A view from the Nanny State

[Grifman]

An interesting perspective from an American living in Sweden:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9434 ... 86400.html

Thoughts?

[gbasden]

Well, my thoughts are that I'd far, far rather be living in Sweden, or Iceland or Norway, or many other high tax states than the self destructive dog eat dog, "I've got mine so go fuck yourself" ethos of the United States. Sadly, I'm tied here by elderly parents and a sense of responsibility, but I'd far rather be living in a civilization where people take care of each other. This Ayn Rand dystopia isn't for me at all.

[Kraken]

That's a future worth striving for, but half of us have to be dragged there kicking and screaming, and it will take a generation because freedom and guns and stuff. Especially guns. Sweden doesn't blow trillions on wars. Oh, and we also have to overthrow an oligarchy first. Better make it two generations.

[Holman]

Maybe we could sell conservatives on the fact that, while they have to safely lock them down, Sweden has a robust gun culture and one of the highest rates of ownership in the world.

[Kraken]

The first step would be convincing the red-staters that government is not their enemy, as they've been told at least since Reagan. Good luck with that.

As long as our culture remains deeply divided, any government is going to appear adversarial to half the population at any given time. It's hard for me to imagine Americans pulling together for a shared vision of the future when one side admires European social democracies while the other side believes in minimal government and taxes.

The long-term trajectory since the Great Depression has been toward a slowly-expanding nanny state, to use Grif's term. Policies like Social Security, Medicare, environmental and consumer protections, and more recently the ACA and Medicare Part D are popular once enacted. Socialist-lite concepts like single-payer healthcare poll well, and Bernie Sanders ran surprisingly strong in the last presidential election cycle and remains highly popular. We'll see soon enough if voters reject a government that's trying to weaken and ultimately dismantle all of that, as well as whether the Democratic Party will embrace a progressive agenda or tack timidly back to the safe center.

[Freyland]

It's hard for me to imagine Americans pulling together for a shared vision of the future when one side admires European social democracies while the other side believes in minimal government and taxes.

War. With a real opponent, that is compromising or threatening the Ideals that people think America stands for, even if we have been failing. Not promoting this of course, but it would do it.

[Holman]

It's hard for me to imagine Americans pulling together for a shared vision of the future when one side admires European social democracies while the other side believes in minimal government and taxes.

War. With a real opponent, that is compromising or threatening the Ideals that people think America stands for, even if we have been failing. Not promoting this of course, but it would do it.

Even during World War 2 there were Americans who thought "dying for the British Empire" was the wrong thing to do. Hatred of the Japanese was more unifying, of course, but not necessarily for idealistic reasons.

We've never been as unified as we've said we were. I guess that can be positively spun as meaning we don't have to be 100% unified to be America.

[Drazzil]

The United States is no longer a cause worth waiting or fighting for. I dont know whats next but the sooner the better.

[Holman]

The United States is no longer a cause worth waiting or fighting for. I dont know whats next but the sooner the better.

Wrong.

[gbasden]

Wrong.

I'm starting to wonder if he's right. The sheer number of people that will deny obvious evidence to declare that the sky is red makes me think that as a country we are simply going to oscillate between rational and irrational policy for the foreseeable future. Maybe it is a better course to let the red states go found their dystopia and the blue states can go be part of Canada or something. :/

[Kraken]

Wrong.

I'm starting to wonder if he's right. The sheer number of people that will deny obvious evidence to declare that the sky is red makes me think that as a country we are simply going to oscillate between rational and irrational policy for the foreseeable future. Maybe it is a better course to let the red states go found their dystopia and the blue states can go be part of Canada or something. :/

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[GreenGoo]

The United States is no longer a cause worth waiting or fighting for. I dont know whats next but the sooner the better.

I've tried absolutely nothing and I'm all out of ideas.

[Grifman]

Wrong.

I'm starting to wonder if he's right. The sheer number of people that will deny obvious evidence to declare that the sky is red makes me think that as a country we are simply going to oscillate between rational and irrational policy for the foreseeable future. Maybe it is a better course to let the red states go found their dystopia and the blue states can go be part of Canada or something. :/

Yeah, we've hit a rough patch so let's just give up on 200+ years of constitutional democracy. Geez, the Founders who fought for this country are turning over in their graves because people want to give up so easily.

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, we've hit a rough patch so let's just give up on 200+ years of constitutional democracy. Geez, the Founders who fought for this country are turning over in their graves because people want to give up so easily.

They also can't figure out why no one has challenged Drumpf to a duel and "impeached" him the old fashioned way.

They rolled over in their graves long before now, when the electoral college allowed a demagogue get elected despite explicitly existing to prevent that from happening.

[em2nought]

The elephant in the room is that things are easier in a homogeneous society. A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

Map of diversity by country https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... c1273d8de7

[Daehawk]

Id probably move. im been fussing at the wife that Id rather live anywhere else these days. But Im fully disabled and the Government I hate gives me money to live. Im not sure what a place like that is set up to do for fully disabled folk. Especially someone who is not a citizen yet but would like to be.

[GreenGoo]

The elephant in the room is that things are easier in a homogeneous society. A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

Map of diversity by country https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... c1273d8de7

For a country based almost entirely on personal freedoms, homogeneity seems counter to the very nature of your country.

[Holman]

The elephant in the room is that things are easier in a homogeneous society. A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

Map of diversity by country https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... c1273d8de7

So this is where you whine because mandated ethnic homogeneity might be "called a racist idea"?

Go away.

[Chaz]

The elephant in the room is that things are easier in a homogeneous society. A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

Map of diversity by country https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... c1273d8de7

Canada seems to be doing just fine. Ethnic homogeneity removes the race baiting element*, sure, but does nothing about the male/female, straight/not, rich/poor, urban/rural divides that we have. But sure, you tell yourself that it's because we've got all these non-white people here.

The biggest difference between us and the more "nanny state" countries is that they've collectively decided that society is better when everyone has at least basic level of access to health care, food and shelter, and work/life balance, and that the best way to provide those things is collectively, by the government. The US has decided that rugged individualism, fuck 'em I've got mine, no government is best government because I can fend for myself why can't you, the market knows best, you only get what you can afford is the best way.

*Of course, the race baiting element is by no means a given. It became part of our cultural tradition thanks to hundreds of years of slavery that part of the country wouldn't let go of.

[hepcat]

The elephant in the room is that things are easier in a homogeneous society. A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

Map of diversity by country https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... c1273d8de7

That’s only a truth if you really want it to be. There are many other factors you could point to and claim (again without the facts backing you up) are the underlying reason(s).

[LawBeefaroni]

The melting-pot cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Homogeneity is not an option for the US so it's not even worth considering.

And it's generally the same inevitable march, at different speeds, for everyone else; you only get less homogeneous over time, not more. In that respect, the US is well ahead of the game. We just suck at the other stuff, like taking care of people.

[YellowKing]

As I said before, I'm also in the optimistic camp. We just had a two-term African-American President, gay marriage was legalized, pot legalization is on the move in many states. Trump gets elected (barely, despite being beaten in the popular vote), and all of a sudden we're in this hopeless dystopia that we'll never manage to crawl out of?

No way. I might agree if support for the Republican agenda was booming. It's not. We're seeing historic lows for Presidential popularity, for the bills they're passing. We're seeing Democratic sweeps of races that should have been no contests. Democratic generic ballot numbers are at historic levels.

I just see no evidence whatsoever that the country, or even half of the country, is on board Trump's vision of America. Maybe 1/3 is, but 1/3 is not going to be able to dictate US policy forever. And the seeds they're currently sowing are diminishing their own numbers and driving away independents.

We're living through a nasty over-correction to eight years of Democratic rule. The pendulum will swing back, and it will probably swing back hard. But underneath all that volatile swinging back and forth, the country is steadily getting more progressive and the right-wing fringe element is becoming increasingly isolated.

[LawBeefaroni]

and the right-wing fringe element is becoming increasingly isolated.

It's a dangerous time when those who would do anything to cling to power do anything to cling to power.

[Grifman]

The elephant in the room is that things are easier in a homogeneous society. A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

Map of diversity by country https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... c1273d8de7

I'm not sure what the level of diversity has to do with the level of benefits provided by a society. Perhaps you can explain?

[Skinypupy]

The elephant in the room my simple mind is that things are easier in a homogeneous society.

FTFY.

A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

You and I have wildly different definitions of "truth".

[El Guapo]

The elephant in the room is that things are easier in a homogeneous society. A truth which I'm positive someone here will call a racist idea.

Map of diversity by country https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... c1273d8de7

I'm not sure what the level of diversity has to do with the level of benefits provided by a society. Perhaps you can explain?

I mean, politically the easiest way to attack the welfare state is to charge that "they" are getting lavish benefits from your taxpayer dollars, while you are having to get by with a pittance. It could be that with a more homogenous society those attacks don't work as well, because there's less "they" to go around.

Even if true, though (and I'm not sure that it is), the better answer is to work to help the country be less racist over time.

[El Guapo]

That's a future worth striving for, but half of us have to be dragged there kicking and screaming, and it will take a generation because freedom and guns and stuff. Especially guns. Sweden doesn't blow trillions on wars. Oh, and we also have to overthrow an oligarchy first. Better make it two generations.

The other big challenge is that our constitutional system is set up to make passing any new law extremely difficult, and it grants disproportionate power to rural areas (mainly via the Senate) to rural areas that are typically more reactionary. If we had a straight parliamentary democracy by population, U.S. policies would probably be more progressive generally.

[pr0ner]

The United States is no longer a cause worth waiting or fighting for. I dont know whats next but the sooner the better.

This is incorrect.

[Fitzy]

The other big challenge is that our constitutional system is set up to make passing any new law extremely difficult, and it grants disproportionate power to rural areas (mainly via the Senate) to rural areas that are typically more reactionary. If we had a straight parliamentary democracy by population, U.S. policies would probably be more progressive generally.

Our system is set up that way to protect from an overzealous federal government. This is not a flaw, it's a working as designed. More of the power was supposed to rest in the states. Liberal Massachusetts could have a single payer healthcare, while Conservative Texas lets everyone die. Everyone is happy. Except maybe the dead.

However both sides want more power residing in the federal government, though one side pretends that's not the case. The more power the federal government takes, the easier it is to split choices into binary; blue vs. red. This then leads to us vs. them and finally to a complete breakdown in the ability to compromise. Combine that with the two party system where the extremes have major power over the primaries and it isn't surprising there is a breakdown. Down the dark path we tread.

A parliamentary system in the US would fix nothing except to permanently create a disgruntled underclass.

I'm personally holding my breath for a splinter centrist party or two. Let the Dems and Pubs go to the extreme and let the adults govern!

[El Guapo]

The other big challenge is that our constitutional system is set up to make passing any new law extremely difficult, and it grants disproportionate power to rural areas (mainly via the Senate) to rural areas that are typically more reactionary. If we had a straight parliamentary democracy by population, U.S. policies would probably be more progressive generally.

Our system is set up that way to protect from an overzealous federal government. This is not a flaw, it's a working as designed. More of the power was supposed to rest in the states. Liberal Massachusetts could have a single payer healthcare, while Conservative Texas lets everyone die. Everyone is happy. Except maybe the dead.

However both sides want more power residing in the federal government, though one side pretends that's not the case. The more power the federal government takes, the easier it is to split choices into binary; blue vs. red. This then leads to us vs. them and finally to a complete breakdown in the ability to compromise. Combine that with the two party system where the extremes have major power over the primaries and it isn't surprising there is a breakdown. Down the dark path we tread.

A parliamentary system in the US would fix nothing except to permanently create a disgruntled underclass.

I'm personally holding my breath for a splinter centrist party or two. Let the Dems and Pubs go to the extreme and let the adults govern!

I'm really just saying that the difficulty in passing new laws is a big obstacle to moving to a Scandinavian style welfare state, not arguing that it shouldn't be so (though I do think that our constitutional system has significant flaws stemming mainly from the founders' failure to anticipate political parties).

The disproportionate power given to rural areas, as opposed to populated areas, bothers me more, though that's probably better discussed in a separate thread.

[Fitzy]

I'm really just saying that the difficulty in passing new laws is a big obstacle to moving to a Scandinavian style welfare state, not arguing that it shouldn't be so (though I do think that our constitutional system has significant flaws stemming mainly from the founders' failure to anticipate political parties).

The disproportionate power given to rural areas, as opposed to populated areas, bothers me more, though that's probably better discussed in a separate thread.

I think I understand your viewpoint in that government is an obstacle. I'd argue that our (false) narrative of the independent American spirit combined with our absolute worship of greed are a much bigger impediment than our system of government. A government shift that allowed Scandinavian style welfare without a corresponding cultural shift, would cause an even bigger split in our country than what we are currently seeing.