id guess the federal system allows more diversity as matters of policy can be set at a lower level and hence can more easily reflect local attitudes. or the cynic in me just says americans are slower than the rest of us. ducks and covers
It seems to me that America, generally speaking, tries to make sure that it can accomodate a wide variety of tastes. A lot of people don’t want their kids seeing nudity all over the place. A lot of people don’t care. So we have basic cable, where nudity is verboten, and pay channels and movies and such where you can see all manner of sexual frivolity. If anybody in the US wants to get their rocks, they can find all manner of twisted crap catering to pretty much any fetish. But if you don’t want to have anything to do with that, it’s comparitively easy to avoid it.
Also, as Hemlock mentioned, there are different levels of sexual accomodation depending on where you live. Don’t care if you see porno mags and naked postcards being peddled on the street? Live in San Francisco or LA. Don’t care for that stuff? Move to a smaller community. I’ve never been to Europe, but is it safe to assume that similar situations exist in many of those countries? There are more and less sexuality-oriented regions to live in?
Jeff
Sounds like Puppetry of the Penis. They’re Australian.
Not only does Canada allow gays in the military, but it provides same-sex benefits to those employed by the federal government, including the military. As well, there is a Captain in the Canadian Army (unfortunately his name escapes me, but he was Francophone) who joined up as a man, and had sex-reassignment surgery covered under his medical benefits provided by the military. And then, he retained his job after recuperation.
Tell me that’s not liberal - but then try to find a condom commercial on Canadian TV.
As a whole, I wouldn’t be so certain that the Netherlands is without a significant contingent of conservatism. I say this because I’m from a very large extended family with many members in the Netherlands ( I was raised in Canada) and they are all deeply influenced by Calvinism. In my youth I was not allowed to dance, go to movies (shouldn’t support the wicked actors/actresses), work on Sunday, join a union etc. As I young kid I was commanded to separate myself from the “world”. I ended up feeling I was very special and different from my Canadian classmates. As a result of the death of my mother when I was a teen and the subsequent rejection of Calvinism by my father, I was able to break free from the mindset that controlled us.
But the Calvinists, although constantly talking about what is wrong with the “world” never make any effort to participate in the political arena. And growing up in Canada in the 50s and 60s, I was surprised to learn that the country which spawned Playboy magazine, I am Curious Yellow, Mondo Kane also had many citizens who were deeply religious and increasingly flexing their muscles politically. Still, I don’t think they are as puritanical as the Dutch Calvinists I know.
So I suspect that most western countries have their fair share of Christian zealots/fundamentalists, but in America they are much more political. Seems rather ironic in view of thier constitution, separation of church and state et al.
going to malta next week.
can’t sunbathe topless.
bummer.
very strongly catholic island.
I have heard Malta is a beautiful place. Not that I would have any interest in discouraging topless bathing by pretty girls but I wonder what makes half of northern Europeans flock down to the Med to roast in the sun and acquire tickets for skin cancer. I know a woman who must be about 40 but her skin is that of a 60 year old because it is so wrinkled and leathery, the result of years of “sunbathing”. Enjoy Malta, but take good care of yourself.
I’ve seen quite a few – on Muchmusic, and on CBC during Degrassi.
It depends on where you are, I guess.
What Hamish said. In particular, "We settled the “socialized medecine” debate quite some time ago. "
As did the remainder of the industrialized world. On this basis alone, the US qualifies as very conservative.
-flowbark, centrist by European standards, right side of far left by US standards.
cuate:
**
Not as much as you might think, from seeing scenes of, say, Carnaval in Rio. Get outside the big cities, and it’s not exactly puritanical by any means, but more conservative. Not too different from the U.S.
And Rio is much more “anything goes” than Sao Paulo. Most parts of Brazil don’t celebrate Carnaval the way Rio does. It’s more a traditional, folklore, street dance type of thing.
Nudity is a bit more common on television. Sexual references are more loose in things like commercials. You’ll have as much difficulty finding a topless beach there as you would in the U.S., despite what the Western perception is. But yeah; the bikinis are tiny. 
As Lumpy said, most all of Latin America has that machismo thing going on. And the dichotomy of being 90-plus percent Catholic, yet sexually liberal. Extra-marital affairs on the part of men are almost expected. But they are still expected to be kept discreet.
Good girls don’t; but the men there would be lost if that idea was adhered to.
I don’t think there’s a place on the planet that doesn’t have inconsistency in its social mores.
And no, I don’t know of another Western nation more socially conservative than the USA. Did America become a superpower because of its social conservatism, especially over its first 150 years or so? Or did it become one after things started loosening up? Kind of interesting to think about.
*Did America become a superpower because of its social conservatism, especially over its first 150 years or so? Or did it become one after things started loosening up? *
I honestly am not sure whether the US was more conservative than Europe during its first 150 years.
I would be inclined to make left/right comparisons only after, say ~1880. YMMV.
The US didn’t become what most would consider a “super-power” until after WWII, mostly due to fears about communist expansion. We recognized communism as a threat, and saw the USSR’s desire to expand its borders, and realized how disastrous it would be if communism were allowed to become wide-spread. This caused as to beef up our military, and take a more active role in worldwide peace-keeping; prior to WWII, the US had been pretty isolationist.
As to whether or not this was the result of increased conservatism? Hard to say, but I would think not. Conservatism is typically pretty laissez faire about most things, which would seem to explain better our world outlook prior to WWII - doesn’t concern us, not our problem, we’d probably only much up the works if we got involved - a good philosophy in general, but we took it to extremes. It’s true that nowadays conservatism is associated with strong military, but I’m not enough of a social historian to say if this has always been the case.
Jeff
I have a good friend who is British and whose wife is French and is very familiar with both countries, and has lived in the US for some time now. He tells me that a fundamental difference between the US and Europe is how seriously people take their (ostensible) ideals. Specifically that Europeans talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, while Americans do.
Thoughts?
Well, it is worth noting that Europe and Canada have been able to devote money to that and other social programs because they haven’t had to spend as much money on defense for the last 50+ years. Since the American armed forces spent the postwar period, up until the Warsaw Pact imploded, protecting Europe with what was essentially an occupying force, Europe was free to devote its financial resources elsewhere. And Canada has benefitted from both the large number of forces stationed at home and our nuclear arsenal.
>> Specifically that Europeans talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, while Americans do.
Funny you should say this because just recently we were discussing western values and how the US likes to preach them in China and other places but then turns around and will not cooperate with the ICC, the protocol for prisons inspections to prevent torture and stuff like that. It seems to me Europeans are the ones walking the walk and not the US.
On a different note: Today an Iberia (“a wing and a prayer”) Airlines 747 had one of the motor catch fire shortly after takeoff from JFK so they had to turn around and return. The passengers had to jump out on the chutes and some were injured. A TV crew was interviewing a young Spanish woman and she said "Well, yes, there was tension and we were a bit scared but on the whole people were calm. . . except for a crazy American woman who started chanting “Halleluja, praise the Lord’ and stuff like that”.
I’m telling you, if a woman seated next to me starts doing that, I punch her so hard she’s not going to feel like saying anything for a while. What a jerk. Just what you need in an emergency landing is a crazy woman who thinks she is preparing to die and cannot do it quietly.
Of course, Mandelstam, one could ponder the other way…did Europe lose its influence because of its social conservatism, especially over its last 150 years or so? Or did it lost it after things started loosening up?
Anyway, my guess is that during the up until about WWII, US and European social morality was roughly equal. It’s really only in the post-war period that the two have begun to seriously diverge.
Someone asked about Spain. My mom was worried too, but then one must remember that she had last been there thirty years ago, and we all know who was in power then. Since Franco’s death, the destape has greatly opened up Spanish culture, especially in the cities and especially in (say) Catalonia, which was always very anti-Franco anyway. Madrid has an amazing village (Chueca) and a 500,000-strong pride parade, and Barcelona has an immense gay population and is just minutes away from the Provincetown of the Mediterranean (Sitges). I was much more comfortable being openly gay in Spain, even in the fairly conservative Castillian capital Valladolid, than I would have been just about anywhere in the US.
pldennison
*Well, it is worth noting that Europe and Canada have been able to devote money to that and other social programs because they haven’t had to spend as much money on defense for the last 50+ years. *
Worth noting. Worth downplaying.
- Much of US military spending reflected the conservatism of the American people, relative to the rest of the world. Reagan’s military buildup, where spending topped 6% of GDP during peacetime, might be an example of this. It is not clear for example that the US needed the MX Missile, the B1 Bomber and the neutron bomb to contain the Soviets.
1b) It might be argued that the US stood up to its international responsibilities in a way that Europe did not, so that enhanced US military spending indeed reflects a true lefty or at least liberal outlook. I’m dubious, but I think that’s the sort of argument you would have to make to assert that the US is not far-far to the right of the rest of the world.
- I agree that enhanced US military spending crowded out spending on social programs and private investment for that matter. I dispute the notion that it played a key role in blocking Universal Health Care though. A look at the National Accounts is revealing.
Spending on various items, as a share of GDP, 1993
Item USA France Germany Sweden UK
Tax Revenues .30 .44 .39 .50 .34
Military Expendit .05 .03 .02 .03 .04
Health Expendit .14 .10 .09 .08 .07
(1994)
Life Expectancy 76 78.4 76 78.1 76.4
(1996)
Infant Mortality 6.7 6.2 6.0 4.5 6.4
While US military spending exceeded that of our NATO partners by 1 or 3 percentage points of GDP, US taxes (and therefore total spending was 4-14 percentage points lower. (Sorry I don’t have spending figures handy.) So you can’t blame our big guns on our aversion to butter.
Moreover, the US health care system results in more spending (as a share of GDP) and worse health outcomes (as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality).
In other words the US’s aversion to socialized medicine results in more resources devoted to health care with worse health outcomes at a national level. This isn’t surprising, as duplicative paperwork, malpractice, etc. drives up health costs, while inability to pay for care drives down outcomes. Again, I would say that the health care situation alone demonstrates the pronounced rightward slant of US society, relative to the remainder of the industrialized world, at the cost of human life. [sub]zing![/sub]
Though it’s true that the large coastal cities (and I think in this sense one can also include Chicago), cultural attitudes are more relaxed than in the interior. But even in L.A. or N.Y.C. the differences between Europe and the U.S. in this regard can be very stark. In all of L.A. County, from the end of Malibu to Seal Beach, we have miles and miles of beach, and not a foot of it where one is allowed to go nude. There are a few places where people traditionally “get away” with it, but these are patrolled and people do get citations. If you’re female, you can get away with a tiny nearly-nude type of swimsuit, and no one will --ahem–bat an eye, but if you’re a male and try to do the same, people will snicker and assume you’re gay, or some type of perverted exhibitionist.
I suspect that coastal Democratic Senators Diane Feinstein, Maria Cantwell, Joseph Lieberman, Christopher Dodd, etc. would all be comfortable in a European center-right party.