A significant portion of the opposition to an expansive welfare state in the U.S. is racial/xenophobic. People are worried about the wrong sorts taking their money. When politicians complain about moochers and takers and welfare queens they’re not talking about Mary Joe and Luanne down in the trailer park.
In Europe, it seems the rise of right white/white nationalist party coincides with rising levels of immigration. I’m not that familiar with their party planks, but they mostly want to throw the immigrants out and close the borders, right? Maybe at some point they’ll want to dismantle the welfare system too.
Underline mine. That may have more to do with the issue of “why can’t the US do it that waaaaaaay!” than everything else (how are Australia or Canada doing lately?). If the attitude isn’t just “me and my family first” (that would be China, I understand) but “me, myself and I” well, that’s good for those who have the rest of what it takes to make CEO of a big firm, not so good for everybody else. And on issues such as sex ed, it’s worse: for some reason, that’s one of the subjects where the attitude of the nastier Americans involved switches from “me, myself and I” to “the rest of you have to live the way I say, even though you’re all going to Hell anyway”.
That’s not how it works in a Westminster parliamentary system, either monarchical or republican.
the monarch/president is generally apolitical;
the Cabinet and the majority in the lower House are the same party;
the upper house (if there is one) normally defers to the Cabinet/lower house.
Net result is that political power is centralised in the Cabinet and the lower house, with the government able to get its legislative program enacted.
In the British and Canadian models, there are no elections for the executive and the upper house. The elections are for the lower house. The party which wins the majority (or plurality) of seats forms the executive.
So what percentage of a county’s population can still be “non-country” for it to still be a “homogenous” country? (I use “country” to mean “of this country” because that’s the way you use the term “American” in your example. If you don’t like it well, you started it).
AND, (no you don’t get away so easily…)
What does “of this country” (e.g. “American”) mean? Please define this term so that it makes sense for any other country since you started this thread about different countries.
And there are plenty of “good” countries in Europe that are arguably as diverse socially as the US. Several of them have been able to eke out a decent and comfortable way of life despite not having a single national language! Obvious examples are Finland, Switzerland, and Belgium.
That’s where I usually see it (not speaking specifically of Amateur Barbarian but in general).
Someone will bring up the way firearms or education or sex ed or health care or whatever is handled in countries with much more favorable rates than the US and some handwave it away with “But those countries don’t count!” It’s never “Well, those countries are different but they’re doing better than us so let’s examine what they’re doing right and implement it and tweak it as needed” but just “Nope. Don’t count. So now let’s only talk about my ideas”.
Those people aren’t seriously considering the effects of homogenous nations on policy, they just want THEIR answer and apparently all the other nations have cooties and we’d hate to admit that anyone else had a better answer than we in the United States do (“Yay, American Exceptionalism!”). That and the uncomfortable notion that maybe those godless socialists actually have the right idea about some things.
I’m still puzzled by what standard some American posters are using to define American diversity.
To my mind, countries that have two or four official languages (Belgium and Switzerland, respectively), with no expectation that all citizens eventually should learn a single language, aren’t “arguably as” diverse as the United States; they are more diverse.
Can someone explain by what measurement some Americans appear to think the US is the most diverse country in the world?
it’s little more than “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.” Like how car snobs blather on about how much better European cars must be because Europe, yet they don’t realize that we already get the nice European cars. The ones we don’t get are miserable, cheap, underpowered little shitboxes.
Having more than one widely-used language in the United States (that is, anything but English) clearly will not work here. Because we are soooooooooo diverse, everyone has to SPEAK-EE DA ENGLISH.
The US needs to decide what we find important, and stick to those beliefs despite cries of “diversity” and “respect for culture” and so on. Long story short, if someone emigrates to America, s/he must accept that things will be done the American way.
In any case, as an Anerican from birth, I reject the idea that a certain group of us thinks they get to decide what the “American Way” is for the rest of us.
I would say a minimum should reasonably be expected of all non-retarded immigrants to this country such as knowledge of the English language, basic hygiene and manners in this culture, and racial/religious tolerance.
Who got to decide this? How were they appointed for this task? And how will it be enforced? And what are the punishments for its violation?
If it’s not in the law, then it’s not a requirement. Period.
I don’t see how any of these things should be different in the United States as compared to other places.
Language is a matter of free expression. People should be free to choose what language they want to speak. But this isn’t actually a problem. There are pretty much zero people in the United States who want to not speak English, because speaking English is an economic advantage. There’s no need for any rule, legal or non-legal to enforce it.
Same with hygiene. Except to the extent that someone might become a public health risk, people who fail to meet basic hygiene standards will suffer economic harm. Again, no need for a rule. If there is a matter of risk to the public health—vaccination, sex education, hand washing by service employees, etc.—it should be mandated by law.
Manners. What manners is one referring to? This is again a free expression issue.
Racial/religious tolerance. Public accommodations, public services, and businesses or services open to the public should not discriminate on the basis of religion (skin color, language, sexual preference, etc.). Other than that, I don’t know what kind of tolerance you’re talking about.
That is totally not what I said at all. I’m specifically rejecting that people ought to assimilate cultures for the good of the country.
What I am saying is that if a country does a good job of treating all its citizens fairly, embracing democratic values where problems are solved efficiently instead of being used to divide people into “us vs them,” and respecting the differences between people, that country can get a hell of a lot accomplished.
Compare a country with that kind of mindset to one where it is frequently thought that having more than one language commonly spoken is viewed as a problem that needs to be corrected.
But there is no American way ! Isn’t it what y’alls been telling us ? Melting pot, rich patchwork of cultures, diversity what makes y’alls great, sum greater than the parts and so forth ? Give me your tired, your poor, etc…
BTW, I’m only half-way sarcastic here. I do think the notion that America is better off specifically because it didn’t care who you were in the Old Country or even what the Old Country was is a valuable one. I mean, it was always bullshit and there were always nativists ranting about the latest wave of immigration and things ; but I do believe modern American society & culture is richer and more vibrant for all the bits and bobs of other cultures that have aggregated & coalesced within it.
It takes a special place to come up with deep-fried sauerkraut.
