The European model wouldn't work for the US

[Biggie]

I think that what’s obviously wrong with the op is the presumption that there could be anything vaguely wrong with the American way of doing anything that would conjure up a need to find any kind of answer whatsoever, never mind in the silly and very, very naughty ways of Europeans - which American contributors to the thread have so generously reiterated . . . . . where, indeed, would we naughty and very, very silly Europeans be without such sage observations?

Naughty is kind of an old world word, don’t you think? Sounds European. I think most Americans would translate that “nasty”. I’m just saying.

 

[Oscarthecat]

A fellow European, Churchill, said, “Capitalism has as its chief vice that all do not share equally in its blessings. Socialism has as its chief vice that all share equally in its miseries.”

I do not think the cultural differences you cite are sufficiently substantial to establish the result you predict. Aferall, Americans are simply disaffected Brits, Germans, Italians, Irish, etc…

I do think we have a model and a preference for Capitalism that is not shared in Europe, where modern Socialism and COmmunism were born.

I think that this is related to the general attitude toward royalty-
The whole idea of a royal class, defunct or not, reinforces the idea that the average person is unable to manage their own affairs without relying on someone else with a higher social rank or political status. In principle, they paid taxes to their local royal figure and worked on his land, and in return expected to be protected and taken care of in times of need.

I could be wrong, but I think that even though most, if not all, european countries have separated political power from their royal families, many still recognize (and apparently take lots of pictures of) their royal families.

I think that it makes sense that europeans still have this sense that they need to be taken care of by a higher social group- but now it is just an elected governmental body taxing them and taking care of them instead of a royal family.

On the other hand, rejection of the need for a royal class (and subsequently any kind of overbearing government) in favor of self-sufficiency and self-government was one of the main reason many immigrants came here in the first place, and ended up being a pretty big issue in our revolution.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I think that what’s obviously wrong with the op is the presumption that there could be anything vaguely wrong with the American way of doing anything that would conjure up a need to find any kind of answer whatsoever, never mind in the silly and very, very naughty ways of Europeans - which American contributors to the thread have so generously reiterated . . . . . where, indeed, would we naughty and very, very silly Europeans be without such sage observations?

I don’t think ther is any reason for Europeans to feel insulted just because other countries don’t want to do things their way…

-and since you brought it up, don’t chortle too strongly about our “sage observations” regarding European models- after all, without our penchant for pointing our when you’ve been “naughty” and “silly,” your “way of doing things” might still be dictated by your king or queen.:tiphat:

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think that this is related to the general attitude toward royalty-
The whole idea of a royal class, defunct or not, reinforces the idea that the average person is unable to manage their own affairs without relying on someone else with a higher social rank or political status. In principle, they paid taxes to their local royal figure and worked on his land, and in return expected to be protected and taken care of in times of need.

I could be wrong, but I think that even though most, if not all, european countries have separated political power from their royal families, many still recognize (and apparently take lots of pictures of) their royal families.

I think that it makes sense that europeans still have this sense that they need to be taken care of by a higher social group- but now it is just an elected governmental body taxing them and taking care of them instead of a royal family.

On the other hand, rejection of the need for a royal class (and subsequently any kind of overbearing government) in favor of self-sufficiency and self-government was one of the main reason many immigrants came here in the first place, and ended up being a pretty big issue in our revolution.

But didn’t France murder its royals? Of course, France later supported Napoleon, so maybe that represented repentence.

 

[cynic]

The few exceptional situations where government has a chance at doing a better job than business is when business is not interested in providing a specific service or product, because it is not seen as advantageous, such as police and military defense.

…and affordable education for children from low-income families. Not much money to be made there.

 

[cynic]

I think it might be erroneous to draw such a “bright line” between how Europeans think and how Americans think. If a lot of, say, Brits, didn’t think like a lot of Americans, Margaret Thatcher would never have held office.

.

Margaret Thatcher would be considered a socialist by the standards of the American right. She took the top tax rate down from 90% to 30%. She didn’t abolish tax, remove all funding for health and education and create a libertarian utopia where every individual fends for themselves.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Margaret Thatcher would be considered a socialist by the standards of the American right. She took the top tax rate down from 90% to 30%. She didn’t abolish tax, remove all funding for health and education and create a libertarian utopia where every individual fends for themselves.

Never have I heard a member of the “American right” even remotely suggest that Margaret Thatcher was a socialist.

No, Margaret Thatcher did not abolish tax, remove all funding for health and education or create a libertarian utopia where every individual fends for themselves. Nor did anyone else ever do those things. Nor has anyone I have ever heard of on the right ever suggested we do those things. To find advocates of that, I think you would have to look to the anarchist left.

 

[cynic]

No, Margaret Thatcher did not abolish tax, remove all funding for health and education or create a libertarian utopia where every individual fends for themselves. Nor did anyone else ever do those things. Nor has anyone I have ever heard of on the right ever suggested we do those things.

Then you havn’t heard much of a cross-section of conservative opinion then, have you.

Do I need to list all the conservative think-tanks (eg. The Cato Institute), ‘mainstream’ politicians that get airplay (eg. Ron Paul) and popular right-leaning pulbications (eg.National Review), who advocate this?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then you havn’t heard much of a cross-section of conservative opinion then, have you.

Do I need to list all the conservative think-tanks (eg. The Cato Institute), ‘mainstream’ politicians that get airplay (eg. Ron Paul) and popular right-leaning pulbications (eg.National Review), who advocate this?

The Cato Institute is libertarian, not conservative. Libertarians are generally fiscal conservatives only, but are often quite “liberal” in social policies. Ron Paul is so far from being a “mainstream” conservative, he can’t even see it from where he stands. National Review publishes a lot of articles by a lot of people, including mainstream conservatives, political moderates and libertarians, but mostly the first. Strange to tell, some of the opinions expressed in some of those articles are what most consider “liberal”. (The late W.F. Buckley’s opinion that marijuana should be decriminalized, for example.) But if you want to go ahead and cite the NR articles you have in mind, (and it seems you do) be my guest.

You need not insult me, as you did in your first sentence. There’s no need for that. You know nothing about me, or the opinions to which I have been exposed.

 

[cynic]

The Cato Institute is libertarian, not conservative. Libertarians are generally fiscal conservatives only, but are often quite “liberal” in social policies.

That common ground was what I was refering to.

Ron Paul is so far from being a “mainstream” conservative, he can’t even see it from where he stands.

Yet he appears on mainstream conservative current affairs shows like the Glenn Beck Program (Glenn describes himself as a '“libertarian at heart”).

National Review publishes a lot of articles by a lot of people, including mainstream conservatives, political moderates and libertarians, but mostly the first.

A contributer and editor of National Review Online is also the author of :

amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221447741&sr=8-1

Which is practically libertarian in all but social/moral outlook.

You need not insult me, as you did in your first sentence. There’s no need for that. You know nothing about me, or the opinions to which I have been exposed.

No offense intended

 

[Oscarthecat]

But didn’t France murder its royals? Of course, France later supported Napoleon, so maybe that represented repentence.

they rejected those rulers, but not their desire to be ruled…after all, the french revolution is a big part of the socialist tradition (the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, etc)

 

[Oscarthecat]

Margaret Thatcher would be considered a socialist by the standards of the American right. She took the top tax rate down from 90% to 30%. She didn’t abolish tax, remove all funding for health and education and create a libertarian utopia where every individual fends for themselves.

how does this, and your subsequent comments, relate to the OP?

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t think ther is any reason for Europeans to feel insulted just because other countries don’t want to do things their way…

-and since you brought it up, don’t chortle too strongly about our “sage observations” regarding European models- after all, without our penchant for pointing our when you’ve been “naughty” and “silly,” your “way of doing things” might still be dictated by your king or queen.:tiphat:

Hey, don’t mistake me for somebody who thinks the discussion can’t get sillier.

 

[steveandersen]

they rejected those rulers, but not their desire to be ruled…after all, the french revolution is a big part of the socialist tradition (the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, etc)

That is a little anachronistic,
Actually very anachronistic
That proletariat/bourgeois nonsense wouldn’t appear for several generations after 1789
(the government of Paris was called the “Commue” in French but that had noting to do with socialism. (and that proletariat/bourgeois stuff is Communistn retoric not Sociallist anyhow.))

But as to the OP,
There is no one “European Model” they run the gamut from doctors as government employees to collections of private insurers and every variation in between.

Meanwhile they spend less than we do in the USA and are healthier.

which European model don’t you think would work here and why?

 

[Shoshana]

I think that what’s obviously wrong with the op is the presumption that there could be anything vaguely wrong with the American way of doing anything that would conjure up a need to find any kind of answer whatsoever,

This is indeed a fact: whatever the US does, is the best in the whole world! Although, the rate of death for children under 5 is highest in the US.

United States Has Higher Death Rate
Than Most Other Countries

**Excerpted from **
State of the WORLD’S MOTHERS 2007
Saving the Lives of Children Under 5
Report by Save The Children
1may2007

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2007/US-Death-Rate1may07.htm

never mind in the silly and very, very naughty ways of Europeans - which American contributors to the thread have so generously reiterated . . . . . where, indeed, would we naughty and very, very silly Europeans be without such sage observations?

You forgot to mention Canada! We could use good advice also!

 

[Kaninchen]

*You forgot to mention Canada! We could use good advice also! *

Oh, from what I’ve read on CAF, Canadians must be even beyond Europeans in naughtiness and silliness, when you’re not too busy queuing at the border to see American doctors, that is.

 

[Shoshana]

Oh, from what I’ve read on CAF, Canadians must be even beyond Europeans in naughtiness and silliness, when you’re not too busy queuing at the border to see American doctors, that is.

We are the best of the best when it comes to naughtiness and silliness! Don’t ya know?

 

[Oscarthecat]

That is a little anachronistic,
Actually very anachronistic
That proletariat/bourgeois nonsense wouldn’t appear for several generations after 1789
(the government of Paris was called the “Commue” in French but that had noting to do with socialism. (and that proletariat/bourgeois stuff is Communistn retoric not Sociallist anyhow.))

I should probably let this go, since it is getting off topic, but it is such a glaring error that I can’t ignore it…

-the french revolution is a pretty well established milestone in the historical development of what would later be understood as communism and socialism…thus, it is understood to be part of the “tradition” of these ideologies.

Just googling “socialism” and “french revolution” brings up a lot of basic info on this…

for example…here is something from a lecture titled “The French Revolution and the Socialist Tradition: Early French Communists”

"The French Revolution did not directly produce the 19th century ideologies known as socialism or communism. But the Revolution did provide an intellectual and social environment in which these ideologies, and their spokesmen, could flourish. In other words, the history of the socialist tradition is something more than the words of Marx and Engels (the subject of Lecture 24). We must remember that Marx and Engels, major prophets of this tradition that they were, were educated in the peculiar circumstances of late 18th and early 19th century revolutionary activity. What, after all, would Marx and Engels have been had it not been for the French Revolution?
"

source: historyguide.org/intellect/lecture19a.html

 

[rpp]

I have lived in Japan, which ethnically is very homogeneous. This is a fact that Japanese are proud to point out. It, along with their cramped and crowded country, accounts for their low crime rate, clean and safe cities and their gift for teamwork. It also accounts for their cultural disdain for individualism and their history of militarism (which, thankfully, they appear to have abandoned, at least for the time being.)

As I read the OP, I thought about my time there. I also thought about my time in Europe and the many Europeans I know and work closely with.

I think the OP has made some important points, but she oversimplifies. That Americans have always valued the “rugged individual”. It cannot be disputed that colonization and later westward expansion separated many families and threw people of diverse backgrounds together. People who often had nothing in common but a desire, or even compulsion, to change their life in radical ways and only had weak ties to family and community.

These are just a couple of minor reasons why socialized medicine would not work in the USA.

On the other hand, socialism, perhaps even communism, might actually work in Japan. I can only pray that neither get a real foothold in Japan.

 

[Oscarthecat]

We are the best of the best when it comes to naughtiness and silliness! Don’t ya know?

I think that the French have a solid hold on first place for this…as you can clearly see from the well known historical docu-drama, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.”

French Guard: “You don’t frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!”