americans I knew where pretty much down to earth, hands-on people, especially when under stress.
> 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.
This is, again, a stereotype I can´t relate to. I admit most of my acquaintances in America were middle-class, mostly well-to-do southern americans, so I wouldn´t be able to comment on the others, but I haven´t seen them act in an overly impulsive or irrational manner. Actually they acted in much the same way europeans with an equivalent background would have acted. The only difference was the fact they were adamant about their going to church every sunday. They didn´t ostracize me or try to convert me because I didn´t, however.
> 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.
It´s true that an average american (again, dangerous generalisation, but here goes) doesn´t know or care much about the world outside the US. However, I wouldn´t say most europeans are much better in that respect. Just yesterday I saw an interview with five german 17-year olds who showed a frightening lack of knowledge and interest not only in the world outside Europe, but in their immediate european neighbours.
> 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!
Well, it´s obviously been a long time since you watched TF1 or RAI. Not particularly brilliant, those two. I do admit, though, that Fox News isn´t exactly a paragon of objectivity either. However, don´t forget that Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News, I gather) also controls vast shares of the european mediatic market.
> 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.
You´re inferring that the average american is more ignorant than the average european. This is far from the truth. Unfortunately, frightening ignorance runs rampant on both sides of the pond. And concerning spelling or grammar: go to any french language forum in the net, and you´ll see some gramatical and spelling errors that would probably cause the entire académie francaise to die of an instant collective stroke ;-).
> 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.
Sorry to have to put it that way, but BS. There is a preference for the "average Joe", of course, I grant you that, but it´s got nothing to do with an aversion for the intelligent or the intellectual. Americans just prefer leaders who "think fast, but speak plain". They don´t like leaders who come across as arrogant. Are they really that different from europeans in that respect?
> 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.
There is some truth in that statement, but I think the neo-cons have played on the Wyatt Earp rather than on the Joe Average image and I´m sure they fooled many americans into voting for him a second time with that. However, don´t kid yourself: much the same thing could happen in large parts of Europe.
> It's advertising. It's marketing. It's "message".
In short: it´s politics. Don´t tell me european politicians don´t advertise themselves too. It´s the nature of the beast.
> So I would say that America is delusional.
No, I´d say the Bush administration is delusional, if you really want to use that word.
> 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.
And I think difference is quite ok. Heck, the whole EU is based on the assumption that you can be different, yet work together.

> Moderation is not an American value.
Hmmph, if I were you I´d avoid stereotypes like that.

Mike, London

Phil Karasick-
1) "The ability to forget, to forgive and to move on is a crucial reason why we recovered from a devastating civil war." I am staggered by your apalling conception of history that the Northern Irish problem is down to simply a lack of forgiveness/ forgetfulness. Moreover, I feel Americans are obsessed with their history- they just have less of it. The very fact that you even brought the civil war into the matter underlines this. To say that Americans are somehow superior for putting aside differences after the civil war is very naive. Perhaps you may have heard of the English Civil war, which was far greater in magnitude, but rarely spoken of here (incidentally- in relevance to your later points- this was the war we had which decided that the country should be ruled by parliament, not privilaged birth-right).
2) Are you seriously suggesting that you would rather that your country is run by those without good intellectual ability? I am again staggered. I suspect your aim with this comment was more guided by a nationalistic defence of your country than a genuine belief. I feel it unlikely that people in Austria are marvelling at the fact that a body builder and actor can become a powerful pollitician on account of America being the 'land of opportunity'- rather that the USA is so media driven that someone of such marginal political worth can attain such a position. To sum up- surely leadership should require ability? I don't think it wise to just hand over the reigns of power to anyone- I'd much rather be led by someone with brains.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London --
1) RE: your comment: "I am staggered by your apalling conception of history that the Northern Irish problem is down to simply a lack of forgiveness / forgetfulness." My conception of history, as you refer to it, is not "appalling" except in your personal view. And my conception of History is factual. When an elderly Irish lady walks up to a British soldier on routine patrol, whacks him with her handbag, and shouts "You should be ashamed of what you English did at The Battle Of __________" (insert name of English-vs.-Irish battle, fought almost 800 years ago), that should tell you that the Northern Irish problem is due in no small part to a lack of forgiveness and forgetfulness. Ireland is the only place I know of where Protestants deliberately stage a provocative, in-your-face annual parade through Catholic neighborhoods to celebrate one branch of Christianity (theirs) having defeated some other branch of Christianity (Catholicism) - 300 years ago.
2) RE: your comment: "Are you seriously suggesting that you would rather that your country is run by those without good intellectual ability?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Who are you to decide whose "intellectual ability" is "good enough" to run a country? Who died and made you the "Official Decider" of who is "qualified" to be President of the US? What makes you better than anyone else? I think Pres. George Bush's intellectual ability is as good as anyone's, and certainly better than some. And even if it were not, that's irrelevent. Where did you ever get the ludicrous idea that "intellectual ability" is any guarantee of someone's being a good President? Some of the greatest Presidents the US has ever had, have been plain-spoken, quintessentially ordinary Americans from middle-class or even lower-class socioeconomic backgrounds. Harry Truman was a former farm boy, an obscure ward politician and a failed haberdasher whose salty language could make a sailor blush. He was a simple man, not given to intellectual debates and for whom "a Bolshevik was no different than a bushwhacker", but this tough, blunt-spoken little man stared down Josef Stalin during the 1948 Berlin Airlift crisis. Ronald Reagan grew up poor and the son of an alcoholic during the Great Depression. He wasn't an intellectual giant, either, but this amiable former actor stood up to the Soviets and successfully ended a half-century long Cold War and on the West's terms.
By contrast, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer and a very intelligent man, but he was without question one of the worst Presidents (if not "The" very worst President) that the USA has ever had in its 200+ year history, an utter disaster, an absolute disgrace. As far as I am concerned, one of the greatest days in US history was when we nuked Jimmy Carter at the ballot box and threw his worthless butt out of office, and elected Ronald Reagan instead.

RE: your comment of "I am again staggered". 'm not surprised. That's the answer I would expect of a Yur-up-pee'un who still believes that leaders should somehow be "superior, intellectual" people. Thank you, you've proven my point.
RE: your comment of "I feel it unlikely that people in Austria are marvelling at the fact that a body builder and actor can become a powerful pollitician on account of America being the 'land of opportunity'- rather that the USA is so media driven that someone of such marginal political worth can attain such a position". Thank you for again proving my point. Where did you ever get the mistaken idea that Arnold Schwarzennegger is of "marginal political worth"? Thank you for again displaying your elitist and snobbish biases and demonstrating your prejudiced belief that because someone acts in movies and/or works out as a bodybuilder, that this "must" somehow mean that he is "stupid". Your kind had the same underestimation of Ronald Reagan, too. AH-nald is doing a fantastic job as Governor of California, a state whose economy is so powerful that were it a Nation and not a State, it would rank 11th or so in the world. I would be surprised if Schwarzennegger were not someday a contender for the Presidency, and a very worthy one at that.

Michel Bastian, France

To Mike, London:
> Phil Karasick-
1) "The ability to forget, to forgive and to move on is a crucial reason why we recovered from a devastating civil war." I am staggered by your apalling conception of history that the Northern Irish problem is down to simply a lack of forgiveness/ forgetfulness. Moreover, I feel Americans are obsessed with their history- they just have less of it. The very fact that you even brought the civil war into the matter underlines this. To say that Americans are somehow superior for putting aside differences after the civil war is very naive. Perhaps you may have heard of the English Civil war, which was far greater in magnitude, but rarely spoken of here (incidentally- in relevance to your later points- this was the war we had which decided that the country should be ruled by parliament, not privilaged birth-right).
Actually, it´s quite debatable whether all the differences after the civil war have been put aside as of yet. I think that there still are fundamental differences in mentality and political thinking in some southern states and there is undoubtedly a strong identification of many southern state americans with "southern" culture.
> 2) Are you seriously suggesting that you would rather that your country is run by those without good intellectual ability? I am again staggered. I suspect your aim with this comment was more guided by a nationalistic defence of your country than a genuine belief. I feel it unlikely that people in Austria are marvelling at the fact that a body builder and actor can become a powerful pollitician on account of America being the 'land of opportunity'- rather that the USA is so media driven that someone of such marginal political worth can attain such a position. To sum up- surely leadership should require ability? I don't think it wise to just hand over the reigns of power to anyone- I'd much rather be led by someone with brains.
I hate to support Phil on anything ;-), but I wouldn´t take Schwarzenegger as an example for a stupid but mediatic american politician. Actually, Schwarzenegger is anything but stupid, and he has one huge advantage: he can get democrats and republicans in state congress and the administration to work together to an extent. None of the politicians before him have managed to do that and he was only able to pull it off because of his immense popularity. So yes, he is a mediatic figure, but he was intelligent enough to use this to good advantage. He was also intelligent enough to get mostly competent people into his administration and, last not least, his political actions up until now have been pretty much ok (except for that death penalty thing which I´m not very happy about). Actually, I think he has a lot more brains than this other californian actor/politician Ronald Reagan ever had. Quite frankly, I think he also has more brains than Bush jr., but that´s another story.

to Scott:
> I' ve read on this site that the Europeans have lived with terrorism - i.e.,
<...>
Maybe that is what makes us different now. We want our children and their grandchildren to live life to the fullest. I do not want to live with terrorism like I do not want to live with socialism, communism, dictatorships and every other terrible social and political disorder.
Nobody denies that. I don´t want to live with all this either. However, it seems to me you don´t understand our criticism: we´re not averse to action, we´re just averse to action that is erratic and counterproductive (in german there´s a phrase for this: they call it "blinder Aktionismus", blind actionism). As demonstrated in Afghanistan, Europe is willing to use military force where appropriate, but we don´t like sending in troops just for the sake of "doing something". The Iraq war has done nothing to counter terrorism. Indeed, it probably made things worse. What we have is a difference of opinion on the ways to fight terrorism, not on the fact that there has to be a fight.
> America has made major mistakes in its past but given its history, our track record in the last 200 years is much better than Europe, or for that matter Asia and Africa.
In what way exactly?
> The main reason is we move forward - we might take two steps back every now and then but we know by moving forward, we will progress.
I don´t agree with this: the main reason why the US didn´t make the mistakes the europeans made in the last two centuries, especially regarding colonialism, is the fact they kept to themselves and were reluctant to take part in world affairs. They only broke the mold twice in the two world wars. Only after the second world war did the US become a superpower and did they act accordingly.
> Europe needs to start acting like a major player and stop talking - it is quite tiring to listen.
No, Europe doesn´t need to stop talking. Talking isn´t inherently bad, since it can save you a lot of fighting. However, for those cases where conflict occurs despite talking, Europe needs to agree on a way to take common decisions in the very important fields of foreign policy and defense. Then we can start to act.
> Good Luck concerning demographics and military spending.
Yup, that´s where we´ll need luck. Just like you will, incidentally.

Charles Warren, USA

To Mike, in London.
Once, while I was on vacation in London, I saw the difference between Americans and Europeans. A TV reporter was discussing a pending law outlawing spanking. She matter of factly said most people opposed it, but seemed to dismiss that as unimportant. Once it was explained to the rabble that their betters knew what was best they would come around. I was struck by her attitude. In America if any politician proposed such a law there would be a torrent of fury from the American people that any government bureaucrat was going to try to tell them how to raise their kids.
The European is elitist through and through. He comes from a society where children's futures are decided by a test they took when they were twelve, which sorted them into the future elite and the future servants. He sees the government bureaucrat, the man who spent his life getting A's, as the highest form of life, a bureaucrat who models himself after the old hereditary aristocracy. The American ? Well the American attitude is best expressed by a conversation between LBJ and his old Senate mentor Sam Rayburn. LBJ, the barely educated former school teacher, was telling how awed he was by the Harvard pedigreed advisers around Kennedy. Rayburn listened and simply shrewdly said that Kennedy's Ivy League advisers were indeed smart, but he wished that they had actually ever run for office. He wished that their book learning was seasoned with the people smarts necessary to win office. Well, LBJ was so awed by his Harvard advisers that he let them talk him into Vietnam. He did not have the confidence to question their judgements. For all their "brilliance" the thought that America could actually fail, that the Vietnamese might be willing to pay any price in blood for victory never entered their mind. It was the man in the street who truly understood Vietnam ("Fight to win or get out") instead of the Ivy League intellectual with his game theory and "signals".
After all, when our equivalent of the European bureaucrat was in his heyday in the 60's and 70's what did he create ? Busing, Vietnam, the underclass, and the explosion of crime. All the result of policies that the faculties of elite academia endorsed at the time, from welfare to a soft approach to crime. The Reagan revolution was a revolt by the Regular Joe against the absence of common sense characteristic of elite academia driven social and foreign policy.
Americans trust someone who worked his way up from nothing more than they trust someone who just got straight A's. Americans trust the self made man, like Arnold, more than they do the mandarin. They trust a man who has shown that he can make decisions, take risks, commit himself to excellence, get results more than someone who can only theorize. The Europeans trust the mandarin because he looks and talks like an aristocrat and has the credentials that matter so much to them.

Jan Paul, USA

"001 Democratic Party: Since 1962, the Democrats won the presidency in four elections: 1964 (Johnson), 1976 (Carter), 1992, and 1996 (Clinton both times). Until the 1994 election, the Democrats thoroughly dominated Congress, controlling the House for 38 of 40 years from 1950 to 1994, and the Senate for 32 of the 40 years."
http://www.janda.org/ICPP/ICPP2000/Countries/0-AngloAmerica/00-USA/00-US63-00.htm
Let's assume that since the end of World War II that there was a period of a decade or so where Europe and America seemed to be fairly close in a lot of things. But since the 60's we have become more and more diverse in our collective thinking. Many in Europe feel our culture is what triggered the hatred from the Muslim population of the world. If this is the case, wouldn't the people in power be the most responsible? Wouldn't the people who controlled the legislation and the laws and policies and had the power to override even a President be somewhat responsible?
This power even includes the period of Desert Storm when the terms on Saddam Hussein were set. It includes the time when sanctions were set with U.N. approval. It includes most trade agreements. This is a period of 4 consecutive decades of one party in power of Congress.
Thought it might stimulate some comments.

Terry Walker, Internationalist

"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."
I thank Hitler and Japan for saving us in the 2nd world war. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler foolishly declared war on the USA as a result, the USA would have happily sat there making money from arms sales.
Do Europeans envy/hate success? No, but we do dislike arrogance intensely and there are many in the US with an abundance of it.
Do I hate Americans? Of course not, I for one would never have married one if I did.

Mike, London

To Charles Warren & Phil Karasick:
A few pages earlier Europeans were attacked for their egalitarian and socialist stance. Now they are elitist.
I would just point out the Bush familiy could surely be classed as the political elite- an 'aristocratic' family in all but title? Would Bush Jnr be in government without the hereditary credentials and influence of his father? Or other members of his politically active family? Or his family's millions of dollars? His own privileged education which resulted from them? Please also look of his government, which I believe is made up almost entirely of millionaires (there are no millionaires in the British government). Or we could also consider the Kennedy family for that matter?
I think your conception of Europe as some kind of feudal caste system is based on an out of date historical (if not Marxist) stereotype. Not reality.
Phil asks: 'Who are you to decide whose "intellectual ability" is "good enough" to run a country?'
I would answer: I am a voter.
My original point appears to have been misconstrued. I was attempting to express a belief in meritocracy, not that anyone is inherently superior because of background, etc. That is why I consider intelligence fairly essential to running a country. A good example that this country at least (I know embarasingly little about other European politicians, I'm afraid) functions on meritocracy and not the class system you suggest would be the current British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott- as the son of a railway signalman from Wales he was not born into privilege, he is a former chef and sailor, who some years later studied politics and economics at Oxford, whilst rising through the political ranks.
To sum up my point, and attempt to make it relevant- I don't think class structures in politics really represent a significant differential between values on either side of the Atlantic.

Michel Bastian, France

To Charles Warren:
Once, while I was on vacation in London, I saw the difference between Americans and Europeans. <...>
Interesting that you give out two examples for american "elitism", but fail to give even one example for your so-called "european mandarin elite" theory. Essentially, you´re saying Europeans are all zombies who blindly follow their political leaders without questioning them, their motives or their actions. Your argument is flawed in many ways, one of them being that you´re using prejudices, stereotypes and generalisations on a union made up of 25 different nations. There is no such thing as a "european" approach to politics or leadership. Europe is much too diverse for that. Also, you´re inferring that europeans only respect "elites" enough to vote them into office. If you look at the composition of most european parliaments and governments, you´ll find that there are lots of politicians that don´t have a university background. Take Joschka Fischer for example (I gather you know who that is). Fischer has never completed a university curriculum. He is the classic "self made man". Yet he is one of the most respected politicians in the whole of Europe.
Another mistake you´re making is thinking that americans in general only go for the "ordinary Joe" who "made good". Let´s take your prime example, George Bush jr., for example: son of a very wealthy, very powerful family. University education in Yale, then blows a lot of money on several doomed business projects. Becomes a politician because daddy introduces him to a few very influential people, including Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. They have to brief and coach George jr. for a while to get him up to speed, then he starts his curriculum through the political offices. How is George W. Bush jr. not a "mandarin elite" politician by your own definition?

Charles Warren, USA

Bastian wrote -
"> Good Luck concerning demographics and military spending.
Yup, that´s where we´ll need luck. Just like you will, incidentally."
Actually, no we won't. Our illegal immigrant asks nothing more than to become a loyal American. The Muslim immigrant to France will never become a loyal Frenchman.
And as to that old canard about the Iraq war "making terrorism" worse, an analysis that was as sound as your insistence that Palestinians would deign to communicate with America only through France (and we will leave aside the rationality of imagining that Chirac could influence Bush on your behalf), the jehadis have lost. They know it. Of course they can create carnage like the Salafists in Algeria but they lost when the Iraqi people defied them by turning out to vote. That is why Bin Laden counseled Zarqawi in the first place against basing a Sunni terror campaign in a Shiite country and now is urging him to forget about Iraq and focus on striking America directly in some way. Their weakness is and always was their need for a bandwagon effect. They have to keep scoring bigger and bigger coups to attract funds and followers. Well, they lost in Afghanistan, they lost in Kashmir, they lost on the West Bank, and they are losing in Iraq.
Bush's victory was even greater than we could have expected. The heroism of the Iraqi people in not being cowed by terror has put the entire Arab world to shame. From Beirut to Cairo to Riyadh the battle of ideas is being won by freedom, no thanks to the duplicity, envy, and malice of France.
I am surprised that you understand how America defines "intelligence". It was William Buckley, the founder of modern American conservatism who said that he would rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the Boston telephone book than the faculty of Harvard. America never believed in a utopia governed by benign experts. IQ has nothing to do with finishing what you start, planning effectively, effective risk-taking, perseverance, making sound character judgments, listening and persuading, being willing to hear what you don't want to hear, or any other of the skills that the successful self-made man has demonstrated. Americans understand that the expert is only a servant. He's the hired hand. Americans want a leader who will listen to the expert but have the confidence to ask him the tough questions that LBJ did not ask of McNamara and Bundy when they advised him to send 50,000 American boys to South Vietnam.

Pedro, Washington DC

I have spent too much of my life in the US and have traveled extensively in Europe, enough to gain a first-hand opinion of both sides. The real differences of importance between Europe and the US lie in their present political systems: the extent to which they have drifted from the democratic ideal and who has come to effect real control. After several decades of influence under leadership with hegemonic and/or militaristic bent, large segments of the population in the US have been imbued with, and have now adopted, the dominant value system of the reigning elites regarding optimum taxation levels, universality of government services, the benefits and drawbacks of exaggerated individualism, etc. even if it is to their detriment to believe so. Continuous harping about gay lifestyle, abortion, and the wisdom of using condoms are smokescreens, red meat to rally supporters and levers to culturally divide and conquer a populace that is given no real option when it comes to decisions on war & peace, or bread, guns & butter. Without question I fervently hope that a social-democratic, parliamentary Europe continues to get much stronger (even Bush says that he wants this!) as a counterbalance to an increasingly dangerous super-power. Here are my reasons why.
The lofty ideals of Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Benjamin Franklin and the rest of the 'founding fathers' are just that, ideals, quite inert before the unending drive for greater power and wealth. The original democratic republic lasted until Lincoln opened the doors to giant Trusts in oil, steel and railroads (hint: Lincoln's war was against secession not slavery which continued in everything but name for another 100 years). By the time Teddy Roosevelt attempted to shut down the floodgates of corporate involvement in government (reminds me of Putin), it was already too late.
Nowadays, the US system of government has best been described as a corporato-cracy, which has put all the elements in place needed to become rampaging fascism at a moment‚s notice. Although the innocent might want to accuse every tyrant of being a „fascist,‰ a quick glance in the nearest dictionary reveals that historic Fascism is a system of government of private economic enterprise under centralized government control, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism, racism, militarism. Without these elements, call it what you will but it won't be the fascist kind. (hint: Bush‚s grandpa together with many other bankers and industrialists from the US and across Europe nurtured Hitler‚s regime through the 1930‚s... but that is a different story).
In my view, the only thing missing in the mix for the resurgence of a modern variant of fascism in the US is someone with Hitler‚s capacity to rally the masses at home and even around the world. Just consider Hitler's record. He proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith so government functions and every school day started with prayer. Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us ." In times of war, he said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"). He created a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies. He claimed the right to strike across borders preemptively in 'self-defense' and built powerful alliances with industry including the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state (we know what followed after that). Admiringly, Time Magazine named Hitler "Man Of The Year" as it did for Bush.
But President Bush just won‚t do, not with his difficulties completing a sentence in proper English and avoiding the odd smirk when none is appropriate. The right man for the big job will need to wait another s/election cycle because everything else is seemingly at the ready.

Michel Bastian, France

To Warren:
Bastian wrote -
"> Good Luck concerning demographics and military spending.
Yup, that´s where we´ll need luck. Just like you will, incidentally."
Actually, no we won't. Our illegal immigrant asks nothing more than to become a loyal American. The Muslim immigrant to France will never become a loyal Frenchman.
Oh, please, Warren, don´t make statements about things you have absolutely no concept of other than what you hear on Fox News. There are lots of decent frenchmen that are muslims. There are also lots of decent americans that are muslims. You´re equating "muslim" with "terrorist" again. And as for your illegal immigrant who asks nothing more than to become a "loyal american", actually what he´s asking for is a better standard of living. Loyalty and national identity are very probably secondary concerns for such a person.

> And as to that old canard about the Iraq war "making terrorism" worse, an analysis that was as sound as your insistence that Palestinians would deign to communicate with America only through France (and we will leave aside the rationality of imagining that Chirac could influence Bush on your behalf), the jehadis have lost.
Have they? Surprising they keep blowing people up, then, isn´t it?
As for the palestinian problem, might I remind you that you were the one advocating the "military solution". Also, it doesn´t in the least surprise me you didn´t understand my argument about the europeans (not just the french) mediating in the palestinian conflict: had it been necessary, Europe would have had a much better position to negotiate with the palestinians than the US. However, the palestinians and the israelis seem to have found a way to resolve their differences without the both of us. So much the better.
> They know it.
Well, perhaps you´d better go there and tell them again, because it sure doesn´t look like they do.
> Of course they can create carnage like the Salafists in Algeria but they lost when the Iraqi people defied them by turning out to vote.
Errrm, you might remember not all Iraqi people turned out to vote. There were, oh, just a few Sunnis who didn´t show up, or have you forgotten those for propaganda´s sake? And then there´s this trifling matter of the Kurds wanting independence. But hey, everything´s fine, Iraq is a democracy now.
> That is why Bin Laden counseled Zarqawi in the first place against basing a Sunni terror campaign in a Shiite country and now is urging him to forget about Iraq and focus on striking America directly in some way.
You know what Bin Laden thinks? Wow, I´m impressed. You might want to phone up the CIA, I´m sure they would be interested in what you have to say.
> Their weakness is and always was their need for a bandwagon effect. They have to keep scoring bigger and bigger coups to attract funds and followers. Well, they lost in Afghanistan, they lost in Kashmir, they lost on the West Bank, and they are losing in Iraq.
"Loosing" seems to be a very broad concept to you, Warren.
> Bush's victory was even greater than we could have expected. The heroism of the Iraqi people in not being cowed by terror has put the entire Arab world to shame. From Beirut to Cairo to Riyadh the battle of ideas is being won by freedom, no thanks to the duplicity, envy, and malice of France.
Oh, yes, I forgot: the noble US are winning the fight for freedom and treacherous France is the baddie pulling the strings behind the scenes. Been reading too many Marvel comics again, haven´t you, Warren?
> I am surprised that you understand how America defines "intelligence".

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Terry Walker:
RE: your comment ("I thank Hitler and Japan for saving us in the 2nd world war. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler foolishly declared war on the USA as a result, the USA would have happily sat there making money from arms sales.")
The US did not sell weaponry to the Axis powers -- only to England and other nations that would later (several years later) become US Allies during World War II. The US imposed an embargo on the sale of oil and scrap metal to Japan. This embargo was a major factor in Japan's decision to attack the US at Pearl Harbor. At a time when the US was supposedly "neutral" and "nonaligned", and well before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the USA into the war, US warships were already escorting convoys bound for Britain. The US Lend-Lease Act gave Britain 50 surplus US warships and hundreds of thousands of rifles, ammunition and other war material. Winston Churchill himself observed that the Lend-Lease Act was "a decidedly un-neutral act" that "would surely have justified" Gemrany declaring war on the US. American pilots served in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Before the USA ever formally declared war on Germany, American sailors died aboard vessels torpedoed by Nazi U-boats.
Of course we made money from arms sales. Arms sales are a business, not a charity. It's not a "non-profit" operation. Did you think we were "supposed" to simply "give away" the weaponry for "free"? Do "you" work for free? I don't. I expect to get paid and be well-compensated for the work that I do and for what I produce.
RE: your comment ("Do Europeans envy/hate success?"). Yes, of course they do. I thought everyone knew that. It's not exactly a secret. The current argument in Britain over fox hunting is a perfect example of this. Supposedly it's about "animal welfare" and "preventing cruelty to animals", but everyone knows it's really a thinly-disguised continuation of class warfare, with left-wing elitist city dwellers and their socialist representatives ramming through laws to essentially impoose their will and their lifestyle on the rural populace, as well as "take the wealthy gentry down a peg or two".

Marcos, Barcelona, Spain

The french author E. Todd made an interesting suggestion as to where the roots of value differences between Europeans and Americans may lie.
In his view current European (or Japanese) mainstream values are the result of a millenary struggle between uneducated peasants and a relatively scarce nature, suffering compounded by submission to a warrior-minded elite. By comparison the american experience is, mostly, that of an already educated workforce colonising a land of seemingly unending natural resources.
Todd suggests that the basic outlook to life resulting from both experiences is fundamentally different. Europeans have ingrained in them the notions of self-contained equilibrium and its fragility. Americans do not think so, and believe in permanent expansion.
The american experience has been relatively brief. One of its fundamental tenets (expansion in a land of plenty) may be also approaching its end, and, morever, seems terribly inadequate for the 6billion-and-growing planet we're living in.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London:
I asked the question, "Who are you to decide whose "intellectual ability" is "good enough" to run a country?". Mike in London replied: "I would answer: I am a voter." You may be a voter in YOUR country, but you are not a voter in MY country abnd are not going to be one, either. Therefore you have no say over who we in America decide is sufficiently "intellectually qualified" to be President of the United States.
Mike in London also stated: "(a) Would Bush Jr. be in government without the hereditary credentials and influence of his father? Or other members of his politically active family? (b) Or his family's millions of dollars? (c) His own privileged education which resulted from them? (d) Please also look of his government, which I believe is made up almost entirely of millionaires (there are no millionaires in the British government)."
My responses are as follows: (a) Yes, I believe Bush Jr. would be in government without the supposedly 'hereditary credentials' and influence of his father. Having a famous name is very useful, no question about that, but it doesn't "guarantee" success in politics in America. Bush is in the Presidency at least partly because he has the experience of being governor of Texas, a position he won resoundingly over an established Texas liberal. (b) Having millions of dollars certainly helpsin politics, no question about that, but once again, it doesn't "guarantee" success in politics in America. Numerous elections in America have been lost by well-funded people who thought their money could "buy" them electoral success. (c) Bush's "priveleged education" played little role in his later success. (He was a lousy student, and he freely admits he was a lousy student. He majored in Beer 101, as did quite a lot of students at the time). (d) So, he's got people in government who are millionaires. So what? Did it ever occur to you that the reason they're millionaires is because they're successful in life and in business? Did it ever occur to you that the reason that they are, in fact, successful in life and in business is because they're BETTER than other people? Why shouldn't Bush have millionaires in government? The Democrats have plenty of supporters who are millionaires and who donate millions of dollars in an effor to influence elections and government policies. Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon and George Soros all come to mind.
You are claiming that "there are no millionaires in the British government"? Then how was Tony Blair's wife able to afford that expensive home that caused the minor scandal for her? Personally, I wouldn't trust any government that didn't have any millionaires in it. I want government to be run by people who are smart and successful -- not by people who are unsuccessful in business and embittered enough to impose their anti-business agenda as a way of "getting even" for their own failures.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Pedro in Washington, D.C. wrote: "Admiringly, Time Magazine named Hitler "Man Of The Year" as it did for Bush." Time Magazine does not name people "Man of the Year" out of "admiration". It awards that title to the person who is deemed to have most influenced and affected the world around them, in either a positive OR negative manner. The award is not an indication of "admiration" and is not based on a "popularity contest".
Michel Bastian in France wrote: " How is George W. Bush Jr. not a "mandarin elite" politician by your own definition?" George W. Bush did not rely on "Daddy's" name and East Coast dynasty to get elected and re-elected Governor of Texas. Texas voters don't care for blue-blooded white-glove aristocrats. They care about issues and leadership. And they prefer their leaders to be plain-spoken, direct, blunt and conservative.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian --
RE: your comment (" I hate to support Phil on anything ;-) ")
Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. Your secret's safe with me. I wouldn't want your reputation on here to be ruined by any guilt-by-association ;-)

Ben Piggot, USA

I feel compelled to post my thoughts, as I have a foot in both camp - quite literally. My mother is American, from Southern California, my dad is British, born in Northern Ireland, but raised in Liverpool. I lived the first nine years of my life in London, moved to Philadelphia, and have since lived in Philly, Columbus, Ohio, Seattle, as well as spending four years in Canada.
As to the broader question, I think the values are different. Personally, I prefer the "European" way, but not wholeheartedly. I think countries like France and Germany have serious problems, especially regarding what I view to be overregulated economies. I'd prefer to live in the UK or Canada, which seem to me to strike a good balance between the two world views.
Folks, its ultimately a trade-off. Americans value money, the acquisition of things for the sake of things, big cars, big houses,, and higher economic growth over things like public transport, free healthcare, free time, leisure, etc.. Americans tend to be more goal oriented, while Europeans tend to be more process oriented. Americans tend to value action; Europeans, thought. I also think religiousity is a clear difference between the two. In all of the above, I tend to favor the European way more, but not universally so, because I also strongly believe that capitalism is the best economic system out there. Not that Europeans "hate capitalism," but I think Europeans (with the exception of the, to a degree, of the British), accept levels of regulation that I think ultimately detrimental to the benefits capitalism can provide. To big up the US, however, I think in many ways the United States is a less racist country than many places in Europe, if only because the US has had to deal with race as a profound and central element of its national existence for a long time in a way that European nations - with the exception of France and Britain - really haven't.
I also think the United States' rather short history - comparatively speaking - and the fact the United States has never suffered a catastrophic military defeat (OK, the US was defeated in Vietnam and the War of 1812, but these weren't exactly WWI) or experienced an extended period of national decline contributes to a sense of the nation's exceptionalism, and also, I think, the nation's profound religiousity (ie, the nation has never really faced a moment that one could consider a "crisis of faith")
I guess ultimately, what I prefer about Europe is not really to do with economics or war or the politics of the nation state, but the way in which the Europeans are more relaxed and less frenetic and that European living environments (definetly including Britain here) - i.e. its towns, its cities, even its suburbs - seem to me to be much more people friendly and conducive to exciting, invigorating public life, while the spatial tendency is to retreat into a big home in the suburbs one can only really reach by a car - which I think robs life of excitement.
Again, one can take exception with my judgement. I don't find a big house in suburbia a particularly fulfilling life. But I certainly don't begrudge others their choice. As such, I kind of find this whole debate about "who's doing it better" completely irrelevent. To each his/her own, I say.

I obviously generalize. America is not monolithic and I think that Bush as president obscures this diversity. There are many, many parts of the United States that don't conform to the stereotypes offered up by both sides of the debate here. Indeed, most big cities and college towns - "blue America," if you will - are much for lack of a better term, more "European" in outlook. Also, while the US does tend to be more conformist, moralistic and more hostile to the welfare state, public opinion polling on many topics tend to complicate some of the stereotypes American conservatives and European critics, ironically, believe. Acceptance of homosexuality - and even gay marriage - is growing (gay marriage will be legal within my lifetime), abortion - albeit with restrictions - commands 60% support, Bush's push on SS privatization is quite unpopular, to cite several important recent domestic political debates. Even support for drug decriminilaztion is growing (at 40% in a recent poll I saw) and that in favor of the death penalty is shrinking. So while the US will continue to have a political culture to the right of Europe's, I think Bush's ascendancy and the effect of 9/11 on geopolitics tends to exaggerate some of these differences.

Ross Gurung, France

Obviously, I was quite overwhelmed with joy by going thru’ Antoine’s lines (domiciled in the US) with his flash of wit and genius. Indeed, this new cybernetics era grants us more and more satisfaction. The younger ones of this new term which is supposed to be coined to describe the Information technological movement, make us appraise that intelligence of thought does exist. We no longer have to reiterate such fathomless tiff, required to make some one kowtow before the rhetoric humbugs of some jaded buggers. In vain, they did try to nip in the bud your blast of fresh breeze. This fall, I give you a treat.
Overall, you do forcibly neither need to be a religious crank to vociferate the bullshit of slanders and nor need to be a dud in dire straits to jot down something on this board. I shall admire you for your fortitude as well as for your Eagle like paramount attitudes. Further, the same above mentioned flies over the sky, caring not at all about the tiny birds who run around beating the bushes, at the ground level, in search of crap for their every day’s keep.
Albeit, I’m dead sure that you’ve the real seed of a trendsetter as well as have the prick of conscience. Those who tried to disdain and disown you of your such a personal integrity and, furthermore, such frank, prompt and untied reflections, you ought to make them nonplussed and keep yourself far off their uppishness by reminding yourself of the following stanzas; I, hereby, amicably recommend you to go thru' ‘em;
Where the mind is without fear
And the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free,
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth,
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habits;
Where the mind is led by thee into ever widening thought and action;
Into that heaven of freedom, My Father, let my country awake.
Tagore(N. prize-1913)
In brief, the brand new aforesaid flavor of the States as you kindly underlined is indeed a matter of concern to brood over and have got to check-up if something concrete has been brewing at that end. Would that be a potential example to be followed on or is it just at odds with our European ‘Cartesian way’ of thinking? Instead of bluntly ignoring it as only a hollow shamming.
And a kid of 8, born and brought up at Reims (north of Paris in France) could calculate a total sum of 13 to the power 13 in a matter of 3 seconds!! How come,is that possible? I reckon, he makes no mind calculation. Instead, he’s a tremendous faculty of visual memorization of ciphers once he happened to see them on the computer console. Anyway, he’s already an ace of computer. In plus, if he acquires the technological know-how of “FRACTAL” (now taught in Masters with Quanta theory) his generation would definitely monopolize the so-called renowned nectar of ‘legendary Jar of Grail.’ And so on and so forth.
“Bliss was it that in dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven.”
(About The French Revolution)-Wordsworth.

Raul Gay, Spain

Ladislav Éhn, from Slovakia has said that Europe has no values, no ideologies, that it's a impossible project and its culture is down.
I think that the best thing in Eorupe today is that there is no ideology. There are different ways of thinking. There's no "European Dream", and that's is a good thing. We have had too many "Dreams": the Roman Empire dream, the Catholic Spanish Empire dream, the napoleonic dream, the hitlerian dream...
I don't want more dreams, they have caused too many blood. And, i must say, the American Dream, still causes it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Here is an interesting commentary about America's current relationship with our European cousins.

see EUROPEAN SENTIMENT http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson030405.html

Mike Booth, Spain

The word/concept we see most these days, the subject of articles, programs, discussions at all levels, from coffee shops to international political forums is: terrorism.
But I have never seen anybody even try to define the word in today's complex and truculent context.
Could someone please tell me: What is terrorism? Who are the terrorists? Is it just desperate Arab kids who tape explosives to their bodies?
We must clear up these issues before we we can start discussing what to do about them, I submit.

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

Debate - Page 5/13