That’s a good idea: when other countries do something better than we do, we should learn from them, try to emulate their successful parts, and avoid their failures. Here in the United States of America, though, our citizen’s bizarre and obstinate fixation on American “exceptionalism” holds sway, and suggesting that another country, like say Norway, has some better ways of doing things is regarded as unpatriotic, just shy of treachery. In a recent debate, Bernie Sanders might well be the only one able to suggest that we could learn from Denmark (but he doesn’t follow through), while Clinton rejects the thought with a smug “We are not Denmark”, and I would love to hear the squeals and shrieks if the Republican menagerie were asked to contemplate the idea, but it’s something we should take more seriously. We should try to understand what the Scandinavian countries are doing better.
What is it, though, that makes the Scandinavians so different? Since the Democrats can’t tell you and the Republicans wouldn’t want you to know, let me offer you a quick introduction. What Scandinavians call the Nordic model is a smart and simple system that starts with a deep commitment to equality and democracy. That’s two concepts combined in a single goal because, as far as they’re concerned, you can’t have one without the other.
Right there, they part company with capitalist America, now the most unequal of all the developed nations, and consequently a democracy no more. Political scientists say it has become an oligarchy, run at the expense of its citizenry by and for the superrich. Perhaps you’ve noticed that.
In the last century, Scandinavians, aiming for their egalitarian goal, refused to settle solely for any of the ideologies competing for power—not capitalism or fascism, not Marxist socialism or communism. Geographically stuck between powerful nations waging hot and cold wars for such doctrines, Scandinavians set out to find a middle path. That path was contested—by socialist-inspired workers on the one hand, and by capitalist owners and their elite cronies on the other—but in the end, it led to a mixed economy. Thanks largely to the solidarity and savvy of organized labor and the political parties it backed, the long struggle produced a system that makes capitalism more or less cooperative, and then redistributes equitably the wealth it helps to produce. Struggles like this took place around the world in the 20th century, but the Scandinavians alone managed to combine the best ideas of both camps while chucking out the worst.
There’s much more in that article, but I think that’s the heart of it: a commitment to the equality of all of its citizens. The US, for all the liberal noise in its founding documents, takes none of that seriously, and instead is committed to one thing: capitalism. Competition, not cooperation. Fabulous prizes for the winners, draconian punishments for the losers. Greed is good. And it is wrecking our country.
Read the whole thing.
And yeah, be prepared: I expect the libertarian lunatics will be ranting about the virtues of the Holy Free Market and Sacred Capitalism in the comments. Those are another kind of religion atheists ought to reject.
Could it be the climate of Scandinavia? Where people must band together and live cooperatively to survive the harsh weather.
Individualism doesn’t work so well when battling a harsh winter, with daylight lasting only a few hours a day.
Nah, that would only make sense if they were savages living in huts. I’ve been to Norway and Denmark, and they live quite comfortably in well-built homes. It’s like Minnesota — our winters are even worse than theirs, but snug homes and heated work places mean you can thrive quite well.
If it’s any consolation, we’re currently doing our best to tear down the Danish welfare state and replace it with a US-inspired ‘meritocracy’. Or meretricicracy. Or just mediocracy.
How’s that working in Russia or Alaska?
(responding to #1)
The tl;dr version. I’m a libertarian and a PZ fanboy. Can’t we all get along. I want to learn from other countries as well.
The long version:
I’ll bite. I am libertarian, but my political philosophy is based on one thing, the non aggression principle. I do think the free market is a natural outgrowth of the NAP, but not capitalism, and certainly not corporatism. I am as anti-corporation as I am anti-government. I don’t see libertarianism as a panacea, but I can’t seem to get past my inability to support the use of force.
I know there are libertarians out there who deserve ridicule just as there are people in any group that do. I very well may be one of them. It’s always somewhat disheartening to see PZ, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for as a writer and a champion for atheism, take broad shots at the political philosophy that I hold. (Not that I would ever tell him that he shouldn’t. That’s his belief and this is his blog.) When I deal with people with different philosophies than mine I try to start with the understanding that for the most part people believe that the philosophy that they hold is a positive philosophy that they have good reasons for believing, at least to them. For example, I believe that PZ’s position supporting a progressive liberal philosophy comes from a belief that such a position will bring the greatest good to the most people. I believe that is true of most progressives. I think in general that is also true in conservative and libertarian thought, although I will admit that their is more selfishness in those philosophies in general than in the progressive camp. So I see no reason to attack progressives in general. They are trying to make a positive difference in the world.
To PZ’s point in this post, I agree that we should be looking to other countries for systems that work better than ours. I am no fan of American exceptionalism. I don’t think the size of our penis (i.e. military) makes us exceptional in any way that I can be proud of. I am always going to look for ways to try and take the best of what other countries have tried and found to work and implement it without force, but I absolutely want to learn.
Conservative or liberal, capitalist or socialist, tough-love or helping hand, order or chaos…. survival and progress is all about BALANCE. Always has been, always will be. And I agree totally with Bernie – this “not invented here” attitude of our representatives has got to stop. You would think that the right-wingers would take a lesson from business, where adopting “best practices”, often learned from some company other than your own, is a guiding principle.
Sili #3
It’s kind of worrying how polarised the last election was, though at least the Social Democrats are still the largest single party, so there’s a chance things won’t continue down this road after the next election.
On the topic at large, this kind of reminds me of some titbits of Danish history from my last semester (still early in my studies, so take this with a fair amount of salt), but it seems a lot like Denmark-Norway has benefited from being a bit of an outsider in European history in general. Rarely ever a big pressure to follow rank with the rest of Europe nor as much civil war and outside threat as a lot of countries had for most of medieval history. According to my lecturers, Denmark’s system of a noble council balancing the monarch even worked so well that the big reason it ended was that our /lack/ of civil wars had gotten our military to fall behind our neighbours. That and how Christianity was adopted voluntarily by the monarchs (who often still carried on older traditions, at least one was married both in the Christian manner to one queen and in the old manner to another queen. Church was apparently annoyed, but couldn’t do much) kind of gave me the impression that we’ve always had the opportunity to mix and measure ideologies without huge pressures to only go one way. Focusing on equality thus makes a lot of sense when there’s long been different views who got some say.
Might just be me seeing stronger patterns than there are, though. Would have to look more deeply at the existing research.
Being an outsider helps. One of the engines of our destruction is our self-imposed need to police the world militarily, an ugly legacy of the cold war, and capitalism greatly benefits large scale, focused technological/industrial that can be tapped to build giant, powerful armies. I think Eisenhower said something about that.
So one of the reasons the American public has so easily capitulated to the destruction of our idealism is simply fear. We must feed the military. Sacrificing liberty in the name of bigger guns is a net plus, apparently.
Although Denmark’s recent passing of a law to strip the valuables from refugees isn’t its finest hour
Yeah, xenophobia is kind of a problem here. I really do not get it.
Not Denmark but close enough:
‘Hundreds’ of masked men beat refugee children in Stockholm
This happened yesterday.
I agree that US, among other countries, should take some lessons from Nordic countries. But unfortunately, the problem with xenophobia and emergence of support for far-right parties is becoming a serious problem in Europe. Nordic countries included.
sunjester @ 6:
Sorry, but I’m not aware of any sizable, long-term society that has avoided the use of force. Either it is being used by the strong against the weak, or by a government against the strong in defense of the weak. (Yes, this is a gross oversimplification. So is the NAP, from everything I’ve read by Libertarians.)
The wealthy and powerful tend to try to accumulate wealth and power. Wealth and power gives them better tools to than average do this with. Unless stopped – that is, forced – by some other party, this will continue.
I’m not aware of a free-market model that tends towards wealth equality in the real world. There are plenty of statist models that favor the wealthy, of course, but there are some that at least make efforts in the opposite direction, as seen in the OP.
But, hey, if someone can explain how a less regulated market inherently results in less concentration of wealth, I’m all ears. (Quick note: assumptions that people are economic rational actors will require citations supporting them. I know I’m often not, myself.)
As a Canadian I have to say Canada was once a part the Scandinavian model – medicare, progressive income taxes, civil and cooperative government, peacekeeping. We got hijacked by the US style neo-conservatism in 1984 when Mulroney was elected. Man, we even started down the road to fascism under Harper in the last 10 years. Too bad we didn’t influence you Americans instead of vice versa!
Ugh.. This.. Ok, lets see if I can get “my” philosophy across here. First, lets define “force”. To libertarians this seems to, weirdly, be, “If someone won’t cooperate with being fined, or charged for wrong doing, we just… err. something other than force.” Right.. so what the heck is it you plan to do then, exactly, shout dirty limericks at them, when they refuse to stop doing harm to others?
So, since the idea of not using force, of any kind, is just plain freaking stupid, even in some place, like where the Nordic model, is used, things are more balanced, and there is an actual, underlying, philosophy, which everyone agrees on, which is, “Do what is right for our people, which means cooperation.”, I seriously doubt there is a total and complete lack of bad actors. Heck, just the fact that they don’t build a huge wall around the places, and keep out rogue capitalists from other nations, is a certainty that there will be bad actors, who don’t give a damn about making the system work.
No, the goal shouldn’t be “no” force, it should be, “Only what force is unavoidable, to keep things from escalating to the point where we need more and more force, just to drag things back to the point where we only need minimal force.” You will never, ever, eliminate greed, so your option is small greed, or rampant greed. “No use of force.”, is what lets the latter grow in scale, until you need, “excessive force” to try to fix the problem. Its delusional to all frack to think you can eliminate the use of “any” sort of force, especially when you start whining about cops having to show up to arrest some ass who refused to stop doing something that is illegal, or pay the fine they where charged with, for doing something harmful, or refusing to change practices, because of an obstinate refusal to stop using old practices, and a refusal to properly use (or use at all) help, freely given, to make the change.
We get all this BS in the US, and its usually the people claiming to be libertarians screaming refusal – I won’t stop, I won’t be fined, I won’t follow that regulation, I don’t believe in your right to arrest me for failing to do any of these things, I don’t give a damn if the government wants to help me, or my state, to change to this new technology, the government shouldn’t be stealing my money to help other people, or force me to change!!!!
In other words – I don’t give a damn about why, how, or even if, anything I am doing is wrong, or should change, for everyone’s benefit, including my own, I refuse, and one of the reasons I am refusing is because you keep threatening to do bad things to me if I don’t, not that I would anyway, if you where not threatening me!
We got to this point because we “refused”, or where denied, by legislatures bought out by capitalists, and other elements, including the libertarian, “No, no, no. There definitely **shouldn’t** be more cops, or a law against that!”, clowns, to take the “minimal” force needed to get the right result. So.. now… the legislator can’t pass anything that works, the state refuses to act at all, to even maintain what exists, there are fewer cops per person, and the ones that there are use excessive force to get results, everything from drugs to so called “human trafficking”, by which they pass laws that make it obvious that they don’t give a damn about “human trafficking” (i.e., the coercive exploitation of workers in *any* industry), only “sex trafficking” (i.e., anyone selling, buying, etc. sex, whether or not its exploitative or coerced or not), to anything else they “investigate”, and that is when they bother to even do so, instead of giving out stupid assed comments to the victims of seeing their friends killed by someone, like, “Its not the job of cops to actually stop crimes, just investigate them after.” Gosh.. makes me feel so safe and protected to know that, for example, someone waving a gun around, if its not illegal in some state to do so, won’t be “stopped”, but they will “investigate” the issue, once the guy puts as bullet in my head, all while, by this theory, which the courts actually agreed with, a cop could stand two feet away and watch happen, without lifting a damn finger, until, “a crime was actually committed.” Oh, right, and, of course, all the regulatory agencies have had their fangs ripped out, so that, even if they wanted to use “any” force, minimal or otherwise, they have to wait for hundred, or more likely thousands, of people to all die, preferably all at once, in large numbers, in a very short time, then wade through all the idiots trying to blame it on *everything* other than what caused it, before acting on it (if they are allowed to do so, or haven’t been, like some of these imbeciles who are running for office now would like to do, defunded and dismissed).
You don’t like force? No one f-ing here does. We would much prefer a society in which schools taught people how to work together, instead of them being taken over with morons that brainwash the kids with trickle down BS, anti-government rhetoric, and claims that social services somehow “harm” democracies. We refuse to do anything necessary to “reduce” the need of force. And, irony of ironies (or maybe this should just be called the “definition of the problem), the reason this is happening, at all, is because we are letting the “market” make the decisions, and.. funny enough, the market can’t think, but the people who take advantage of the delusion that it can, and the lack of rules, control, direction, long term plans, and/or work to prevent its corruption, to the purpose of those who confuse choice with, “I get to choose for everyone else, since I have all the money.”, justice with, “If it inconveniences me, its unjust, but if it inconveniences someone else, its their fault for not being me.”, and a long list of other dysfunctional ideas, which harm everyone, except, them, is what ***they*** seem to think is “libertarian”.
So, either they are right (and based on the insane, evil, bond villain stuff the “heroes” of Ayn Rand’s novels did to everyone less perfect than themselves, I have to say.. they got it right), or you are, as to what the word means. But, thing is.. if they are right, then you are using the wrong bloody word, and making yourself look like a fool doing so.
As someone smart once told me, nothing in America makes sense unless you consider racism. Denmark has a racially homogeneous population with no history of segregation. A lot of white Americans will put up with crap as long as that same crap is worse for black and brown people.
Sunjester @ #6
I was in this camp for a long time as well. In fact I considered myself a Libertarian until they voted to have Bob Barr as the candidate for president in 2008. I stood up and walked out of the convention (I was a delegate.) At that point the blinders fell off, and I could finally see the party for what it was.
Sunjester @ #6
“I am libertarian, but my political philosophy is based on one thing, the non aggression principle. I do think the free market is a natural outgrowth of the NAP, but not capitalism, and certainly not corporatism. I am as anti-corporation as I am anti-government. I don’t see libertarianism as a panacea, but I can’t seem to get past my inability to support the use of force.”
In my experience, most libertarians give up on the NAP eventually because it is incoherent. Here are a few articles about that: http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Non-Aggression
Among other things, property (the heart of libertarianism) is based on the use of force. Libertarians use “use of force” as a term of art: it means force they like is OK, force they don’t like isn’t. There are a number of articles on that here: http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Coercion
However, it is reasonable for libertarians to oppose corporations: they are legal creations of governments. (So is property, for that matter.) However, since the vast majority of libertarian organization and propaganda is financially supported and controlled by billionaires like the Koch brothers, that doesn’t get much play. And the incredible disruption to our economic system of abolishing corporations would be catastrophic. Better to regulate them to be more beneficial.
Lots more opposing libertarianism at my Critiques of Libertarianism web site: http://critiques.us
“All ownership derives from occupation and violence. […] That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. ”
Ludwig von Mises, “Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis” Ch. 1, section 2.
“We are not Denmark,” but we’re also not the Roman Republic yet we have separation of powers. Though some people probably think we’re the Roman Empire.
That was the best example I could think of on short notice. Then of course there’s all the little things (not italy but eat pasta, not great britain but watch british tv, not germany but gesundheit kindergarten bratwurst…)
@sunjester:
I don’t see how you could ever have a society without physical coercion/violence, unless you have mind control.
There will always be some people who will want to do things that are harmful to others, and that we’ll want to stop. If they won’t be persuaded, eventually we *will* have to physically prevent them from doing these things. Or activate the Obedience Circuit implanted in their skull at birth, I guess.
I mean, *minimising* the use of force is a great goal, and one that I think everyone here shares. But “no coercion” is a complete non-starter as a basis for a social order, because you will have to introcuce exceptions pretty much immediately.
Anri @ #13:
First, thanks for responding. Second, really great questions. I don’t have a good answer for the first question. There have certainly been more libertarian societies than others, but no country that meets the criteria that you state that I am aware of. That doesn’t dissuade me. There was a first democracy, a first republic, a first communist state, a first oligarchy. I am happy to work toward a first libertarian government even if we don’t have one in my lifetime or even if we never have one. In fact, I am happy if I can just work to move the needle slightly more toward non aggression.
To your other point, I am not sure that a free market doesn’t result in a high degree of concentration of wealth. It may. I don’t believe (I have zero proof of this) that it would result in as much concentration of wealth as the current free enterprise / corporatism / crony capitalism that we are experiencing now in the U.S. I certainly don’t believe that it would be as bad as the concentration of power and wealth into the hands of a few that occurs in communist or fascist state. I don’t think there is a perfect system. There is no utopia out there.
Regarding humans being economic rational actors, I would agree that we certainly aren’t always rational actors. It would be great if we were but there are too many examples showing that we aren’t to believe that. But I think that with a few exceptions where we almost always act irrationally (health care being one), I would like to think that we are more rational than not. I don’t have citations for that. Sorry.
Kagehi @ 15:
Thanks for your reply. There is a great deal there and my time is limited so I may have to reply to part of it and then come back to finish later. Please don’t take my delay in doing so as ignoring your post. I just have quite a bit going on today.
To your first point about force and what is meant by that. The NAP specifically focuses on the initiation of force. It is not a prohibition on the use of force to defend yourself, others or your property. As an example lets take the recent events that have transpired in Oregon. Ammon Bundy and the others in his group occupied buildings and land that were not theirs. They had taken over property that belonged to the U.S. government. In my opinion it would have been permissible for the government to use force to take their property back. Luckily cooler heads prevailed and the government took a very laudable approach and waited the group out and has managed to mostly diffuse the situation with minimal loss of life. As to the one individual that was shot and killed, all indications are that he was threatening the lives of the officers attempting to arrest him for criminal trespass. That does not violate the NAP. The act of aggression was the act of Ammon Bundy and his group.
Personally, I cannot imagine initiating force against another human. I can see and believe that I would be able to use force to defend my family or my friends and perhaps myself, but I also can’t see using force to defend my property. I believe that it is moral to do so, but life, even the life of someone robbing me, is more important to me than stuff.
I’ve got to run for now, but I will try to address your points and the rest of the responses that have been made. That is unless PZ decides that this is too off topic and the ban hammer comes out. (If he chooses to do that, I will completely understand. His blog. His rules.)
I had a discussion (read: argument) with someone of a distinct libertarian bent recently. He was decrying regulations on free-enterprise. I pointed out some of the problems that can arise if things aren’t regulated. His response was…”Those are laws, and you have to have laws.”
So laws aren’t regulations?
sunjester @ 21:
(emphasis added)
This is an interesting statement. What do you think would happen in a Libertarian free-market system to combat or avoid these sorts of systems if they tried to appear? Are you of the opinion that corporations would be weaker if freed from anti-trust legislation, for example?
I get that you’re not claiming to have proof of anything along these lines, and I appreciate you saying so. I’m just curious as to what you’re thinking in this case.
(I don’t disagree with you about the disgusting concentration of wealth and power occurring in despotic states, of course – you’re dead-on there.)
No sweat, and I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, my apologies if I seemed to do so. I only said this because it seems to me that a majority of Libertarian economic models accept this not only as a basic tenet, but as a bedrock for their structure. In not believing it as an article of absolute faith, you’ve gotten (IMHO) closer to the truth than many that espouse Libertarianism.
…jeez, that sounded condescending. Gah, sorry ’bout that.
Full disclosure: I’m probably voting for Clinton–not that it matters, since I live in California. But that highlights why Hilary’s kind of right: we’re not Denmark. My state has a population of 38.8 million. Denmark has a population of 5.6 million. Not only that, but the demographics of Denmark are just a teeny bit different: 89.6% Danish, as opposed to 39% Latino, 38.8% non-Latino White, 5.8% Black, 13% Asian, and less than 1% Native American.
I read the Nation piece. The words “race” is never mentioned. That, in a nutshell, is why Sanders and so many of his supporters frustrate the hell out of me. It’s all well and good to talk about economic injustice, but until the United States deals with the fact that this country was built on a foundation of white supremacy, we’re never going to have nice things like single-payer health care. Kentucky recently elected a governor who said “I’m going to get rid of your health insurance.” Why did they vote for him? Because Obama blackity black Muslim giving my money to THOSE people. American capitalism has thrived and prospered by a strategy of divide and conquer that tells poor white folks who literally don’t have a pot to piss in that they’re better than the ni-clangs.
We’re not Denmark. Denmark doesn’t have a legacy of genocide and slavery as part of its foundational narrative. When Denmark was building its social democracy, they didn’t have to contend with a political system that required buy-in from a large section of the population who demanded that another segment be excluded from the benefits of any social programs. (Wonder why black folks are side-eyeing the idea that fixing economic inequality will solve everything? See also: the New Deal.)
There are certainly lessons to be learned from other countries. But it’s not American exceptionalism to acknowledge that due to size, demographics, and history, the US has challenges that many other countries–especially smaller, more homogenous countries–don’t have.
darkrose @ 25
And what makes you think that Hillary is going to be any better at this than Sanders? What is her agenda to mend the racial fences that serperate our people?
Oh wait, I forgot. The Democratic Party is no longer about moving an agenda forward, that ended with Slick Willie. No, it’s about acting as slightly LESS right-wing than the Republicans and getting relected by scaring leftists with doomsday scenarios of what terrors await if the GOP get’s back into power.
Meanwhile, while everyone is waiting for some great ideological realighment that will make it “safe” for us to vote for the leaders and policies we needed decades ago, the capitalist pigs burn the world down.
Sanders frustrates you because he doesn’t talk about how racists will stop him getting elected and giving people nice things?
You already have several nice things in your country, despite your latinos. How does that fit in with your view?
@#26, Akira MacKenzie:
No, no. Hillary Clinton definitely has an agenda. It’s just that it’s quite definitely right-wing, so she can’t actually say much about it while Sanders is still in the race. She wants to bomb more countries with brown-skinned populations, increase the military budget more, and gut environmental regulations even more. (Wasn’t it on this very site where I saw a link to an interview with the engineers behind the Keystone XL pipeline, where they flat-out admitted that, if built, the pipeline will fail, 99+% chance within 10 years, and there’s no way to predict where or sufficiently patrol the whole thing watching for leaks? I know I read that interview. Hillary Clinton is, naturally, pro-Keystone XL; she has expressed surprise that voters are against it.) It’s interesting to watch her phrase things to avoid saying anything along the lines of “I promise, if elected…” so that she can later weasel out of things like Obama did, by saying “that wasn’t actually a promise, I just said it would be smart if we did that…”
Akira MacKenzie @ 26 & The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) @ 28:
Ah, ok, then.
So, Trump or Cruz? If Sanders loses the primary, I mean. Should we support Trump or Cruz?
Ah! The “REPUBLICANS WILL BE WORSE” brigade appears. Pardon the fuck out of me for showing insufficent loyalty to the Annoited One.
If it makes you fell better, Anri. I will vote for HRC if she is the nominee If only to shut your side up. (Of course, if she does lose, I will no doubt be blamed in part for her defeat anyway.) However, given her record,I don’t trust her. I reserve the right to say “I told you so” when she sell us out… And she will.
Of course, after she screws us over, you’ll be there to demand we re-elect her in 2020 because “THE REPUBLCANS WILL BE WORSE!”
“a commitment to the equality of all of its citizens”
But this is exactly why Clinton was right about the US not being Denmark. Does anyone foresee the above in the US, which is so massively steeped in race based divisions? Scandinavian countries haven’t had to deal with those issues to the extent the US did. Their model is awesome, but as you’ve pointed out, it requires the kind of citizenry the US just doesnt have yet.
VP @ 31
And just what, pray tell, will HRC do to bring about this culture change?
Edit: …this cultural change.
@#29, Anri
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, not only will I vote Green, but I will never vote for a Democrat for the presidency again, because it will mean that the Democrats have moved so far to the right — Hillary Clinton is to the right of Ronald F*cking Reagan on a whole slew of issues! — that they no longer represent me in any meaningful way.
Let me guess: to you, a vote that isn’t for the Democrats is a vote for the Republicans. In other words, to heck with actual democracy, this is a tribal contest like pro football, and what’s important isn’t actual representation, it’s whether or not the team you identify with can win or not. Well, fuck that. I’ll vote for whoever I think actually represents me the best, not who can make up the best boogeyman story about what will happen if they lose.
This shouldn’t concern you. News flash: Gore didn’t lose the election in 2000 because of the Greens and Nader; he lost the election because he ran as being “like Bush only a little less to the right”. Exit polls showed that there were twenty fucking times as many registered Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush as there were total Green Party votes from all sources, because the Democrats themselves looked at Bush and Gore and couldn’t tell the difference. If you really are concerned about that, you ought to be urging your party to differentiate itself as much as possible from the Republicans — which would mean ditching stealth-Republicans like Hillary Clinton and nominating as many like Sanders as you can find, but you certainly aren’t going to do that. You’ve convinced yourself for some utterly impossible reason that voters owe the party loyalty, rather than the party owing the voters loyalty, and in light of that decision anyone who realizes they’re getting screwed and leaves must be a traitor. Well, fuck that, too.
You might also try to get non-voters to go and vote instead — polls show they’re likely to vote for Democrats, or at least not for Republicans, but you can’t do that. You can’t because the first thing they’ll do is ask you “what have the Democrats done for me in the last decade or two” and if you give them an honest answer (“they helped Bush start a couple of disastrous wars, didn’t hold anyone responsible for all the disasters, gave you a fifth-rate healthcare bill, and then spent six years complaining about how the mean old Republicans were going to stop them anyway so they couldn’t even try to start anything”) they would laugh in your face and stay home.
And do you know who has made you the ineffectual tribalist hand-waver you are? It’s the party wing represented by the Clintons. If I were you, someone who values the party’s marketing value over its actual policy, I’d be out there screaming for their heads because they’re making the party lose — if the Republicans hadn’t gone off the deep end, as things stand Hillary Clinton would stand no chance of winning after getting the nomination. She can’t beat Cruz and her lead over Trump is small and getting smaller every week. (Unlike Sanders, incidentally.) But no, you’d rather try to frighten people than actually improve the party. Fuck that, too.
Few “politically incorrect” factors carefully left out of the original article (and this is from a native Finn):
*Culturally and Ethnically mostly homogenous populations.
*Protestant Christian cultural- and work ethics which soak entire populations. (Compare: “insha’Allah” vs. “God helps those who help themselves”)
*More or less equal high-quality schooling and (at least historically). Admittance testing to universities, for example, are rigorous, egalitarian and *competitive*. Valuation of STEM over social sciences.
*Social mobility related to previous, along general respect for education and hard work.
*Lethal climate which has historically forced people to plan forward and work for the future, or die.
*Getting out of the Colonial game before it got unpopular and/or distorted native economies along not importing slaves who would have later formed a culturally and ethnically distinct underclass.
I’d rather not play prisoner’s dillemma with my vote and give it to a party that would require a huge amount of people abandoning the two-party system that they think they live in. As long as there’s a Democrat less right than the Republican nominee, and until a more radically left party illustrates that it has a chance in hell of winning, I’m voting Democrat.
@mirrorfield#35
May be a thing in Finland, but doesn’t seem accurate for Denmark. “God helps those who help themselves” is an old proverbial phrase not present in the Bible and that as far as I know does not exist in Danish. We are more likely to reflexively say “Guskelov/gudsketakoglov” (roughly “God make law/god make thanks and law”, essentially “Thank God’s plan”) or “tak skæbne!” (Lit. “thank fate!”) than anything resembling that sentiment. I’ve very rarely met anyone who were religious here, though, and have seen Danish culture and ethics more often associated with the Law of Jante (fictional law about how you shouldn’t think yourself better than others) than with religion, so I may be missing some meaning behind “Protestant cultural and work ethics”.
Speaking only from limited experience, but it doesn’t feel unusually competitive here. Entrance requirements for most university educations in Denmark consist of having taken the necessary secondary school classes (which you can do as summer courses if you’re missing some) and, often times, meeting a grade average (they pick applicants from highest to lowest grade, so this changes every time). Some educations have tests of some sort, but it’s by far not the norm.
There’s plenty of problems with our educational system in my opinion, but I don’t see how it’s notably rigorous or competitive. The focus on equal access is there, but I also fail to see what’s so “politically incorrect” about that.
Definitively not the case here in the south. Denmark’s chillier than some places, but mostly seems comparable with England or other temperate areas. I think we even get less snow than they do.
In some sense, Denmark could still be considered a colonial power or at least a recently dissolved one with the possession of Greenland (complete with some pretty terrible treatment of Greenlandic Inuit). As for the rest, that’s not really a specific Scandinavian or Nordic thing, since I am not aware of a European colonial power who didn’t send their slaves to their colonies.
@sunjester
I totally feel ya. I’m not really a libertarian (though I once was), except of course on the issues where libertarians and social liberals overlap (which are conveniently rarely acknowledged, the better to ensure clean battle lines and tribal loyalty), but I don’t much like the animosity expressed by either side for the other.
Speaking from the liberal point of view, I especially don’t like the labeling of libertarians as “selfish”. It’s an attitude that’s hostile towards any kind of understanding or dialogue. It’s a result of imposing one’s own worldview on another, assuming that they must see the world the same way, and if they take a different approach then they must have bad intentions. It reeks of the way religious conservatives treat non-believers and skeptics: of course everyone believes in god, so anyone claiming otherwise must hate him or be inherently evil. Oh, and we’re also selfish, according to the same people. One wishes that sort of demonization and misrepresentation would make liberal atheists a bit more hesitant to throw around that word in particular.
But then of course I’ll occasionally come upon a libertarian so full of spite for the less fortunate (the “welfare queens” and the “government leeches”), so seemingly devoid of compassion and humanity, that I’ll forget my high-minded pragmatism and happily join the melee…
But, in a perfect world, I’d much rather talk about the potential consequences of the policies someone supports, how it hurts or helps people, rather than speculate on their character or motivations. Empathizing with someone else, understanding where they’re coming from opens up a chance for finding common ground. Modern liberalism and libertarianism are both descended, at least in part, from classical liberalism. We have quite a few shared values (personal liberty, individual autonomy [though balanced somewhat more by societal good for liberals], freedom of expression, etc.) We can acknowledge our differences without mutual excommunications. There’s already so many important issues liberals and libertarians are in lock step on: criminal justice reform, liberalizing drug policy, opposing the surveillance state, etc. Bottom line is that if you support a position that will do more good than harm I don’t care if you’re only doing it because you think the moon is made of green cheese; I will happily be your ally.
PZ, I agree with your stance on the Nordic model, but I think your American capitalism being a religion is not wholly true. USA too is mixed economy but skewed to the right. After all, we do have the Veterans Health Administration, Medicare, Social Security, etc. to name a few. And the Nordic model isn’t sans capitalism. It too is a mixed economy slanted to the left. When the chips are down, Joe Plumber wants the government’s help when he loses his job and health insurance. Not really a strong religion if people easily lose faith.
But the Nordic model comes with a price. In Scandinavian countries wherein middle class incomes exceed $60000, they are taxed at 60%. You know that any politician who would propose such a tax scheme on the American public would most likely lose against even the most fascist opponent (eg. The Donald) in a general election. Personally, I would pay 60% to cover all services (ie. free college, healthcare, excellent public schools, retirement, etc.). But even the ones who are on “my side” would use those tax dollars for drone strikes and wire-tap all cell phones in the name of national security. If, as you say, capitalism is a “religion”, good luck converting Joe/Josephine Public to the “atheism” of 60%.
I think the joke in one of the Men in Black movies, as well as in the Terri Pratchett novel Nation, and so many other places, and which is also supported by a fair amount of psychological research is, to give my own phrasing: A person is rational, within the limits of their own knowledge, information, and moral code, but when you get them in groups… all hell breaks out.
Yeah, well, I made $16k this year and only survive off that, in a state/city where there is jack shit in terms of jobs that pay better, without cutting back your hours, by living with my parents. So, sign me up for that “price”.
Akira MacKenzie @ 30:
If you think they won’t be vote for one of them.
Seriously.
Let’s get your voting preference for that election, then: Trump, Cruz, or Clinton in 2020? If you’re pissed at me about your selection of candidates, your aim might just be a little bit off.
The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) @ 34:
Well, hell, it seems to me that I’m making a crappy but sensible choice based on the actual selection put in front of me and because the Presidency is an actual real thing, and sitting in the corner holding my widdle bwef until mommy gets me the toy I wewey twuwy want isn’t going to help the world at all.
But thanks for setting me straight on what I actually think. If I ever need to know what’s happening inside my own head again, I’ll be sure to ask you, given your superior grasp of it.
Since you’re awesome at this, tell me what candidate I’m supporting in the race.
Voting Green doesn’t make you a traitor – just selfish and kinda stupid.
It’s pretty damn easy to be loyal to your constituents when you don’t actually have any because you’re not in office. Takes no effort at all.
Maybe this is just me, but I don’t really see taxes as that bad of a thing?
Taxes are fucking awesome, because a lot of really good institutions are funded by taxes. I don’t think anyone should be taxed beyond their means, and I’m definitely fine with the rich being taxed more than the poor.
But being the middle class person that I am, I’m 200% down with paying for taxes as long as I’m funding schools, streets, hospitals, and social welfare rather than million dollar stealth fighters that get mothballed after a year.
@#42, Anri
No, that would only make sense if you think the Republicans would be better than the Democrats. I haven’t seen anyone saying that here, merely that the Republicans are not noticeably worse in practice. Which means that there’s no point for voting for either one — but there might be a point in voting for a third party.
Voting for someone who you know will make things worse will (surprise!) make things worse. It won’t help the world at all. The Democrats have demonstrated that by and large they will make things worse — most of them are definitely pro-war (Clinton especially — it isn’t just Iraq, there hasn’t been a military action of which she hasn’t been an enthusiastic supporter since 1992), most of them are pro-big-banks, most of them are anti-environmentalist, they threw the unions under the bus back under Bill Clinton, they were well behind public opinion on gay equality and gay marriage, they’re mostly not feminists and when they are they generally aren’t very good feminists (this includes Hillary “Planned Parenthood Has Some Explaining To Do” Clinton). Under Clinton the financial markets were deregulated and the poor were screwed; under Obama the banks got bailed out and even rewarded for crashing the economy, we kept making the middle east a worse and worse quadmire, and Social Security funds were used to pay for the military. Walking up a mountain to throw yourself off a cliff is slower than driving, but it’s still suicide.
You aren’t supporting a candidate. You’re supporting a party. No matter what happens, you’re going to vote Democratic. If Hillary Clinton got the nomination and then announced a plan to launch a nuclear strike on all the population centers of the U.S., you would still vote for her because “but what about the Supreme Court”.
No, voting for someone who will screw the entire world over, including you, because you’re scared of what might happen if “the other party” got into office is selfish and stupid. Actually voting for people who want to make things better is the only way out, but — like voting itself — it only works if enough people wake up and do it at once. As long as people like you are around, America is screwed.
And yet Hillary Clinton couldn’t even manage it while she was in an appointed position as Secretary of State under Obama. Amazing.
The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) @ 44:
Ah, well, since this is true (and it must be – you said so after all, and the alternative is unpossible) I’m clearly far too stupid to be worth arguing with.
So I’ll spare you the trouble.
Looks like you win!
Why are people saying that because there is racism in America that the country shouldn’t try to build up equality? I thought that was the solution to the problem? If you can’t strive for the solution then you are basically fucked.