Dream on America: World Increasingly Rejecting US Model

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

does anyone actually attribute that to the French health care system, as opposed to lifestyle?

Well, you could easily attribute the lower rates of infant mortality and the lower number of women killed during birth to the healtcrae system, as opposed to lifestyle.

[Agathon]

Perhaps one could summarize it this way:

"Many people used to see the United States as a beacon of democracy and civic freedom; as a standard to be imitated (if not wholly copied).

These days a majority of the world's citizens, especially those in more developed societies see the United States as a tyrannical country with a flawed and corrupt political system, which spends much of its civic capital on persecuting the poor, foreigners and homosexuals. Not to mention the hypocrisy of its cavalier disregard for the welfare and opinions of others while at the same time demanding that they toe the line.

In some sense the US used to be an example of 'what to do', whereas it is now the exemplar of 'what not to do'."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


You are kidding, right? Every sad sack right wing journo advocates the world becoming more American.

LOTM - The US allows muslims to wear headscarves to school. I think quite a few rightwing journos would like to see the US emulate france in that regard. It would be more fair to say that right wing journos want the world to become more right wing, just as leftwing journos (and philosophy profs) want it to become more leftwing. This is very interesting if youre concerned about assorted sad sacks, but has nothing to do with anything important

It would be a diplomatic disaster for Bush to strongly advocate this publicly, so he doesn't. But that doesn't mean that he and his lamer advisers don't believe it.

Of course they believe it in the limited sense that any new government should serve US interests first - hence the US adoration for dictatorial regimes.

LOTM - well thats the question - is it in US interests for the world to become more like the US, or less so. Thats a matter of some debate - to which you have added nothing.


The article is basically right. The world is moving away from the US system as a model, whereas it used to be viewed much more favourably.

LOTM - come now. The US has NEVER had a full welfare state. If anything the US has a slightly bigger one now than when Dubya was elected. And in Euroland theyre reducing their welfare states (tony didnt have to so much cause Maggie did all the cutting first - poor Schroeder, he didnt have the advantage to be preceded by a Maggie) When Jack Kennedy was President the gap between US and Euro approaches to running the economy and healthcare was far greater. The current bad feeling is principally a function of different approaches to world affairs, and secondarily a reaction to the personality and religiosity of Dubya.

The reason is again obvious, the United States is an anachronistic polity with a political system that is outdated and unresponsive to the needs of present day societies.

LOTM - I doubt the US would have full euro welfare state if we had a parliamentary system, or that any major Euro state would lack one if it had a presidential system. The differences stem from deep differences in culture, class structures, etc. (I guess im too much of a Marxist for you, huh? - Fez may have been right) Attributing it to minor constitutional differences is downright silly.


If Americans had more relevant things to say, people might listen. As it stands, you look like a bunch of barbarous incompetents who can't even organize proper health care for your own citizens.

In the Ukraine, the US and Europe had common and extremely relevant things to say. The US needs to keep saying those things, and putting action behind its words. Our european allies will join us, though not all in each case. Poland didnt adopt the presidential system, but Poles will be guarding voting booths in Iraq this weekend.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Perhaps one could summarize it this way:

"Many people used to see the United States as a beacon of democracy and civic freedom; as a standard to be imitated (if not wholly copied).

These days a majority of the world's citizens, especially those in more developed societies see the United States as a tyrannical country

LOTM - despite zero change to its political system

with a flawed and corrupt political system, which spends much of its civic capital on persecuting the poor,

LOTM - the US has never had an extensive social welfare system

foreigners

LOTM - we welcome foreigners by the thousands every day. Or is this another knock on Gitmo?

and homosexuals.

LOTM - Despite a far more liberal approach to gays than in the time of say, Jack Kennedy. Very silly.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of its cavalier disregard for the welfare and opinions of others while at the same time demanding that they toe the line.

LOTM - IE its all about the unilateralism - a foreign policy dispute - see democracies CAN have bitter foreign policy disputes with each other. Now do you have any news?

In some sense the US used to be an example of 'what to do', whereas it is now the exemplar of 'what not to do'."

Ok, Aggie, tell me when the US was an example of what to do. Give me a year.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, you could easily attribute the lower rates of infant mortality and the lower number of women killed during birth to the healtcrae system, as opposed to lifestyle.

My understanding that higher rates of infant mortality in the US are associated with drug use, teen pregnancies in communities without structure, etc. Which arguably are caused by social policies, but not health care.

in any case so what. Maybe higher infant mortality IS caused by the lack of national health insurance. Tossing in something lack longer lifespans in France just takes away credibility. Dont you see GePap = theres no ARGUMENT here. Its like somebody when through his files to find negative things to say about the US, and tossed them altogether. Perfect for a poly poster, but one expects more from Newsweek. So whats the point, we shouldnt invade middle eastern countries without UNSC approval until we pass national health insurance, but then its OK? If not, whats the point? The US is unlikely to change domestic policies to win greater leeway overseas, much though Id like to see both results - and honestly, no foreign country is going to alter its opinion of specific US actions based on US domestic policy. And the folks in nondemocratic countries ARE going to aspire to demos, whatever the US is like - if US lack of healthcare means theyre more likely to pick parliamentary system vs Presidential system, who the hell cares?

This is politics at the Ted Striker level (Euro US Blue State US Bush ) not analysis.

[Agathon]

LOTM - despite zero change to its political system

Yes, reality has moved. The US hasn't. People were often prepared to give the US the benefit of the doubt as to its motivations during the Cold War. Now they don't.

LOTM - the US has never had an extensive social welfare system

So? People in other countries are now more confident than ever that this is the way to go, and they see American values as oppositional in this respect.

LOTM - we welcome foreigners by the thousands every day. Or is this another knock on Gitmo?

Cheese eating surrender monkeys anyone?

LOTM - Despite a far more liberal approach to gays than in the time of say, Jack Kennedy. Very silly.

It's not good enough. Most developed societies treated homosexuals the same way the US did during the 60s.

However, the US is the only developed country in which homophobia is a political platform and where a winning candidate can campaign on discrimination against homosexuals. In Canada the Conservative Party is having a terrible time because they know that they can't win if they are perceived as intolerant. They just lost an election that was theirs for the taking for this very reason.

LOTM - IE its all about the unilateralism - a foreign policy dispute - see democracies CAN have bitter foreign policy disputes with each other. Now do you have any news?

Nice evasion. Democracies can have bitter foreign policy disputes with each other, but they generally try to seek accommodation instead of riding roughshod over everyone.


Do you have anything interesting to say, or will you keep posting irrelevancies.

[Atahualpa]

The problem lies in the nature of America itself. The american dream was that you can do whatever you want if you just work hard enough. But that was only true as long as America was going to expand and there were enough fields were competition was low. Nowadays America is much more tightly packed and competition is high. The chance that you become whatever you want if you just work hard enough has become slimmer. There is only so much space in the top 10

So imperialism and expansion seem to be the solution, trying to create new areas, but then the other problems lie within America itself and the structure which has changed a lot. The expanding will has slowed and there is a phase of consolidation and people are more concerned with internal matters.
Government and 50% of the americans still don't want to realize this. IMO America will have to enter a phase to complete reorganisation and rest.

my $0.02

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I disagree with the author on his points on economics. he clearly doesnt have a clue. on nearly everything else, i agree with him.

[Agathon]

My understanding that higher rates of infant mortality in the US are associated with drug use, teen pregnancies in communities without structure, etc. Which arguably are caused by social policies, but not health care.

Wrong. NZ has a very high teen pregnancy rate and very high drug use among teens. But we're still better than you.

[St Leo]

This level of polarization is unwise. We are reacting to the US extremists, not the US Jane Sixpacks.

When the gulf between us and the US is seen as unbridgeable, Bush will have won.

[Sava]

I can't wait until Fez sees this thread

[Agathon]

When the gulf between us and the US is seen as unbridgeable, Bush will have won.

And the US will be isolated and eventually Gulliverized. Which means we win.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Agathon
And the US will be isolated and eventually Gulliverized. Which means we win.

Who's we? We are in the same basket as America. Her demise takes something from us.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

LOTM - despite zero change to its political system

Yes, reality has moved. The US hasn't. People were often prepared to give the US the benefit of the doubt as to its motivations during the Cold War. Now they don't.

LOTM - how have political systems changed in the West? Is the UK or Germany more democratic now than 1965?

LOTM - the US has never had an extensive social welfare system

So? People in other countries are now more confident than ever that this is the way to go, and they see American values as oppositional in this respect.


LOTM - this it about the silliest thing anyones said in awhile. The euro economies were all much further left in the '60s and '70s then today.

LOTM - we welcome foreigners by the thousands every day. Or is this another knock on Gitmo?

Cheese eating surrender monkeys anyone?

LOTM - silly name calling by journos is persecution? Really if your skin is that thin, just turn off Foxnews. We of course are all guntoting cowboys. (Thats the nice stuff. How often is it - theyre policy is run by "likudniks, wink, wink")

LOTM - Despite a far more liber

al approach to gays than in the time of say, Jack Kennedy. Very silly.

It's not good enough. Most developed societies treated homosexuals the same way the US did during the 60s.

LOTM - how is that different today. Is gay marriage the rule all across euroland today? Gay partnerships are increasing in the US - theyre legal in some states, not in others, and thats created controversy. Social change does that.


However, the US is the only developed country in which homophobia is a political platform

LOTM - Italy, and thats just off the top of my head.

and where a winning candidate can campaign on discrimination against homosexuals.


In Canada the Conservative Party is having a terrible time because they know that they can't win if they are perceived as intolerant. They just lost an election that was theirs for the taking for this very reason.

So its not that US policies are different, but that the US campaign went a certain way, and euro campaigns dont. Of course back when the US was admired, some campaigned against civil rights. Seems like the real difference is the presense of international cable television. We didnt rub the sensitive euro noses in our domestic political campaigns back then.

LOTM - IE its all about the unilateralism - a foreign policy dispute - see democracies CAN have bitter foreign policy disputes with each other. Now do you have any news?

Nice evasion. Democracies can have bitter foreign policy disputes with each other, but they generally try to seek accommodation instead of riding roughshod over everyone.


Do you have anything interesting to say, or will you keep posting irrelevancies.

Very short answer - most non-Americans dont like Bush.

Again, how is this news?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
. But we're still better than you.

Glory, glory hallelujah, youve finally summed up the point of the thread.