USA vs. Europe: Freedom vs. Fairness

A look at the philosophies behind two great cultures

Published on March 4, 2004 By Draginol In International

Blogs occasionally seem to have a Europe vs. United States mentality. I've seen it since the beginning of blogging. Why is that? Why is so much scorn reserved for Americans from Europeans? Why is such contempt shown for Europeans? I think I have the answer: Drastically different philosophies on life.

Europeans are focused on fairness. Americans are focused on freedom. Europeans look at Americans as a bunch of uncultured barbarians running amok in their country and worse, through the world spreading their vulgar culture around. Americans see Europeans as a bunch of sissies whose people meekly except regulations and massive taxation in an effort to make life more "fair" for everyone. The American response would typically be "Hey, life ain't fair!" to which the European might answer "But it should be!" And so it goes from there.

But because so many Europeans like individual Americans (and vice versa) the argument usually gets shifted to the "administrations" of the various countries. The typical American is a nice guy right? It's not his fault that the United States is full of gun toting, capital punishment supporting, SUV driving, CO2 producing zealots. What do you expect with Bush in charge? And "Old Europe" is a mess not because of the typical Belgian or German or Frenchman, it's cynical and corrupt politicians like Chirac or Schroeder that make it seem so crummy to us.

What both fail to realize that in a democracy, the people get what they want. Sometimes it takes awhile but eventually their cultures will get a government that represents them. Some people are aghast that the United States has capital punishment. But an overwhelming majority of Americans supports capital punishment. So we elect leaders who support it. Both Kerry and Bush support capital punishment. They have to. They wouldn't get elected otherwise. But why do Americans support capital punishment? Because we're a bunch of "Cowboys"? No. It's because we believe in having a great deal of freedom in our lives but we also believe that freedom comes with a price -- personal responsibility.

Great freedom requiring personal responsibility is one of the cornerstones of American culture. And it is a relatively foreign concept to Europeans (not personal responsibility but the relationship between the two). We pretty much allow people to do what they want here. You can own a gun with few exceptions. There are few regulations in being an entrepreneur. But at the same time, there are few regulations to keep a company from simply bombing on its own. People in the United States aren't taxed very much relatively speaking. They're free to make decisions on how they want to spend the money they earn. But on the other side of the coin, they also are free to make poor choices and end up in the gutter.

I don't mean this as a criticism of Europe but Europeans have never had the kinds of freedoms Americans have. Even today. It was, after all, a big reason why so many Europeans came to the United States in the first place. The US government is formed on the basis of the federal government essentially providing a handful of essential services. It's actually the weakest central government in the industrialized world in terms of its domestic power. But Europeans have not demanded the kinds of freedoms Americans want. A European might correctly point out that too much freedom leads to chaos and anarchy. And that Europeans have chosen to pull back a bit from the brink that Americans seem so readily to jump over in order to try to create a more just society.

Remember, the French revolution cry was not freedom or death as it was in the United States. It was split amongst 3 principles: liberty, equality, fraternity. Much of "old Europe" could be described in this way. The government exists to help make things more fair -- more equal. It's not fair for some people to be incredibly rich while others are incredibly poor. A European would look at the gap between the richest Americans and the poorest Americans as evidence that the American system isn't working. An American would look at the same evidence and point out that it is working as designed. The only concern Americans would have is if the rich got rich from cheating the system in some way. Americans, generally, do not envy the rich because they believe they have a shot at being one of them if they play their cards right. And even if they don't, odds are they'll end up doing pretty well.

The descendants of Europe who live in the United States have a significantly better standard of living than anywhere else in the world. And the American system works so well that descendents from Africa have the highest standard of living of any people with African heritage in the world -- despite having been slaves only a bit over a century ago. But there's a catch (isn't there always?) The poorest Americans live pretty darn poorly compared to people in similar situations in Europe. If life were an obstacle course where 90% of the people were able to compete it and 10% didn't, the 90% in the US are rewarded far more than the 90% in Europe. But at the same time, the 10% who can't do it suffer more in the US than they do in Europe. So which path do you take?

As an American, I've been instilled with its cultural values. So I prefer freedom to fairness. I have sympathy for those who haven't been able to make the cut in American society but I also don't want to see our freedoms further eroded in order to prop them up. I don't like the way things are in "old Europe". My views aren't shared by all Americans. But they are shared by most Americans. And vice versa in Europe. And the result of democracy in action (or representative government if you're anal retentive) is that the system is set up to reflect our values -- just like the French and Germans and Belgians and so on have governments that reflect theirs. And that's a good thing.

Comments (Page 5)

Draginol

on Apr 01, 2004

BTW, Big Mammal, we're not "equal" on freedom of religion or speech. Obviosly you just have no idea what you're talking about.

Speech is definitely limited in Europe. I believe examples have alreayd provided here on how speech that "offends" is restricted and France tried to get Google to block anythign having to do with Nazi's. You can argue that you're glad that they restrict "hate" speech in Europe but you can't say they're as free as we are. Americans believe that ideas should be allow to compete. Even stupid bad ideas like Nazism and Communism. Because dumb ideas, when inspected, end up being shown for what they are.

Hence why underground skinhead Nazi movements in Germany flourish while in the US, Nazi's are laughed at even as they're allowed to walk down the street in their goofy little outfits. Americans aren't afraid of ideas, speech, and religion.

messybuu

on Apr 01, 2004

What also bothers me is that basically anything could be classified as hate speech. Think about how many groups have wackos within? For example, there are wackos who fight for the same issues as PETA and Pro-Lifers, except they use violence. These things (and many more) could be labeled hate speech and banned.

Solitair

on Apr 02, 2004

Brad,
people in Europe really do not like being frequently reminded of the negative past. Especially when European ideals and outlooks are frequently critised by those same people. You can't demonise France and Germany for opposing war in Iraq on one hand and then demonise their WW2 history in another. Their modern outlook is strongly linked to their history and experience. Likewise you can;t demonise their WW2 behaviour and then critise their freedom of speech laws. You must look at everything in conjunction. You must also realise that Europe has moved beyond WW2. Comparing the current world against WW2 is wrong. Just because millions were exterminated in WW2 does not make it acceptable to Europeans that even 1 can be executed today.

I don't think you're at all anti-European, you just have a habit of rubbing the past in European's noses again and again. Luckily I'm not German or I might really get offended

.

As for other comments,
- I totally agree with you that Europeans are no more 'civilised' than Americans. Civilised is a very vague term that means different things to different people.
- Speech is totally free in Europe. Consequences relating to that speech (such as libel, incitement to violence, and racial hatred laws) do occur. We have no laws banning an individual from membership of any political party, or political ideal. Any restrictive laws in EU countries are always on a society level (public speeches, public advertistment). As a matter of comparison, just look at your 1950's communist witchhunt. That can't happen in Europe as individual's have a sacroscant right to believe what they want. The US also has restrictive laws for it's soldiers. Are gay or lesbian soldiers allowed yet? Is membership of the communist party allowed yet? (honest questions that I don't know the answers to).
- Religion is also totally free in Europe. Similar laws as to speech. You can believe what you want and constitution guarentees that right to believe. There are restriction on a socirty level though in inciting racial or religious violence.

I think the word 'freedom' like the word 'civilised' means different things to different people. Many Europeans believe they are more free and more civilised than the US and I'm sure many Americans believe they are more free and more civilised than Europeans.

Paul.

Ximo16

on Apr 02, 2004

Hi. I am spanish, and excuse me if I commit some mistakes.

I have read some posts here and I thing that you have a wrong image about the european society. USA was the first country in the world who have had a political liberal system. But now, I think that this system has not evolved enough. In Europe, we have a social system very developed, a joust democracy...

In addition, I think that USA, since 1840, have a imperialistic attitude. The war between Mexico and Usa in 1846, the destruction of the indian's culture, the war of Cuba in 1898... And now, I think that is not necessary to talk about the international attitude of USA.

In Europe, we are really impressed when we watch on TV an american soldier in Irak who says: "I'm serving USA". I believe that he's only serving the governement and the petroleum enterprises.

Thank you.

Draginol

on Apr 02, 2004

Ximo: None of what you say argues that the United States is less of a democracy or less free than Europe.

Democracy is about laws having the consent of the people. Capital punishment is legal in the United States in many states because the people of those states want it to be legal. The United States sent troops to Iraq because the people of the United States wanted to send troops to Iraq.

The United States has done some things that are imperialist and it has done things that are incredibly noble and unimperialistic (for instance, if the US were truly imperalistic, all of western Europe other than UK would now be territories of the United States as well as Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, etc.). Cuba, incidentally, is an independent nation. It received its independence after the United States won its war with Spain in 1898.

The US doesn't need Iraqi oil. Not enough to wage war for that. Again: If the United States wanted to, it could conquer Saudi Arabia and all the other Opec nations. There is nothing any other nation could do about it as a practical matter. But the US doesn't do it. It doesn't do that because the people of the United States don't want to do that and that plays out in its government policies because it is a democracy.

jeblackstar

on Apr 02, 2004

Brad, The Phillipines were territories of the United States, for over 50 fifty years. Cuba was an economic "colony" of the United States until the Cuban revolution. You can't say we aren't a colonial power because we don't have the colonies now, I mean Britain was a colonial power even though almost all her colonies are gone.

The US is also the second largest Imperial power in the world, why? Because we call our colonies "states" and "territories" instead of colonies.

Cheers

Ximo16

on Apr 02, 2004

Brad Wardell:

People in USA must know that they cannot decide on other nations. If USA decides something, there are more nations, and it's possible that they not agree.

The US needs the iraqi oil, because Iraq is the most rich zone in oil in the world. That's sure.

The war with Spain in 1898 was a war for the US economic interests. The warship "Maine" exploited in a cuban port and USA said that it was a spanish attack, and they declared the war unjustly. It's a noble thing?

But naturally, USA and the american people have all my respect and my sharm. That's only a political conversation.

Thanks.

mexician

on Apr 17, 2004

i have to agree with the american side on alot of ideas, for one, if the united states didnt help the british fight the war (in europe) this confersation would not be here, well not for the europeans since hitler would monitor free speech in europe if he won that war. And all this crap about aragance and such towards america, i do believe the one of the first PUBLIC hangings actually took place in europe. one person above stating that this was veiging the history of europe, same as with the usa. I NEVER recall any where in the usa where we burn other countries flags, for when the usa pres. bushent to uk, pple over there were really lighting those red stripes up.

Everytime when i turn on a socialist news network (bbc, cnn, etc) they always say the usa is (conquring the land) instead of liberating:
liberating: destroy and replace govnment
conquering: actually taking over the pple and establishing cities and such.

if we conqure then we wouldnt waste our time, we would kill anyone that gets in our way, liberating isnt that simple tho.

all i heard was where were thos wmds? WELL DUH. HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PPLE AND SENT MISSILES TO ISRAEL, WOULD U LIKE SOME OF THE REMAINS OF THOUSANDS DEAD TO PROVE HE HAD THEM? WMDS ALSO INCLUDES: NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

history: japan ( which the usa bombed to the ground) usa then makes that country 2nd learget economy on world.

history: germany (whch the usa LIBERATED SINCE I DONT THING GERMANY IS PART OF THE USA NOW OR EVER WAS) got bombed to the ground and guess wut, its among the top 5 largest economies.

now for iraq: (which the usa did NOT bomb to the gorund instead tryied to aim for MILITARY AND TERRIOsts- which i rather call them rebels instead, (THE IRAQI MILTARY HIDE IN CIVLIAN CENTERS ANS WHEN THE USE BOMB THOSE SPECIFIC TARGETS, THE USA GETS BLAMED AND NOT THE COWARD BASTARD WHO PUT THOSE PPLE IN THEM) we trying to heklp them and would make them in the top 5 ecomnies but no, they want killings, suicide bombings, why do they even kill them selves for ( there attackin a LIBERATOR WHOS helping them for a cause not known off???)

When i go to europe for a month each year its getting worse there, for an example, 80 percent taxes and of whcih NOW THEY ARE CUTTING MEDICARE AND SUCH but still leaving those 80 percent taxes inposed??? where is that money going? i wonder? i know is helping the enimies of AMEIRCA to fight our forces and for wut???? b/c europe wuts a socilist place in the world where, if a person working a hard day recieves the same amount as a person whos laying on is buttocks?

to me europe is neither free nor fair, its none, its like a large cage ready to callapse on its self.
america is both fair and free, free to do wut u want as long as no harm is done to no one else and fair as u work for ur way in life and not working for someone else to recieve ur bread for the day.

when it comes to war, usa catpures ONLY MILITANTS, but usa eniemies capture civlilians.

if the usa so called conqureed its land from war then u should mark all west europe, japan and south asia, and parts of africa as the usinted states so basically id say more than half the world is usa. i dont think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

anyways everyone in the united states wants peace, how ever some pple in ueope of which are cowards and in history HAVE BEEN PROVEN BEEN COWARDS to actually defend fomr themselves

im a mexian learning english so pleae excuse my eglish, im in my 2 year of ebglish class and i still have another term and year left. gracious.

Saint Ying

on Apr 18, 2004

The past doesn't exist so that we can keep scores and form judgements on continents and nations, but rather so that in examining it through the discipline of history, we can better understand our existence and identity. European nations have experienced more 'history' in the last century than the United States has experienced throughout it existence. Should we hold that against them, or should we credit them with making a concerted effort to glean the lessons of that history and evolve into fiercely and progressively democratic states? I don't think there is any excuse for the kind of European branding that I'm reading here, including idiotic statements about European cowardice like the one in the post above.

Plaps

on Apr 18, 2004

The problem with Europe is that nobody is willing to take action anymore. Nobody said anything when Hitler was building up arms and very little was done by the Spanish after their bombings. The fact is, is that it doesn't work. The US is all about action and responsibility. In the US, you take responsibility for your actions, whereas in the EU, they try to appease everyone so that they'll just kinda go away. That doesn't work and that never will. The US hasn't had a terrorist attack on it's soil since 9/11. The results speak for themselves.

Saint Ying

on Apr 18, 2004

Perhaps Europeans differentiate between 'right action' and 'wrong action' better than Americans, who seem to view any action as 'right action', even if it doesn't produce 'right consequences' and wasn't based on 'right intention', neither of which can be said with complete authority to apply to the United States war in Iraq. In this case, some Americans have a vague sense of 'right intention' based on Saddam Hussein's humanitarian and military threat, and some have a frighteningly nationalistic (and perhaps wrong) sense of intention based on duty to conquer the world with American values and pave the way for corporate colonialism in hostile areas. In my opinion, neither of these perspectives are able to separate consequence from intention, instead believing that right action containing right intention will yield to right consequence. It is easy to understand why Americans adopt this view: our country and its mythology were built upon it, and WE are the consequence, and surely the right consequence, of our good intention. Why shouldn't the rest of the world also be the consequence of our good intention?

This belief, a modern restatement of 'manifest destiny', resonates deeply with the emphasis we place on intention in our personal and political spheres. We like to view ourselves as the consequences of the good intention to work hard and be responsible. We are in many respects alienated from any form of failure that arises from good intention, partly because we are so reluctant to admit to our own failures when they occur, and partly because those of higher social status are increasingly distanced from those in the lower ranks. Politically, we believe that reaffirming that same good intention is superior to creating good consequences (or circumstances) through any permutation of democratic socialism, although we have ceded a great deal to the latter for the necessity of preserving our democracy. If we are the consequences of our own right intention, it would be demeaning to the importance of our good intention if such consequences could be achieved artificially without hard work. Many conservative Americans, who hold this view dogmatically, would rather exist in a world where good intention is religiously observed as the key to good consequence, even as it becomes increasingly difficult for good consequences to be obtained through good intention alone.

The conservative view of the failures of American society and American military action is that there has emerged in society a tremendous epidemic of wrong-intentioned thinking and behavior among people. The liberal view of the failures of American society and military action is that while right intention is an important element of right action, more must be done to guarantee right consequences, firstly, because intention, being the obscure psychological entity that it is, is so hard to qualify as right (liberals do not believe that the bible, for instance, can authoritively qualify something as right or wrong), and secondly because rational empiricism demonstrates that right consequences are impossible to obtain coercively with right intention if circumstances are not permitting. The liberal will therefore demand that consequences be considered to their fullest detail in order to qualify and create a right action, while intention, or the will to place a quality on something, must be modified into the 'intention of right consequence'. This, the liberal will argue, is the most, if not only, right intention, and one that democracy is intrinsically designed to promote.

In American domestic social politics, the intention of right consequences will result in the creation of better social circumstances for the obtainment of right consequences on a personal level. This requires far more than 'throwing money' at problems, yet a significant aspect of creating better circumstances will be the appropriation of capital. Both Democrats and Republicans have acted with 'right intention' without the 'intension of right consequences', extending or removing money to some task or program, but failing to provide the leadership and vision to supervise its transformation into reality. I believe it is the responsibility of the president to coordinate right intention into right circumstances by working with congress on a variety of issues under a broad, cohesive, and reasonably attainable vision for the country. Examples of leadership demonstrating the intention of right consequences would include Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, FDR's New Deal, and, with reservations, LBJ's Great Society. Neither president Bush nor Reagan demonstrated this competence or vision, IMO, and Clinton was either uninterested or unable to perform the task.

George W. Bush's significant contribution to the political landscape is the 'War Against Terrorism', which resembles previous attempts to affect right consequences in the way it has been branded and promoted as a massive and visionary undertaking, with broad implications on foreign and domestic security programs. It is however, a war with no clear understanding of its own consequences, and no direction for the world it intends to change. I do not believe that 'eliminating Saddam Hussein' is a right consequence, nor do I believe that protecting the U.S. from terrorism is a right consequence. Both, I believe are right intentions, with undefined consequences. From a liberal perspective, I do not believe that military actions should be undertaken unless they are able to define right consequences, or in layman's terms, create peaceful situations where war is unlikely to occur. I do believe that the Bush administration has considered consequences that it would like to see realized, but I do not believe they are right consequences, and I have not observed Bush openly discussing them with the American people (nor, from a Machiavellion viewpoint, do I think he should). Note that I present them only because Bush has yet to offered an alternative, and therefore they represent my best assessment. These desired consequences, consistent with neoconservative ideology, include a strong American military presence in the middle east, a world that is dominated by American values and American economic order, and a world where the majority of available oil resources are controlled by American interests and corporations. I do not believe that these are right consequences because I think they are inherently selfish, fascistic, and inconducive to peace. While I believe there are right intentions in the 'War Against Terrorism', right intentions to not justify actions. Therefore, I strongly believe that the actions taken by the Bush administration are wrong actions, and will produce wrong consequences.

Erique Dela Crappe

on Apr 19, 2004

Yeah, instead they bombed Spain, a country that appeased Sadam and didn't go to war in Iraq. Or wait.... erm....

As for the rise of Hitler.... that keeps popping up here as proof that Europeans are simply inactive appeasing sods. Let's not forget please that he was democraticaly elected by the German voters. I am from Holland; what were my grandparents to do? Pick up their clogs and hit Hitler on the head for being naughty? You completely disregard the realities of that time; Europe was still in ruins form most part due to WW numero uno, and there was a deep belief that something that horrible would never ever happen again. Should England and France have invaded Germany and Italy as soon as Der Führer and Il Duce had been elected? How democratic would that have been? (Oh how I would love you to tell me we we should have, it would give us an excellent reason to invade the States next time you elect an warmongering lunatic like Georgie W.). By the time it became clear Germany and Italy were going to cause trouble, it was simply too late; they built up their military frightingly fast and no-one in their right mind was going to start another big war right in the center of Europe, not one that could be easily lost. Likewise, America was pretty quick in attacking easy targets like Afganistan and Iraq, but somehow I missed them kicking the commies out of Moscow.

The true evil of Hitler & co was shown when they attacked Poland and especially later, when they started killing Jews, Gypsies and generally anyone different en masse. By then, it was obviously too late. Was there some general insight into these intentions by Hitler that we missed back then? If so, where was America to stop him if it was so incredibly obvious? And why did it take the Japs to get America involved?

A lot went wrong in the 30's and 40's, a lot of lessens have been learnt of it. An important lesson has been that war is horrible and should be avoided whenever possible. Sure, America has lost a whole lot of young brave men in the World War's, but barring Pearl Harbor, these wars have not raged on their own soil. It changes perspective more than a bit.

Solitair

on Apr 19, 2004

The problem with Europe is that nobody is willing to take action anymore. Nobody said anything when Hitler was building up arms and very little was done by the Spanish after their bombings.

as I say time and time against, stop using history to justify the now. If you want to critise WW2 you can as easily critise the US's refusal to get involved until 2.5 years into the war. But there is no point. it's in the past. Learn from it don't live it!

As for the Spanish they are focussing lots of effort on enhancing anti-terrorist policing across the entire EU. They have already destroyed the terrorists responsible for the atrocity. They have already acheived new enhanced EU cooperation against terrorism. What they are not doing is continuing the war in Iraq as they don't see this as the war on terror. That's their choice not yours.

Europe does take action when it feels the need to. It took action in the Balkans France took action in Sierra Leone. It took action in Haiti.

Paul.

Peace Phoenix

on Apr 20, 2004

However - in reply to O G San and anyone who wants a European defense -

When an American looks down at the homeless person on the street they think: "Good thing that isn't me, and thus it's not my problem."

When a European looks down at the homeless person on the street they think: "That could be me someday, and therefore I should help."

I know the world is not truly this black and white, so I guess it is just another cliched thought. But a thought nevertheless.

Since USA claims links with christianity ("in god we trust"), I would like to know how the emphasis on Freedom works with the following scriptures:
Matthew 25.34-40:
Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family you did it to me.'

act of the apostles2.44-47:
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

Erique Dela Crappe

on Apr 20, 2004

Since USA claims links with christianity ("in god we trust"), I would like to know how the emphasis on Freedom works with the following scriptures:

That would probably be because in some other chapter it says, and I quote: "Thou shalt be free to not give a damn about thy neighbor".

The most profound truth about the bible is that it can be used to prove the points of any side in any conflict, which renders it completely worthless in any intelligent discussion.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!