Of course, in a European context, “liberal” and “conservative” mean different things than they do here in the US, and neither liberals and conservatives are particularly associated (or disassociated) with socialism.
Here in the US we are used to “conservatives” supposedly favoring lower taxes, small government, decreased regulation, capitalism, etc. However these positions aren’t really conservative in a European context but rather are liberal positions. European conservatives have a long history of opposition to capitalism since capitalism empowers industrialists at the expense of the state and upends traditional economic practices. So you won’t find far-right European conservatives like Le Pen denouncing national health care or high taxes or extolling capitalism. Historically conservatives favored mercantilism while liberals favored free-market policies.
So I think the question posed by the OP is poorly framed. European conservatives aren’t less conservative because they don’t support free market capitalism, it seems to me that US conservatives are less conservative because they do.
Sorry, but that’s wrong. Really totally and utterly wrong. Read the manifesto of the ahem, Conservative party, for a start.
No. Le Pen doesn’t really talk about anything but race, but he has favoured lower taxes too.
Liberal does have a different meaning; I’ve heard it applied to people in the US who want less government control, but in Europe Liberals are generally ‘liberal’ about giving people rights, not control.
Like Lemur has mentioned, European conservative thought is different than American conservative thought. European conservativism tends to favor paternal government. The idea is that the state is the guardian of the community, and of its people, and therefore, the government has a duty to limit individual liberty for the common good. American conservativism is more liberal/libertarian in nature. So, therefore, European conservatives are much more comfortable with social welfare programs than American conservatives.
One more thing–Europeans in general seem to be far, far less repressed about sex and nudity than Americans. I’ll give you an example of just how uptight some of us are. There used to be a private clothing-optional club in Topanga Canyon known as Elysium, though I didn’t know that was its name. I did know, however, that this place existed somewhere in Topanga Canyon. Driving by another facility in the canyon, called Camp Wildwood, I wondered if that was the naturists’ place. After all the name sounded like it would be appropriate…naturism–woods–wilderness, etc. So I looked them up in the phone book when I got home and asked them if they were the nudist resort, whereupon the receptionist hung up on me with such force and suddenness that I suspect she dislocated her arm. No, “I’m sorry sir, you have us confused with Elysium up the road”, just…CLICK!! Depressing, that.
Regarding Northern Europe, on the other hand, it must be admitted that you’re sometimes lucky to get two or three weeks in the whole year when it’s warm enough to be outdoors in the altogether. I wonder if there’s a connection there. Especially when I consider that some of the cultures most repressive in this area live in exactly the hottest places on the planet.
What policy decisions would be broadly supported by a moderately conservative european but would be broadly rejected by a moderal liberal american?
I can think of two other areas.
I. Understanding of free speech.
It is a prosecutable offence to suggest in Germany that the Holocaust did not occur.
“Hate speech” is banned in France beyond what would be acceptable in the U.S. To the point “France” went to war with Yahoo over the sale of Nazi memorabilia
Under the UK Official Secrets Act the disclosure of confidential material from government sources by employees remains an absolute offence for a member or former member of the security and intelligence services (or those working closely with them) to disclose information about their work. There is no public-interest defense, and disclosure of information already in the public domain is a crime. Journalists who repeat disclosures may also be prosecuted.
(hmmm - still the Rove case “crime” involves outing an undercover operative)
Spain has legislation allowing judges to order Spanish sites to shut down, and block access to U.S. web pages that don’t comply with national laws.
II. Understanding of separation of Church and State
Germany:
Churches and religious community, if they are both large, stable and loyal to the constitution, can get special status from the state as a “corporation under public law” which allows the churches to levy taxes called Kirchensteuer (literally church tax) on their members. This revenue is collected by the state in return for a collection fee.
Countries with Official state churches:
UK, Finland, Greece, Denmark
**jimmmy[/]b, which definiton of ‘liberal’ are you using? Maybe Lemur was right about the OP’s wording being unclear, after all.
BTW, the lack of separation of church and state means little in practice. The UK has an official state church, but in practice that means nothing but tax breaks that churches in the US get by other names, and the UK has a highly secular population.
What policy decisions would be broadly supported by a moderately liberal European but would be broadly rejected by a moderately conservative American?
What policy decisions would be broadly supported by a moderately conservative European but would be broadly rejected by a moderate liberal American?
These all apply I think – the French Hate speech laws, the UK Official Secrets, the Spanish censors, the government “official” churches and the Church taxes… I can’t see moderates of any American party support such laws in the U.S. I just can’t.
I understand it is very important for Europeans to draw a stark contrast between themselves and the American “religious right.” Me too. I get it. But I have to say I have never heard any elected official in the US ever talk about making “Christianity” an “official established church” even as a symbol in the U.S. – it just wouldn’t be acceptable in any way.
No, what I was asking was what definition of liberal you are using. The confusion still stands in those two questions.
No, it’s not really that important. It’s just the truth. The church isn’t that important here. I’d go further and say that it’s extremely uninfluential - in the UK at least. When people (not you, but many other places) state that Europe has less free speech or is more religious because some countries have a state church, they are using a factually incorrect conclusion to support their theories.
Hell, my daughter even goes to a CofE school and religion is rarely discussed there, and when it is it’s all religions, partly because most of the students aren’t Christian and partly because that’s the national requirements.
Question: Doesn’t the US have any equivalent of the Official Secrets Act? How do they manage without one? They just let all their agents (FBI, CIA) communications be published? Wouldn’t that be rather dangerous?
Re the semantics, it might be more productive to focus on this part of the OP:
In that I have often (elsewhere) seen the European right-wing referred to as more left-wing than the left-wing in the US. That’s more what I was thinking of with my examples, anyway.
Interesting question: permit me to give my half-arsed answer. (Legal eagles may improve upon this.)
On the one hand, “The consititution is not a suicide pact.”
OTO, courts in the US are quite suspicious of Prior Restraint. Examples are the Pentagon Papers (where the Nixon administration unsuccessfully tried to get the New York Times to not publish a secret history of the Vietnam Wars) and United States vs. Progressive, where the Carter administration unsuccessfully tried to get The Progressive Magazine to withold publication of A-Bomb instructions.
More generally though, I’d say that First Amendment absolutism runs rather deep in the US and crosses party lines. Then again, both lefties and righties have been known to advocate curbs on free expression.
It’s only by accident of history that things have worked out this way. No modern European government has ever established an official religion - they’ve just been inherited from earlier times, and because they’ve got so little relelvance to day-to-day politics, their status is generally ignored.
Strong labor unions and general public support for them. Even though labor unions have been declining in strength over the last few years here, they’re still very strong and very popular, especially when compared to their American counterparts.
Unquestioned assumption that different political parties represent different classes, broadly divided into bourgeois and working class. Moderates, Christian Democrats, Folkpartiet and Center are literally identified as “borgerlig,” that is, bourgeois, parties.
Strong “communist” party (now calls itself “The Party of the Left”) supported by 5 to 10% of the voting public. The current government is (allegedly) socialist, consisting of an alliance between the Social Democrats, the PoL, and the Greens.
Automatic child-support payments, regardless of income level.
Income-based rent subsidies.
Cheap health-care for all citizens. Free (and excellent) health-care for children under 18.
Government-guaranteed 5-week paid vacations for all workers, regardless of position. You flip burgers at the local McDonalds? You get 5 weeks vacation, guaranteed.
A much higher level of political discourse in the media, and considerably less sensationalism.