Our most commonly asked question during last visit to UK, 2006; "When are you going to get rid of that president?" Always said with a friendly smile. BMK

I stated earlier that "My impression of Europe, especially Continental Europe, is that young people are offered a much more limited choice of beliefs and belief systems that are considered politically and socially acceptable." Someone requested examples.

I can think of two off the top of my head.

The ostracism and disgraceful treatment of Bjørn Lomborg for contradicting European environmental orthodoxy. He has been physically assaulted and compared to a Holocaust denier. He does not deny global warming, he simply does not accept all the "doom and gloom" rhetoric as fact.

The second example is from this very thread. Elina made comments such as "Whats' to argue about" and "of course, everyone agrees". If this is characteristic of the European mindset I pity the brave soul that doesn't agree and believes there should be a debate.

I have been pro-choice since I was old enough to understand what it means. Yet even I find the statement "Abortion? What is there to argue about?" incredibly closed-minded.

<<"Abortion? What is there to argue about?" incredibly closed-minded.>>

No. Just the opposite. It is a woman's personal decision and not a matter for the state...or do you defer to the church in this matter? The decision has been made - years ago...do you want to change that or just argue about it?

I'm pro-Choice, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I certainly don't assume that everyone agrees with me.

My point was that statements such as "What's there to argue about?" are indicative of a society that demands a high degree of conformity.

It is my impression that the US has a greater diversity of opinions than Europe, especially continental Europe. Americans love to disagree.

Let's take the French...

<<young people are offered a much more limited choice of beliefs and belief systems that are considered politically and socially acceptable>>

The word bohemian originated in France. Students of all disciplines flock there today. The student protests are notorious and accepted. Some of the greatest free thinkers in the world came from there.
I will quote from Nadeau and Barlow’s brilliant social examination of the French in the book “Sixty Million Frenchmen Can’t Be Wrong”:
-The art of rhetoric is so alien to North American culture that few people even understand what it is.
-The French learn to value and practise eloquence from a young age
-The analytical mode of reasoning is integrated into the entire school corpus.
French students study philosophy in grade twelve and learn to analyze problems by using categories and systems of classes, even before they enter university.
Do a little research into the nine Institut d’etudes politique and I think you will release how broad and extensive their political and belief systems are. Perhaps the difference from our school system is they are trained to think, it isn’t just a haphazard exercise (Note I said "how" not "what").

>>>elina - CNN hired the South Carolina idiot to do a geography spot on their website. And people are defending her and finding her amusing on YouTube (check the comments). I guarantee that she'll be on some reality TV program in the next year.<<<

I did. A bit spooky.

>>>I get the impression & maybe I'm wrong but you're all for protest as long as it's protesting against things you don't like.<<<

Well, yes, you are wrong. I am used to protests. I have lived through times when I watched big marches with red flags flying and intelligent slogans like "employer is a pig", and just because my political opinions were a far cry from the protestors´opinions, I didn´t see anything wrong in their marches.

>>>But a conservative protest is wrong?
<<<

It is wrong if it is violent. And if it is violent – in my opinion – it means that the conservative would not allow any other opinion or practise than his/her own.

>>>Yet even I find the statement "Abortion? What is there to argue about?" incredibly closed-minded.
<<<

I get a feeling that you are a man. As a woman I find a thought that I could not be the master of my own body frightening. Diminishes me into something that other people control.

And back to this:

>>><<young people are offered a much more limited choice of beliefs and belief systems that are considered politically and socially acceptable>>

That is the opposite. Robjame already explained the teaching of philosophy and rhetorics in France. Philosophy is a high school subject also here. And kids are also taught all the major religions, not as something that they have to believe in in, but as "general knowledge". So if somebody gets a kick out of buddhism, s/he at least knows what it is all about.

And Ingo and Robjame have both already said this: Those topics that are argued and discussed today in the US were argued and discussed here already 30 years ago.

>These people (elected by the few)...

Oh come off it already. Gore lost because he lost TN (his home state) and AK (Clinton's home state). Kerry lost because he was outvoted.

The Democratic party just didn't deliver the votes.

>Our most commonly asked question during last visit to UK, 2006; "When are you going to get rid of that president?"<

On January 21, 2009. Don't they know anything about the US political system? I wonder if they could find the USSR on a world map. :)

>The decision [on abortion] has been made - years ago...

It will be interesting to hear what our current Supreme Court has to say about that. :)

>Those topics that are argued and discussed today in the US were argued and discussed here already 30 years ago.

So, what about race relations?

((I))
Feeling a bit naughty.

Robjame, America utilizes rhetoric on a daily basis. A nicely dressed man/woman stands in front of a judge and a jury and uses eloquence and an analytical mode of reasoning with the aim of subverting the truth.

From what my French friends tell me, the cafe crowd does exactly the same thing. While it may be an art form, its also merely sport.

Anyone that believes French "Bohemians" are some type of avant-garde political force, should read the book "Bobos in Paradise" by David Brooks.

<<Feeling a bit naughty.>> I thopught your bulb was burning a little brighter than normal! 8-)

altajoe - eaxactly...I think we are on the same page.
I was responding to smueller's statement that European youths were offered a more limited choice of beliefs and belief systems than American youths. In fact they are taught in school to challenge and question, or as you correctly say, "It is a sport there."

When French youth want a challenging school experience, they go overseas -- to London, these days. They used to go to America, but not anymore.

LOL
The Bohemians (Gypsies) of the 1800's have nothing to do with the Bobos (yuppies) of the 1990's.

I believe the only true hatred of America and her citizens is made up in the minds of some Americans who's agenda needs that hate or rage to sell something?
I am sure if you talk to the man on the street in several European nation and ask them if they hate America a few may say yes. Then you cherry pick those responses.. edit out the No's and you have a commodity to sell to someone? The citizens of Europe are smart enough to know George W. Bush is not our mouth piece or who we are! Hell, half of the voting public didn't vote for him.. Either time! and now half of the citizens who did, wish they could take their vote back. American citizens didn't start the war in Iraq.. The Bush administration did for what ever reason. Like most of the 85% of Americans that didn't want Bush's dirty war.. I believe they started the war for some kind of monetary gain NOT to protect America. If protecting America was so important to them.. Why is our streets over run with drugs and guns? Why are American children so poorly educated or go to sleep at night hungry? Why do our senior citizens have to not eat so the can afford their medication? I really believe hatred of America by Europeans is in some weird sick way.. just a marketing campaign.

rj - If you are arguing that Europe was a politically dynamic environment two centuries ago, we have no disagreement.

But let's clarify one point. You sincerely believe that Europe is more politically diverse than the US? To be specific, I am not referring to the number of political parties or minor fringe movements (of which the US certainly has its share) but the distance from one end of the mainstream political spectrum to the other.

For example, the difference in positions between Ségolène Royale and Nicolas Sarkozy or David Cameron and Gordon Brown as opposed to those between George Bush and John Kerry.

Beyond disagreements over the EU constitution, the mainstream political differences in continental Europe seem more quantitative than qualitative.

I see this as a strength, not as a weakness. Political leaders in Europe represent a HUGE majority of their citizens. Unlike either GW Bush or John Kerry would in the US.

Twenty-five years ago, there was a huge gulf in British politics between the Conservative Margaret Thatcher on the one hand and the Labour party Michael Foot on the other.

The Labour party moved to the centre in order to get elected, and the Conservatives have recently done the same in an attempt to defeat Labour. There are people in both parties who would prefer a more distinct position, but no sign at present that it would lead to electoral success.

Whether this is a more sophisticated position than exists in the United States is hard to say. Our parties have tried to emphasise their differences in the past, but it hasn't led to long-term success. It may also be that the electorate now fear the disruption that a radical change in policy would bring.

Yes, it's easier to "represent everyone" when everyone thinks the same. Whether that is a strength or a weakness is a matter of debate.

smueller raised the question of "the difference in positions between Ségolène Royale and Nicolas Sarkozy ... as opposed to those between George Bush and John Kerry."

One difference is that I cannot imagine Royale cosying-up to the Bush administration and its foreign policy positions in the way that Sarkozy has been doing.

<<You sincerely believe that Europe is more politically diverse than the US?>>

You bet I do.

All of your comparisons are within a couple of countries. Now consider the political diversity contrasting:
• Albania
• Andorra
• Austria
• Belarus
• Belgium
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Bulgaria
• Croatia
• Cyprus
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Estonia
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Holy See (Vatican City)
• Hungary
• Iceland
• Ireland
• Italy
• Latvia
• Liechtenstein
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of
• Malta
• Moldova
• Monaco
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Russia
• San Marino
• Serbia and Montenegro
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United Kingdom

>Political leaders in Europe represent a HUGE majority of their citizens.<

Mr Sarkozy won 53%/47%, and called that "a mandate".

Mr Bush won 52%/47%/1% and that's called a slim margin?

>The Labour party moved to the centre in order to get elected, and the Conservatives have recently done the same ... There are people in both parties who would prefer a more distinct position, ...<

Here in the US, the political center moved right with Reagan's election, continued to slowly move right with Bush1 and Clinton, and took a jump to the right with Bush2.

Current polls show about 1/3 definite left, 1/3 definite right and 1/3 centrist (usually self-declared "independent").

Most of our current candidates for President are more centrist than their parties, but have to woo the fringes in order to be nominated (recall Lieberman's loss in the primary).

It's highly likely that the nominees of both parties will be centrist and that the 2008 turnout will be fairly small, as the true believers, feeling betrayed, won't vote.

I prefer centrist candidates.

((I))

But if the question is Political diversity within Europe as opposed Britain or France, then surely it is hugely more than the US? The European Parliament with its proportional representation has such diverse groups as Socialist Greens to almost theocratic nationalists.

I thik the perception of "more or less" Diversity is a function of distance. The whole notion of saying that the US is more diverse than Europe because Californians and the inhabitants of Alabama sound different seems absurd from this side of the Atlantic.

In the same way that I can see very little difference between the UK Labour and Conservative parties, the Republicans and Democrats seem to me, to be minor differences around a central point.

Whichever gets into power would make minor changes to taxes, military spending and welfare possibly, but no "tectonic" movement.

Because one block has set ideas on a subject (e.g almost universal approval of pro choice view in Europe, Acceptance of 'Gun Culture' in the US) doesn't mean it is politically immature, or lacking in ability to question.

Ira, it was meant as a response to smueller. Since you didn't see the meaning behind the words I rephrase it:
"Political leaders in Europe represent a HUGE majority of their citizens' POLITICAL GOALS."

<<doesn't mean it is politically immature, or lacking in ability to question.>>
Inter4esting comments Willit. I wonder what it does mean.
Certainly there is a distinction between pro-chioce and gun control.
I think one distinction is the way the US hangs on to certain rights unable (unwilling?) to revise or ammend them. I am thinking about the "freedom" to bear arms [isn't that one of those oxymoron things]. Perhaps also clinging to the absolute right to free speech.

Hi Ingo,

>"Political leaders in Europe represent a HUGE majority of their citizens' POLITICAL GOALS."<

I take it that you are counting every elected official, regardless of party affiliation, whether in power or in opposition.

In which case, the statement is not applicable to the US.

Here, where we do not have a Parliamentary system, it is highly likely that one or more of your representatives at the National, State and Local levels will be of the opposite political party than the one for which you voted.

We not only accept that, we expect it.

At the National level, we often vote for a split government - choosing one party for Pres, and the opposite party for the Senate and/or House.

From 1954 to 1994, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives under Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R), Carter (D), Reagan (R), Bush1 (R) and Clinton (D).

From 1994 to 2004, Republicans controlled the House under Clinton (D) and Bush2 (R). In 2006, the Democrats won control of the House and Senate under a Republican President.

Similar things happen in the Senate, as well.

Our system is very different.

((I))

>..the "freedom" to bear arms [isn't that one of those oxymoron things]. Perhaps also clinging to the absolute right to free speech.<

We don't have unlimited freedom to bear arms. (Why would that be an oxymoron?) There are many limitations on the kind of weapons one may own as well as restrictions on carrying them.

We also have a major debate going concerning the meaning of our 2nd amendment rights.

We don't have absolute right to free speech (or freedom of the press). There are laws concerning libel and slander, rules concerning national security, and the famous dictum against "falsely shouting fire in a theater..".

((I))

Fascinating thread! Thank you all for very interesting posts! Some of them were very, very thoughtful.

Personally, I watch Europe as a whole because I think that Europeans, after two very destructive and exhausting internecine wars in the 20th century, are now trying new ways, the ways of peace. The question is: how to combine into a United Europe without giving up one's own identity of language and culture? It's been very interesting to watch this process, more often bumpy than smooth. Polish farmers didn't think the EU would benefit them; while earlier, Ireland - one of the poorer Western Europe nations - jumped over Britain and the English Channel, shook hands with the EU and has not looked back from their new road to prosperity.

It's funny that some people in the US, the Starbucks Nation or McDonaldland, believe that Europeans possess "groupthink". I haven't been to Romania or Bulgaria yet, but don't believe the people there think at all like the Welsh or the Andorrans. The "old Europe" seems to be much newer than anything that had ever existed there before.

Carry on, folks! And thanks again for some very interesting reading! :)

>Our system is very different.
Not at all! At least not from the German system.

Public BS TV is a continuing disgrace. I've been going to Europe for over 30 years and have lived in Germany and Holland. The only nastiness I ever experienced was a Dutch driver in Maastricht trying to cut me off and then shouting insults at me. He didn't know I was an American. I was driving a car with German tags and that was his issue.

>cut me off and then shouting insults at me.
It might have been the unexpected joy of seeing a german number plate just 10 miles behind the border. Your driving could never have been in issue here of course ;-)

No, ira, it wasn't about the senators, not about the representatives. It was about GW Bush vs. John Kerry, opposed to Angela Merkel vs. Gerhard Schröder.

And I have to agree with logos - the German system knows the checks and balances and is also a split up into Federal government/parliament and states (like Bavaria, Hesse, Saxony ...). It is similar, believe me.

>>Our system is very different.
Not at all! At least not from the German system. <

Unless my own smattering of knowledge and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany are completely wrong, I don't think that I can agree, logos.

((I))

Hi ingo,

>It was about GW Bush vs. John Kerry, opposed to Angela Merkel vs. Gerhard Schröder.<

IIRC, in the 2005 election, neither won a majority, so how can one claim that either represents a huge majority of the people.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_
of_Germany
the CDU/CSU coaliton, of which Merkel is the leader, polled 35% - Bush did somewhat better than that.

Furthermore, "Both Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel announced that they had won the election and should become next chancellor.

On October 10, talks were held between Franz Müntefering, the SPD chairman, Gerhard Schröder, Angela Merkel and Edmund Stoiber, the CSU chairman. In the afternoon it was announced that the CDU/CSU and SPD will begin formal coalition negotiations with the aim of a Grand Coalition with Angela Merkel as the next German chancellor".

To, I hope, help you to see just how different our systems are, I give you a US view of that election:

Germany has a Chancellor (not a President) coming from a minority party, chosen by a few politicos behind closed doors.

This is not how we do it in the US.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency with only 43% of the vote, but a majority of the Electoral votes (370).

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won with under 40%, but a majority of electoral votes (180).

There have been 15 elections in which the President was elected with less than 50.1% of the vote, although only 1 has been as low as 35%.

To bring it more in line with your concerns, Gore lost his home state, Clinton's home state and Florida, any one of which would have given him the Presidency.

((I))

PS,

I do not mean to imply, or for you to infer, that I think either the Presidential or the Parliamentary system is superior.

They are different, and we have each learned how to live with our own systems.

((I))

"if the question is Political diversity within Europe as opposed Britain or France, then surely it is hugely more than the US?"

That was not the question. The original question addressed the diversity of <i>politically viable</i> options and candidates within a European country. In other words, whether or not candidates in western Europe are restricted to a relatively narrow range of ideas and positions if they are to remain viable.

In this context, international comparison are meaningless. A candidate for office in France cannot be elected by campaigning on a platform that is socially and politically acceptable in Latvia, or vice versa.

The original question was whether or not there are any western European nations in which the ideological divide among major potentially-electable candidates and parties are comparable to those in the US?

The example I offered earlier was the contrast between George Bush and John Kerry vs Nicolas Sarkozy and S&eacute;gol&egrave;ne Royal. I believe that the &quot;box&quot; that Bush and Kerry were constrained to remain within by political realities and perceptions was larger.

Also, I was specifically referring to <i>electable</i> candidates. Not minor parties and candidates that stand no plausible chance of success.

We have plenty of fringe elements in US politics as well. They are just less visible and successful because of our &quot;winner take all&quot; electoral system.

Sure, we don't elect a president and the cancellor candidates are proposed at choosen at the party convents. However, the seats in parliament represent the individual peoples vote and not those of a relative majortiy. Someone whose party isn't elected by a vote of more that 50% of individual (counting) voters can't become chancellor and has to seek support from other parties. OTOh how can someone with only 35% of the vote be given so much &quot;unrestricted&quot; power. Do &quot;65%&quot; against don't count?

smueller wrote: &quot;The example I offered earlier was the contrast between George Bush and John Kerry vs Nicolas Sarkozy and S&eacute;gol&egrave;ne Royal. I believe that the &quot;box&quot; that Bush and Kerry were constrained to remain within by political realities and perceptions was larger.&quot;

I believe otherwise. There is a true left-right division in France; there is a right-wing consensus in the US, and the distinction between the two major parties is nuance, not ideology.

Where do such unsupported statements of belief get us?

Note that the title of this post is not quite accurate: the series is America at a Crossroads, not THE crossroad. I wonder why it's crossroadS and not just crossroad? Help, Ira.

All I know is that I think very differently about many issues than the views I read in the press and on Fodors and other places. To me this speaks of tremendous diversity of opinion in the US. Either that or I occupy a very small bubble.

This thread has been an interesting exercise in avoiding the &quot;interminable, action-preventing acrimony&quot; to which Flanner alludes, and which I agree is all too prevalent as a substitute for analysis and debate.

I believe the expression is &quot;a crossroads&quot; because that is the place where two roads cross, nothing more.

Incidentally, despite the assumptions of so many people that the Democratic nominee will be elected as the next president, I believe there is an excellent chance that the Republican nominee will be elected. Well, we'll have to wait more than a year to find out--and I'm getting a bit tired of the candidates already!