Skip to main content

There is more of a barrier between America and Europe than the Atlantic Ocean--which is a good thing

Here's an answer (you'll be able to intuit the question) that sometimes comes up in discussions with my students:

"I will not discuss whether or not there are firearms in my home, because it's none of your damn business. However, I will tell you this. Should someone break into my house, where my wife, my three children, one grandchild, and three cats live with me, I will do my dead level best to kill them before they can harm my family. I will take such reasonable precautions as seem to me to be sensible in the context of the moment to insure that they have not broken into my house by mistake, but the ruling idea behind my decision-making will be the safety of my family and not the life of the intruder."

I'm sure that, like my students, some of you are taken aback by that blunt statement. On the other hand, I am equally sure that many of you know exactly what I am talking about.

Lee, over at A Secondhand Conjecture, has a post about the cultural gap between Americans and Britons on the issue of defending your home. It seems that in Britain, defending your home is not only more difficult (since the criminals have the government's assurance that you do not possess firearms) than here, but is--in most cases--actually illegal.

Over the past few years, social conservatives have demonized Europe in terms of politics, social programs, and foreign policy.

Now, as the Bush administration is safely into its last year, Liberals and Progressives are reacting to the far opposite end of the spectrum, idealizing European politics, social programs, and foreign policy.

Both approaches are a mistake. Europe does not exist as an archetype--good or bad--by which to measure America's worth. Using European examples to prove that single-payer health care, firearm confiscation policies, or educational practices are the correct future road for America is a misguided exercise.

Our country differs from Europe in terms of culture, environment, natural resources, national history, population demographics, and dozens of other variables. What works there will not necessarily work here (and vice versa).

So let's hope that over the next four years we are not going to continue to have to listen to people tell us how much more like Europe we should want our country to become.

Why don't we just concentrate on building the best US we can--on our own terms?

Comments

Brian Shields said…
A close to home example:

My co-worker was putting his last child to sleep a few weeks ago in Harrington. Wife's in the shower. he hears his squeaky front door creak open, and knows someone's breaking in.

He makes enough noise running downstairs that the intruder flees, and alerts the wife to call 911. he hears the guy leave through the squeaky door, turns around and grabs his shotgun.

By the time he gets out the door on his front porch with the shotgun, the police have arrived.

The police spend the next half hour quizzing him about the gun, what was he planning to do with it, where's the permit, etc etc...

Meanwhile the intruder runs off. Forty five minutes later they patrol the neighborhood, and surprise, no criminal found.
Delaware Watch said…
I think your argument would need more than just some blanket "They are different from us" to work. You would need to show why on a particular issue (say, in the case of single-payer, universal health care)the cultural differences constitute an insuperable barrier to fair comparisons and what is possible for the US to emulate or not (and visa versa). Perhaps such analyzes are possible but it would depend on the issue in question and the nation being compared, etc.

Short of that kind of convincing analysis, surely a legitimate answer to the question "Is X possible?" is "X is done in _____________."
Dana,
I'm actually getting to where you're asking in terms of trying to do that sort of analysis, but its an ongoing kind of project that--frankly--is on the back burner for a few weeks due to real life. Bits and pieces are going to come out, but you'll have to give me until, say, this time next month for a full product.

However, I will offer this.

You say, "Short of that kind of convincing analysis, surely a legitimate answer to the question "Is X possible?" is "X is done in _____________.""

That tautology assumes rather than proves the situations to be close enough to equal to make that comparison. For example, if people in the Sudan ask, "Is it possible to have a country without religious warfare and genocide?" the answer, "There is no religious warfare or genocide in the US (today)" is hardly a helpful answer or a valid comparison.

You have made the statement (I am not going back to look up the quote) or at least operate from the assumption that the industrialized democracies of Western Europe, Australia, and Japan ARE in fact similar enough for the comparison with regard to single-payer health care to be valid.

I don't think that's true with respect to health care, or education, or a lot of issues, but I accept the truth of your implicit point that enough people agree with you about that comparison to leave the burden of proof to me. (Did that sentence make grammatical sense? Just got off a plane and can't tell.)
Delaware Watch said…
"That tautology"

It isn't a tautology since in my example X could be done nowhere.

"...assumes rather than proves the situations to be close enough to equal to make that comparison."

When the question are "Is X possible" as in logically possible or as in presently extant, concerns about the situation being "close enough" aren't relevant to answering the question at the level of "Is X conceivable" or "Does any other nation do X." The former is merely a logical matter while the latter is an empirical matter.

It seems to me, therefore, that when one meets the burden of showing that not only is X conceivable and that some people are already doing X, the onus is on those who want to claim that there is some insuperable cultural difference that makes doing x possible P1 but not at P2.

So when I answer the question "Is a single-payer universal health care system possible" and I point out that 18 other nations do it now, I don't have an immediate and automatic burden to show that we are not culturally exempted from what 18 other nations do routinely and have done so for a many years. That onus isn't on me, but on the person who wants to show the such a health care system is impossible here.

"For example, if people in the Sudan ask, "Is it possible to have a country without religious warfare and genocide?" the answer, "There is no religious warfare or genocide in the US (today)" is hardly a helpful answer or a valid comparison."

Why not? Would it be helpful to tell them instead they are condemned to several generations of massive bloodshed? Yes, tell them that nations--many nations--in the world go through motions each day w/o factions murdering one another on a massive scale.

I strongly suspect that most Sudanese would be quite content not to murder others in their nation regardless of their differences.

"I don't think that's true with respect to health care, or education, or a lot of issues, but I accept the truth of your implicit point that enough people agree with you about that comparison to leave the burden of proof to me."

Oops. I spoke the above too soon. My bad. Sorry.

Take all the time you need on it. We've both got a lot on the plate now.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...