I gather the Swedes are patriotic in a way that matters, in that they care about their fellow citizens, while the U.S. version more likely involves getting weepy over flags and anthems and saying “fuck my fellow citizens” the rest of the time.
when most states passed laws that made it impossible for teenagers to do those jobs legally and babysitting sort of fell out of style also
Sweden and other Nordic countries also had a strong socialist movement and labour movement before WWI that organized and fought for what it wanted. While the US had similar movements, capital and the state were more effective in destroying them. Sweden and other countries thus had strong anti-fascist movements that ensured the countries didn’t move right in the 1930s, like Germany and Austria and Italy did.
As for diversity, Sweden has 6 families of dialects, some of which are incomprehensible to someone who only speaks Standard Swedish. That problem was worse Pre-WWI when much of the groundwork for its left policies and parties was laid.
How left is it? Obama would be considered a right wing politician, on the right of right wing parties, as he would in most OECD countries.
It may be hard to understand how Sweden’s consensus-driven politics work. In every election since forever, the center left party (Social Democrats) finishes first. The center right party (New Moderates) finishes second. Then they generally form a coalition which gives them the majority in the Parliament (Riksdag) and they nearly whatever they want. When they want to create new government benefits and raise taxes, they can do so. When they want to trim benefits and lower taxes, they can do so. They have done so in the recent past.
The system removes the need for two-year-long campaigns, fundraising, massive ad buys, bringing screaming lunatics into the Riksdag building to attempt to disrupt the proceedings, accusing anyone of being a Russian pawn, etc…
The point was diversity leads to diverse opinions. In the US that is largely on implementation…nobody wants to kill babies but we can’t agree when it’s a baby.
Everyone wants reasonable access to healthcare but nobody agrees how to accomplish that.
Ethnicity can play in to a difference in viewpoint since different ethnicities have different experiences , which help shape viewpoints.
So, we disagree on how to make things happen even if it’s what everyone wants.
For example, how might a conservative catholic pro life persons views as to which party to vote for change if that person also happens to be Mexican American or White?
What if they are poor?
How about another conservative religious person who is black?
But did you not read Grim Render’s post about foreign born citizens?
Sweden has more foreign-born citizens than does the US. How can you go on about how Sweden is homogenous with a common outlook for centuries, when that many Swedish citizens are immigrants, more than is the case in the US?
Except of course when the centre right Alliance wins power, as it did in 2006 and held office for eight years, until 2014.
This would heavily support that homogenous theory.
62 percent of the population belongs to a single Lutheran Church, with less than 2 percent in any other church.
70 percent Is Christian and 24 percent are unaffiliated.
And paying attention to the words of swedes chiming in here when speaking of Immigrants they use terms like “assimilate” or “integrate”
Which to me indicates a viewpoint of trying have immigrants adopt your culture?
Not to mention some large portions of foreign born are from other Nordic countries as i understand it?
In any case size alone , they have slightly more populace than a major city here.
A state doesn’t have a hard time legislating. Owing to the size and geographical range being small enough to contribute to more shared views.
We have strong red and strong blue states. So we’ve even managed comparably sized and populaced regions that tend to homogenize. Imagine if one had a strong central religion, of course you could get things done.
In 2010, apparently about 10 % of the population was first generation immigrants from outside the EU. I’ve not found newer stats, but given the rise of immigration since, I would not be surprised to learn that the percentage of non-EU immigrants by now is bigger than the US total immigration percentage.
That was the first half of my point. The second is that Sweden and Swedish policies are not some outlier. Similar ones are implemented and seem to work in many nations. It could in fact be argued that it is the US that is the outlier here.
For the homogeneity argument to be valid it is not enough for Sweden to be homogenous. They must all be homogenous.
I think this is much the same thing as the homogeneity argument. I.e. ones own nation, close up looks more complex than another one far away.
How different is the Swedish system with a population of 10 million from the German one with 80+ million ? How different is the Icelandic system with a population of 300 000 to that of Sweden at 10 million ?
If there are no particular scaling issues from 300 000 to 10 million to 80 million why would we assume that there will be scaling issues from 80 million to 320 ?
Where is the evidence ?
From your own cite:
until 1996 all newborns with at least one parent being a member of the Church of Sweden were also registered as members of the church
so the number of people “belonging” to the Lutheran Church tells us absolutely bugger all about actual Swedish religious attitudes. According to Gallup, only 19 per cent of Swedes claim to be religious, compared with 63 per cent globally.
How different is getting the whole US to vote similarly as opposed to just New York
Yeah, the odd thing too is that they seem to have a larger number of Muslim refugees then the reported number of muslims in religious demographics …?
Plus up until roughly 20 years ago the large majority if their foreign born were from Nordic countries.
Imagine if the US immigration was basically only Canadians until 2000 and we had a state religion, regardless of low numbers of the devout.
Though, new York is pretty diverse yet votes pretty predictably so that would make me think some other factor is at play …geographic size? Idk
Muslim refugees, or refugees from countries generally considered Muslim? Because that’s not the same thing. In fact, not being Muslim is a very good reason to be a refugee from some of those countries.
Pft! I’m not buying it, at all. No, it’s not reflective of geographical differences, or demographics or hemogeny even.
It’s fundamentally different because of the difference in cultural values. The US views with deep skepticism every collective action ‘for all’, as a step towards socialist tyranny. Whether it’s universal health care or equal school funding. Equal oncern for ALL citizens doesn’t happen the same way in America. The fear the ‘undeserving’ may benefit makes every social program subject to stringent means testing. Worthiness is everything in America. Other countries want basic rights for EVERY citizen, healthcare, access to education, etc. They have no means testing for these things, believing every citizen deserves these things equally. Regardless of ethnicity, income, address, skin colour.
This is all about these society’s core values in my humble opinion.
This is just nonsense.
Government employees can be are fired every day. Is it easy, no, but it’s done all the time. Our government isn’t incompetent. If you live some foreign, you’ll learn what incompetent government looks like. Overall government employees from my experience and educated, dedicated and are hard working. If we have problems here, it’s not due to the individual government employee.
Here’s a complete “I’m just now pulling it out of my butt” theory to discuss. Northern cultures find it easier to enact collectivist policies because their cultures required collective action in order to survive long winters. It also encouraged being in confined spaces with others for long periods leading to cultural norms that favor the group over the individual. More southern cultures allowed more freedom of movement year round and less need to rely upon a community to survive due to abundance of food and no need for long winter preparatory periods. Talk amongst yourselves.