[Changleen]

This is an article from Newsweek that was published in their International Editions, but was not published in the US version, for whatever reason. Good article IMNSHO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857387/site/newsweek/

Not long ago, the American dream was a global fantasy. Not only Americans saw themselves as a beacon unto nations. So did much of the rest of the world. East Europeans tuned into Radio Free Europe. Chinese students erected a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square.

You had only to listen to George W. Bush's Inaugural Address last week (invoking "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times) to appreciate just how deeply Americans still believe in this founding myth. For many in the world, the president's rhetoric confirmed their worst fears of an imperial America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests. But the greater danger may be a delusional America—one that believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the American Dream lives on, that America remains a model for the world, one whose mission is to spread the word.

The gulf between how Americans view themselves and how the world views them was summed up in a poll last week by the BBC. Fully 71 percent of Americans see the United States as a source of good in the world. More than half view Bush's election as positive for global security. Other studies report that 70 percent have faith in their domestic institutions and nearly 80 percent believe "American ideas and customs" should spread globally.

Foreigners take an entirely different view: 58 percent in the BBC poll see Bush's re-election as a threat to world peace. Among America's traditional allies, the figure is strikingly higher: 77 percent in Germany, 64 percent in Britain and 82 percent in Turkey. Among the 1.3 billion members of the Islamic world, public support for the United States is measured in single digits. Only Poland, the Philippines and India viewed Bush's second Inaugural positively.

Tellingly, the anti-Bushism of the president's first term is giving way to a more general anti-Americanism. A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country. Says Doug Miller of GlobeScan, which conducted the BBC report: "President Bush has further isolated America from the world. Unless the administration changes its approach, it will continue to erode America's good name, and hence its ability to effectively influence world affairs." Former Brazilian president Jose Sarney expressed the sentiments of the 78 percent of his countrymen who see America as a threat: "Now that Bush has been re-elected, all I can say is, God bless the rest of the world."

The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard, they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements. The loss of faith in the American Dream goes beyond this swaggering administration and its war in Iraq. A President Kerry would have had to confront a similar disaffection, for it grows from the success of something America holds dear: the spread of democracy, free markets and international institutions—globalization, in a word.

Countries today have dozens of political, economic and social models to choose from. Anti-Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America, where countries have established their own distinctive ways—none made in America. Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law—a model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. In Asia, the rise of autocratic capitalism in China or Singapore is as much a "model" for development as America's scandal-ridden corporate culture. "First we emulate," one Chinese businessman recently told the board of one U.S. multinational, "then we overtake."

Many are tempted to write off the new anti-Americanism as a temporary perturbation, or mere resentment. Blinded by its own myth, America has grown incapable of recognizing its flaws. For there is much about the American Dream to fault. If the rest of the world has lost faith in the American model—political, economic, diplomatic—it's partly for the very good reason that it doesn't work as well anymore.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: Once upon a time, the U.S. Constitution was a revolutionary document, full of epochal innovations—free elections, judicial review, checks and balances, federalism and, perhaps most important, a Bill of Rights. In the 19th and 20th centuries, countries around the world copied the document, not least in Latin America. So did Germany and Japan after World War II. Today? When nations write a new constitution, as dozens have in the past two decades, they seldom look to the American model.

When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in. They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies," he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories."

So it is elsewhere. After American planes and bombs freed the country, Kosovo opted for a European constitution. Drafting a post-apartheid constitution, South Africa rejected American-style federalism in favor of a German model, which leaders deemed appropriate for the social-welfare state they hoped to construct. Now fledgling African democracies look to South Africa as their inspiration, says John Stremlau, a former U.S. State Department official who currently heads the international relations department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg: "We can't rely on the Americans." The new democracies are looking for a constitution written in modern times and reflecting their progressive concerns about racial and social equality, he explains. "To borrow Lincoln's phrase, South Africa is now Africa's 'last great hope'."

Much in American law and society troubles the world these days. Nearly all countries reject the United States' right to bear arms as a quirky and dangerous anachronism. They abhor the death penalty and demand broader privacy protections. Above all, once most foreign systems reach a reasonable level of affluence, they follow the Europeans in treating the provision of adequate social welfare is a basic right. All this, says Bruce Ackerman at Yale University Law School, contributes to the growing sense that American law, once the world standard, has become "provincial." The United States' refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain terrorist suspects, to ratify global human-rights treaties such as the innocuous Convention on the Rights of the Child or to endorse the International Criminal Court (coupled with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) only reinforces the conviction that America's Constitution and legal system are out of step with the rest of the world.

 

[Changleen]

Part Deux:

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY: The American Dream has always been chiefly economic—a dynamic ideal of free enterprise, free markets and individual opportunity based on merit and mobility. Certainly the U.S. economy has been extraordinarily productive. Yes, American per capita income remains among the world's highest. Yet these days there's as much economic dynamism in the newly industrializing economies of Asia, Latin America and even eastern Europe. All are growing faster than the United States. At current trends, the Chinese economy will be bigger than America's by 2040. Whether those trends will continue is not so much the question. Better to ask whether the American way is so superior that everyone else should imitate it. And the answer to that, increasingly, is no.

Much has made, for instance, of the differences between the dynamic American model and the purportedly sluggish and overregulated "European model." Ongoing efforts at European labor-market reform and fiscal cuts are ridiculed. Why can't these countries be more like Britain, businessmen ask, without the high tax burden, state regulation and restrictions on management that plague Continental economies? Sooner or later, the CW goes, Europeans will adopt the American model—or perish.

Yet this is a myth. For much of the postwar period Europe and Japan enjoyed higher growth rates than America. Airbus recently overtook Boeing in sales of commercial aircraft, and the EU recently surpassed America as China's top trading partner. This year's ranking of the world's most competitive economies by the World Economic Forum awarded five of the top 10 slots—including No. 1 Finland—to northern European social democracies. "Nordic social democracy remains robust," writes Anthony Giddens, former head of the London School of Economics and a "New Labour" theorist, in a recent issue of the New Statesman, "not because it has resisted reform, but because it embraced it."

This is much of the secret of Britain's economic performance as well. Lorenzo Codogno, co-head of European economics at the Bank of America, believes the British, like Europeans elsewhere, "will try their own way to achieve a proper balance." Certainly they would never put up with the lack of social protections afforded in the American system. Europeans are aware that their systems provide better primary education, more job security and a more generous social net. They are willing to pay higher taxes and submit to regulation in order to bolster their quality of life. Americans work far longer hours than Europeans do, for instance. But they are not necessarily more productive—nor happier, buried as they are in household debt, without the time (or money) available to Europeans for vacation and international travel. George Monbiot, a British public intellectual, speaks for many when he says, "The American model has become an American nightmare rather than an American dream."

Just look at booming bri-tain. Instead of cutting social welfare, Tony Blair's Labour government has expanded it. According to London's Centre for Policy Studies, public spending in Britain represented 43 percent of GDP in 2003, a figure closer to the Eurozone average than to the American share of 35 percent. It's still on the rise—some 10 percent annually over the past three years—at the same time that social welfare is being reformed to deliver services more efficiently. The inspiration, says Giddens, comes not from America, but from social-democratic Sweden, where universal child care, education and health care have been proved to increase social mobility, opportunity and, ultimately, economic productivity. In the United States, inequality once seemed tolerable because America was the land of equal opportunity. But this is no longer so. Two decades ago, a U.S. CEO earned 39 times the average worker; today he pulls in 1,000 times as much. Cross-national studies show that America has recently become a relatively difficult country for poorer people to get ahead. Monbiot summarizes the scientific data: "In Sweden, you are three times more likely to rise out of the economic class into which you were born than you are in the U.S."

Other nations have begun to notice. Even in poorer, pro-American Hungary and Poland, polls show that only a slender minority (less than 25 percent) wants to import the American economic model. A big reason is its increasingly apparent deficiencies. "Americans have the best medical care in the world," Bush declared in his Inaugural Address. Yet the United States is the only developed democracy without a universal guarantee of health care, leaving about 45 million Americans uninsured. Nor do Americans receive higher-quality health care in exchange. Whether it is measured by questioning public-health experts, polling citizen satisfaction or survival rates, the health care offered by other countries increasingly ranks above America's. U.S. infant mortality rates are among the highest for developed democracies. The average Frenchman, like most Europeans, lives nearly four years longer than the average American. Small wonder that the World Health Organization rates the U.S. healthcare system only 37th best in the world, behind Colombia (22nd) and Saudi Arabia (26th), and on a par with Cuba.

The list goes on: ugly racial tensions, sky-high incarceration rates, child-poverty rates higher than any Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development country except Mexico—where Europe, these days, inspires more admiration than the United States. "Their solutions feel more natural to Mexicans because they offer real solutions to real, and seemingly intractable, problems," says Sergio Aguayo, a prominent democracy advocate in Mexico City, referring to European education, health care and social policies. And while undemocratic states like China may, ironically, be among the last places where the United States still presents an attractive political and social alternative to authoritarian government, new models are rising in prominence. Says Julie Zhu, a college student in Beijing: "When I was in high school I thought America was this dreamland, a fabled place." Anything she bought had to be American. Now that's changed, she says: "When people have money, they often choose European products." She might well have been talking about another key indicator. Not long ago, the United States was destination number one for foreign students seeking university educations. Today, growing numbers are going elsewhere—to other parts of Asia, or Europe. You can almost feel the pendulum swinging.

FOREIGN POLICY: U.S. leaders have long believed military power and the American Dream went hand in hand. World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the —World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries. NATO and the Marshall Plan were the twin pillars upon which today's Europe were built.

Today, Americans make the same presumption, confusing military might with right. Following European criticisms of the Iraq war, the French became "surrender monkeys." The Germans were opportunistic ingrates. The British (and the Poles) were America's lone allies. Unsurprisingly, many of those listening to Bush's Inaugural pledge last week to stand with those defying tyranny saw the glimmerings of an argument for invading Iran: Washington has thus far shown more of an appetite for spreading ideals with the barrel of a gun than for namby-pamby hearts-and-minds campaigns. A former French minister muses that the United States is the last "Bismarckian power"—the last country to believe that the pinpoint application of military power is the critical instrument of foreign policy.

Contrast that to the European Union—pioneering an approach based on civilian instruments like trade, foreign aid, peacekeeping, international monitoring and international law—or even China, whose economic clout has become its most effective diplomatic weapon. The strongest tool for both is access to huge markets. No single policy has contributed as much to Western peace and security as the admission of 10 new countries—to be followed by a half-dozen more—to the European Union. In country after country, authoritarian nationalists were beaten back by democratic coalitions held together by the promise of joining Europe. And in the past month European leaders have taken a courageous decision to contemplate the membership of Turkey, where the prospect of EU membership is helping to create the most stable democratic system in the Islamic world. When historians look back, they may see this policy as being the truly epochal event of our time, dwarfing in effectiveness the crude power of America.

The United States can take some satisfaction in this. After all, it is in large part the success of the mid-century American Dream—spreading democracy, free markets, social mobility and multilateral cooperation—that has made possible the diversity of models we see today. This was enlightened statecraft of unparalleled generosity. But where does it leave us? Americans still invoke democratic idealism. We heard it in Bush's address, with his apocalyptic proclamation that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." But fewer and fewer people have the patience to listen.

Headlines in the British press were almost contemptuous: DEFIANT BUSH DOES NOT MENTION THE WAR, HAVE I GOT NUKES FOR YOU and HIS SECOND-TERM MISSION: TO END TYRANNY ON EARTH. Has this administration learned nothing from Iraq, they asked? Can this White House really expect to command support from the rest of the world, with its different strengths and different dreams? The failure of the American Dream has only been highlighted by the country's foreign-policy failures, not caused by them. The true danger is that Americans do not realize this, lost in the reveries of greatness, speechifying about liberty and freedom.

 

[reflux]

Dude, you are totally trying to invade on our freedoms and liberties. Why are you spreading such intruthitudes???

 

[Jr_Bullit]

No worries...once the tables finally fully tip and the US is on or near the bottom econimically in comparison to its peers and it is forced to look hard upon itself, our next generation of whiners who feel they are entitled to having respect, money, and toys fed to them on a silver platter will simply whine to the world "poor us" "don't you feel sorry for us" "you should be paying us because we made you what you are"

Or some other BS that we're so great at generating.

 

[Discostu]

They only say that because they hate freedom and are jealous

 

[MMike]

I wish I hated freedom. I'm so jealous....

 

[sanjuro]

Bush is certainly bringing us down in the World View, but I still challenge any country with our diversity to do the things we do.

Northern Europe: they might be better than us, but when 30% of their population suddenly changes from blonde and white to minority, get back to me.
Southern Europe: France has strikes when the national gov't takes away a holiday. A quarter of Spain wants to separate. So on and so forth.
China: You got to be kidding. Hey I am going exercise down by the park with my Falun Gong class. I will see you in 20 years.
Africa and South America: No comment.

My perception of the American Dream is what we do here. I think we are doing a horrible job in Foreign Policy, but I blame one person for that. What happens here is all our responsiblity. As for the American Dream and few people sharing it:

 

[Silver]

Does that chart have gross numbers, or are they normalized for population?

edit: Doesn't look like it.

 

[Silver]

Here are the numbers adjusted for population (only used the 1995-2000 migration numbers, which understates Germany by a lot when you look at their numbers from 1985-1995. Population figures from CIA world factbook, 2005 estimates)

Country Net as % of Pop
Australia 2.359
Canada 2.195
France 0.320
Germany 1.121
Italy 1.012
Netherlands 0.981
Norway 0.958
Sweden 0.489
United Kingdom 0.786
United States 2.113

Looks a little different, doesn't it?

 

[sanjuro]

I noticed those numbers. Australia has a higher percentage to the US of immigrants compared to the size of their population, which makes sense considering the different in country population (20 mil vs 295 mil)

US still has it on sheer numbers of immigrants:

 

[Discostu]

I wish I hated freedom. I'm so jealous....

You must be Canadian then?

Oh and I should have added some of these to my first post

I have terrible e-manners.

 

[Changleen]

Bush is certainly bringing us down in the World View, but I still challenge any country with our diversity to do the things we do.

Northern Europe: they might be better than us, but when 30% of their population suddenly changes from blonde and white to minority, get back to me.
Southern Europe: France has strikes when the national gov't takes away a holiday. A quarter of Spain wants to separate. So on and so forth.
China: You got to be kidding. Hey I am going exercise down by the park with my Falun Gong class. I will see you in 20 years.
Africa and South America: No comment.

Sorry, why is diversity such a crippling handicap again? I think I missed that memo...

My perception of the American Dream is what we do here. I think we are doing a horrible job in Foreign Policy, but I blame one person for that.

Well, there's more than one, but 'a select group' would be fair enough.

 

[Changleen]

More criticism of Bush's foreign policy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4580991.stm

Amnesty accuses US over 'torture'

Governments around the world betrayed their commitment to human rights in 2004, Amnesty International says.

In a 300-page annual report, the group accused the US government of damaging human rights with its attitude to torture and treatment of detainees.

This granted "a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity", the human rights advocates said.

In Washington, a White House spokesman branded the allegations "ridiculous and unsupported by the facts."

"The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity. We have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have worked to advance freedom and democracy in the world," said Scott McClellan.

'No safer'

The report also criticised the world as a whole for failing to act over crises, notably in Sudan's Darfur region.

Afghanistan was slipping into a "downward spiral of lawlessness and instability", it added.

Published on Wednesday, the report accused governments of adhering stubbornly to "politically convenient" but inefficient tactics to address terrorism in 2004, despite what Amnesty saw as a lack of success.

The televised beheading of captives in Iraq, the bombing of commuter trains in Madrid and the siege at a school in Beslan in Russia showed that "four years after 9/11, the promise to make the world a safer place remains hollow", secretary general Irene Khan said.

In Iraq some of the violence could be blamed on armed groups but the report also blamed US-led coalition forces for "unlawful killings, torture and other violations".

"Torture and ill-treatment by US-led forces were widely reported," it added.

The report also highlighted the London-based organisation's concerns about:

* A lack of accountability for human rights violations in Haiti and in the Democratic Republic of Congo

* Reported abuses by Russian forces in Chechnya

* New levels of brutality against civilians by armed groups in places like Iraq

* Slow progress in achieving the Millennium Development goals

* Indifference to violence against women

* Lack of a full independent investigation into abuses against detainees in US custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

'Unfair trials'

In its wide-ranging review of 131 countries and five world regions, Amnesty International said the US government's selective disregard for international law and reported abuses of detainees was sending a "permissive signal to abusive governments".

"The US, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide," she said.

"When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity."

The administration was seeking "to dilute the absolute ban on torture", Ms Khan added.

Rejecting Amnesty's charges, Mr McClellan said the US investigated all allegations of abuse.

"We hold people accountable when there's abuse. We take steps to prevent it from happening again. And we do so in a very public way for the world to see that we lead by example and that we do have values that we hold very dearly and believe in," he told reporters in Washington.

Ms Khan also condemned the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for failing to stand up for those supposedly in its care.

"The UN Commission of Human Rights has become a forum for horse-trading on human rights," she said.

"Last year the commission dropped Iraq from scrutiny, could not agree on action on Chechnya, Nepal or Zimbabwe and was silent on Guantanamo Bay."

Lameness all round. I think it's a little unfair to blame the US for all the torture going on in the world, but when 'freedom and democracy' are supposed to have been spread using tools of facism and death, you've gotta start asking questions. And more importantly, as the report alludes to, 'freedom and democracy' in Afghanistan and Iraq are, in reality, a long way off. America loves to ignore it, but Afghanistan is 2 countries now, and Iraq isn't exactly safe and secure. On top of this there is more hate and animosity floating round the world right now than there has been for a long time, and most of it is directed in one direction in particular.

 

[sanjuro]

Sorry, why is diversity such a crippling handicap again? I think I missed that memo...

Racial tension, economic differences, educational levels, even the language. I think we do a good job dealing with these things and succeeding in many fields.

I just hate people pointing out how Sweden or some other homogenous country has a wonderful government and social system, without prefacing the difference between these countries and America.

 

[Changleen]

Racial tension, economic differences, educational levels, even the language. I think we do a good job dealing with these things and succeeding in many fields.

I just hate people pointing out how Sweden or some other homogenous country has a wonderful government and social system, without prefacing the difference between these countries and America.

All those issues are directly tied to a lack of decent social policies and education. It's not like Europe has no ethnic groups. Holland for example has nearly 2 million Muslims in a population of 16 million (Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians) (1999 est.).

The UK has a massive immigrant population as does Spain, Italy, France - hell everywhere in Europe. If badly handled, then immigrant groups can cause social tensions. There are examples of this in Europe too. (see Southall in London, or the Ghettos of Eastern Paris). However, a population composed of various ethnic groups also brings significant advantages. Diversity of ideas and culture brings innovation, a dynamic market and in a lot of cases enables business to operate in new ways. To bring this to it's lowest example, look how many Mexican gardeners there are in SoCal and Arizona. The southern US is also the best place in the world to get decent Mexican food. How many millions of dollars do these places generate in tax each year? Immigration is not inherantly bad, in fact it can and should be a good thing if handled properly by government. And it certainly has little to do with the way America is handling itself on the world stage.

 

[sanjuro]

All those issues are directly tied to a lack of decent social policies and education. It's not like Europe has no ethnic groups. Holland for example has nearly 2 million Muslims in a population of 16 million (Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians) (1999 est.).

The UK has a massive immigrant population as does Spain, Italy, France - hell everywhere in Europe. If badly handled, then immigrant groups can cause social tensions. There are examples of this in Europe too. (see Southall in London, or the Ghettos of Eastern Paris). However, a population composed of various ethnic groups also brings significant advantages. Diversity of ideas and culture brings innovation, a dynamic market and in a lot of cases enables business to operate in new ways. To bring this to it's lowest example, look how many Mexican gardeners there are in SoCal and Arizona. The southern US is also the best place in the world to get decent Mexican food. How many millions of dollars do these places generate in tax each year? Immigration is not inherantly bad, in fact it can and should be a good thing if handled properly by government. And it certainly has little to do with the way America is handling itself on the world stage.

Obvious I agree that diversity is a positive thing, otherwise I made a huge mistake moving to San Francisco.

On a segue, my sister, an assistant principal at a local school, tells me that one of her teachers has been saying very nasty racial epthiets in school. I might normally defend's one right to say these things, but not in a SF school. No way around that one.

 

[Changleen]

Obvious I agree that diversity is a positive thing, otherwise I made a huge mistake moving to San Francisco.

On a segue, my sister, an assistant principal at a local school, tells me that one of her teachers has been saying very nasty racial epthiets in school. I might normally defend's one right to say these things, but not in a SF school. No way around that one.

I think San Fran is a great example of the positive side of diversity. I thought it was a great, relaxed friendly place when I lived there. I think diversity gives it it's character and defines it's attitude, and IMO it's one of the coolest places in the US.

As for your racist teacher, wow, way to breed social resentment. How utterly shortsighted. Sack that bitch!

 

[dan-o]

All those issues are directly tied to a lack of decent social policies and education. It's not like Europe has no ethnic groups. Holland for example has nearly 2 million Muslims in a population of 16 million (Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians) (1999 est.).

.

Based on my 2 years of living in NL I can tell you there is plenty of racial tension in NL if you look beyond the 'tolerance' curtain.

 

[Silver]

Based on my 2 years of living in NL I can tell you there is plenty of racial tension in NL if you look beyond the 'tolerance' curtain.

When's the last time you had a race riot within 25 miles of your house?

13 years for me....

 

[Changleen]

This thread is getting kinda sidetracked

 

[reflux]

This thread is getting kinda sidetracked

Oh yeah, back to the main point...I WANT MY FREEDOM!!!

 

[MikeD]

I, for one, think we should follow the European example...say, France in North Africa or Indochina...or its current weapons sales around the world...

Now that you mention it, it seems as though America IS following the European example.

Seriously, I'm as self-critical (in a constructive way, anyhow) an American as you're likely to find, and don't think "everyone else does it" is a valid excuse, but it's really grating to hear self-righteous criticism from the European nations that, by and large, ****ed the world up in the first place.

And I do think the nation is going to have to look at itself long and hard in the mirror one of these days and see the unhealthiness we've helped breed domestically and abroad. I hope this happens before we become impotent and insignificant, because, in a phyics parallel, we've got too much mass to stop producing energy...if we collapse, it'll be catastrophic internally and for anyone unable to escape the gravity well. (or is that the event horizon?)

I do think one of the nicest things about a parliamentary system is the brutal and public scrutiny to which the Prime Minister is generally held, unlike the American presidential system, which is generally much more insulated from criticism.

MD

 

[Changleen]

but it's really grating to hear self-righteous criticism from the European nations that, by and large, ****ed the world up in the first place.

That article I posted was written by an American, one Andrew Moravcsik, if that's what you're referring to.

I personally think things took a turn for the worse at the end of WWII, due to the shortsightedness of England and the US at the time. Don't get me wrong they did a great job sorting themselves and most of the 'west' out, but setting up such a situation of growing inequality in the world is obviously going to come and bite you in the ass at some point.

 

[MikeD]

That article I posted was written by an American, one Andrew Moravcsik, if that's what you're referring to.

No, I was referring to the article's references to European anti-Americanism... "Anti-Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America."

It was written by an American but co-authored by an international group as cited in the end.

MD

 

[TN]

my american dream is to get the hell out.

 

[Changleen]

No, I was referring to the article's references to European anti-Americanism... "Anti-Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America."

It was written by an American but co-authored by an international group as cited in the end.

MD

Ah, OK I see.

It's true though. Anti-Americanism is pretty wide-spread in Europe and down here as well. It started off being aimed at the administration, but the longer Bush has been in power, more and more people see other Americans in the media supporting his policies, saying dumb stuff about Iraq and the Environment, buying into the whole 'freedom and democracy' bit (which is what really pisses people off I think) seemingly with zero comprehension of their hypocracy, the more the animosity towards Bush spreads to a general animosity towards the entire population. Sad but true. You guys really should split into America and Jeebusland. It'd be great!

 

[reflux]

You guys really should split into America and Jeebusland. It'd be great!

I'm a bigger fan of the California succession movement...

 

[fluff]

I, for one, think we should follow the European example...say, France in North Africa or Indochina...or its current weapons sales around the world...

Now that you mention it, it seems as though America IS following the European example.

Seriously, I'm as self-critical (in a constructive way, anyhow) an American as you're likely to find, and don't think "everyone else does it" is a valid excuse, but it's really grating to hear self-righteous criticism from the European nations that, by and large, ****ed the world up in the first place.

And I do think the nation is going to have to look at itself long and hard in the mirror one of these days and see the unhealthiness we've helped breed domestically and abroad. I hope this happens before we become impotent and insignificant, because, in a phyics parallel, we've got too much mass to stop producing energy...if we collapse, it'll be catastrophic internally and for anyone unable to escape the gravity well. (or is that the event horizon?)

I do think one of the nicest things about a parliamentary system is the brutal and public scrutiny to which the Prime Minister is generally held, unlike the American presidential system, which is generally much more insulated from criticism.

MD

It's a little strange to criticise French policy on Indochina and arms sales from the perspective of the US, but I think you just forgot the smiley...

You cannot whine about criticism from 'those who ****ed up the world in the first place' (which would make an interesting thread actually) when the US was highly critical of those nations previously. Now that the power lies with the US so does the responsibility and they need to take the criticism on the chin and quit whinging. The article implied (correctly or not) that Europe has learned lessons that the US has yet to heed.

Moving along to your comments about the parliamentary system there are many reasons to prefer the American system (as it should be practised anyway): You have two elected houses, we have one elected and one appointed (of which membership was hereditary until recently), your head of government (and head of state) is elected, our is appointed in both cases (although in case of PM there is an element of democracy). You have a realistic and effective freedom of information act.

Where the US has problems is in the way money dominates politics and that your fourth estate is spineless. Sadly those two issues are also making there presence felt in the UK as we have a PM who loves the US more than his own country.

 

[Changleen]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/americas_mess_not_bushs/

 

[MikeD]

It's a little strange to criticise French policy on Indochina and arms sales from the perspective of the US, but I think you just forgot the smiley...

Not criticising their policies per se, just pointing out that those who criticize the US are often engaged in/were recently engaged in the same behavior they decry. That's the whole point...not to say that the US is blameless, just that no one is as clean and innocent as they'd like to appear.

"Everyone is doing it" is NEVER an excuse, but it is acceptable to note that the pot is calling the kettle black.

You cannot whine about criticism from 'those who ****ed up the world in the first place' (which would make an interesting thread actually) when the US was highly critical of those nations previously. Now that the power lies with the US so does the responsibility and they need to take the criticism on the chin and quit whinging. The article implied (correctly or not) that Europe has learned lessons that the US has yet to heed.

Europe didn't "learn lessons" and magnanimously decide that the rest of the world should be free of colonialism...it got its collective ass handed to it politically, economically, and socially, and retreated, leaving a giant mess in its wake.

Should America take a lesson from this? Hell yes. Has it/"we" (collectively)? Quite astonishingly, no. (Actually, what America does seem to have learned is that success creates an air of righteousness about your ventures.)

Anyhow, my point wasn't to whine, although I understand why it's taken that way. Rather, it was intended as a brief chuckle and eye-roll to the self-righteous critics who are themselves steeped in the blood and entrails of their own shameful histories and continued actions. These same people now like to pretend that it was learning/evolution on Europe's part that led to de-colonialization, not simply the failure/unsustainability of their policies.

My personal assessment of America's national strategy isn't very positive at the moment. Don't see it creating sustainable solutions in light of the history of the world.

Moving along to your comments about the parliamentary system there are many reasons to prefer the American system (as it should be practised anyway): You have two elected houses, we have one elected and one appointed (of which membership was hereditary until recently), your head of government (and head of state) is elected, our is appointed in both cases (although in case of PM there is an element of democracy). You have a realistic and effective freedom of information act.

Where the US has problems is in the way money dominates politics and that your fourth estate is spineless. Sadly those two issues are also making there presence felt in the UK as we have a PM who loves the US more than his own country.

Yeah, I was really only commenting on that one part of the Parliamentary system...I'm frankly and obviously not intimate with the British system of government. Wouldn't say 'spineless' is the right word...more a matter of 'easily directed.' Americans will put a lot of spine into something they feel is right...it's just a matter of how easy it is to make them feel that way.

MD

 

[MikeD]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/americas_mess_not_bushs/

No way, dude. They hate freedom.

 

[fluff]

For an example of where the US has the higher moral ground over Europe we could look at Burma.

The EU really is no paragon of virtue.

 

[Changleen]

Do you get 'higher ground' per issue, or should we consider the overall result of your combined actions?

 

[fluff]

Do you get 'higher ground' per issue, or should we consider the overall result of your combined actions?

Come up with an algorithm and we'll discuss it...