I sometimes wonder why Americans are so prone to stereotype their fellow countrymen while making mythical comparisons to supposedly more enlightened folk abroad.
But then I realize it’s an unfair stereotype and the vast majority of Americans don’t do this.
What KIND of change are “Americans” supposedly more resistant to than everyone else? And why does the OP assume “change” is a good thing?
Genetically modified foods certainly represent “change” over traditional agriculture. Americans, as a whole, have FAR fewer objections to that change than Europeans do, and conservative Americans have far fewer problems with that change than liberal Americans do.
The rise of fast food restaurants has certainly represented change of a kind. Americans have generally embraced the change, while, say, the French have resisted it. Are the French just old fogeys who need toi get with the program, or might it sometimes be a good idea to resist change?
It’s also worth noting that in both the US and in Europe, the kind of “change” libewrals want has rarely been the result of public outcry. More often, elites (whetehr it be courts in the US or trns-European bureacrats) have imposed the changes they wanted without worrying too much about whether the people approved.
You may think it’s great that, say, the death penalty has been largely wiped out in Europe- but it’s not as if the people of Europe rose up as one and demanded that it be abolished. Nor did Europeans rise up as one and demand that gay marriage be legalized. Nor did the common people of Europe rise up and demand gun control. Where those things have happened, elites have generally made them happen.
It’s just harder for educated elites to impose their will in the USA. Americans are less inclined to roll over and do what the bureaucrats want than Europeans are.
Fair enough, but I’d be willing to bet that the half that’s happy with their medical coverage is also financially stable and more politically active.
It’s a hard sell to try and convince Congress to change things if the more wealthy and politically active half of the country is happy with the status quo. What’s in it for them?
USA, the world’s most developed developing nation.
I don’t wish to mislead you … but that is absurd.
Not really. For example the vast majority of Americans support individual provisions of Obamacare when informed of it. Or do you not think most people liked the idea of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid? The American people in general if anything would be economically to the left of the elites if they consistently applied their real beliefs (for example of free trade vs. protectionism [1], entitlement reform, and so forth) and less swayed by a trivial handful of wedge issues and the hyperbole of the Republicans.
[1] Arguably free trade should be the liberal position and protectionism the conservative one
Except for the individual mandate, IIRC.
My point wasn’t that we should only be compared to developing nations, but rather that policies and procedures enacted in a small nation with a relatively ethnically and socioeconomically homogenous population, like say Denmark or Norway are a different matter entirely when trying to implement in a nation 60 times larger, with an extremely heterogeneous population like the US.
Connecticut is proof that it’s easier to do on a similar scale to Denmark or Norway; they already have Romneycare, but something similar (Obamacare) is proving considerably tougher to sell and implement on a national scale.
That’s why I pointed out that most other nations of a similar size to the US are developing nations- in some sense, we’re doing well by comparison.