During the Cold War, the US attempted to establish a whole bunch of Liberal Democracies all across the globe. Pretty much without fail, they all collapsed and became the same sort of rule-by-force kingdoms that they had been before, with little more to distinguish them from what they had been but the terminology applied. We’ve all just pretended that they’re something different and new - dictatorships, oligarchies, etc.
Fundamentally, there’s a difference between understanding something in theory and in practice. You give a group of modern city-folk a one day workshop on subsistence farming, drop them off in the wilderness, and you’ll just end up with a bunch of dead people come the following Spring, if they even make it to Winter.
The US came about as the logical progression of several centuries of development in the social, economic, and political sciences. And even then, a similarly situated country - France - tried to accomplish the same thing and failed spectacularly and didn’t ever succeed properly until after WWII (as I understand it).
You look at Italy and I don’t know that they’ve ever had a President who didn’t end up going to jail for corruption.
Cultural inertia is a factor that most people have a hard time envisioning, but history shows that it’s a mighty factor.
But history has also shown that the US can take in people from places with cultures that are non-modern - that believe in child marriage, slavery, and a husband’s right to sex at any time - and have those people fully Americanized within a few generations and without influencing the greater culture towards their view. Immigrants to America in modern day have been less prone to crime than the natives and more willing to take jobs that the natives won’t.
But at the same time, we see immigrants coming into Europe and raising the crime rate, continuing child marriages and pederasty against the laws - a thing that we don’t see here. And that’s not just right-wing bollocks from European nationalists, though I’m sure that they’re making it seem like a more world-ending matter than it is.
Personally, I think that the differences are that:
- The socialist / welfare state that many call for here, and use Europe as an example to show that “it works”, does work with the natives. But it attracts foreigners who are bums. In the US, we have always said that we’ll take anyone, but once you get here you’re on your own. Want a house? Work for it. Since we’re more callous to our immigrants, we attract the people who want the opportunity to be able to work an honest day and accomplish what they can under their own power. Their Syrians harass women in the streets. Our Syrians invent the iPhone. It’s not a matter of “immigrants” being good or bad. It’s a matter that some people, in any group, are good and some are not. They’re not all angels and they’re not all devils. You’re always going to get a mix, but you can do some vetting and advertising to try and skew the ratio.
- The rate of immigration has always been limited. We haven’t been swarmed over the way that, for example, France has been. At the end of the day, you need a certain ratio of natives to immigrants in order for peer pressure to work effectively and push the local culture over.