Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
There's Plenty of Good News, But Will the US Ever Hear it?
Whenever I write about U.S. politics, people ask me "Don't you have any good news?" (Unless the Republicans are in power, in which case people ask me "Who are you going to vote for?") But I do have good news, boatloads of good news, if Americans want to hear it.
If a city or state next to yours were to achieve a dramatic breakthrough for democratic representation, environmental sustainability, healthcare, education, peace, or justice, wouldn't that be good news? Wouldn't you trumpet that news where you live and demand the same of your elected officials?
When the United States gets something right nationally, and even when we don't, we're happy to assume that others around the world would like to imitate it. Some of us think bombs are the best way to help them do so. Others prefer diplomacy. But we all pretty much believe in sharing our wisdom.
But what if another country, or a
large block of other countries, were to solve the most vexing problems facing
the United States? What if they were to show us a general outline of how
we could fix all the troubles that most trouble us? 
Well, that would, of course, be an affront to denounce, ignore, and avoid. Unless our pining after good news were to outweigh our xenophobic pride and we were to become open to accepting the gifts of some of that non-American 95 percent of humanity.
If that happens, the first place we should look is Europe, and our guide should be Steven Hill's brilliant and comprehensive new book "Europe's Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age."
The European Union (EU) is the world's largest and most competitive economy, and most of those living in it are wealthier, healthier, and happier than most Americans. Europeans work shorter hours, have a greater say in how their employers behave, receive lengthy paid vacations and paid parental leave, can rely on guaranteed paid pensions, have free or extremely inexpensive comprehensive and preventative healthcare, enjoy free or extremely inexpensive educations from preschool through college, impose half the per-capita environmental damage of Americans, endure a fraction of the violence found in the United States, imprison a fraction of the prisoners locked up here, and benefit from democratic representation, engagement, and civil liberties unimagined in the land where we're teased that the world hates our rather mediocre "freedoms." Europe even offers a model foreign policy, bringing neighboring nations toward democracy by holding out the prospect of EU membership, while we drive other nations away from good governance at great expense of blood and treasure.
What wonderful news! And yet, how many times during the Great Health Insurance Reform Debate did anyone take a look at the wheels already invented in Europe, where single-payer systems and systems built around non-profit insurance companies and price controls out-perform the for-profit U.S. system in every way? We would rather suffer more and die sooner than learn from people who live across an ocean, even if they learned a lot from us, even if we imposed structures on them a half-century ago that would have benefitted us as well.
Of course, this WOULD all be good news, if not for the extreme and horrible danger of higher taxes! Working less and living longer with less illness, a cleaner environment, a better education, more cultural enjoyments, paid vacations, and governments that respond better to the public -- that all SOUNDS nice, but the reality involves the ultimate evil of higher taxes! Or does it?
As Hill points out, Europeans do pay higher income taxes, but they generally pay lower state, local, property, and social security taxes. (They also pay those higher income taxes out of a larger paycheck.) And what Europeans keep in earned income they do not have to spend on healthcare or college or job training or numerous other expenses that are hardly optional but that we seem intent on celebrating our privilege to personally pay for.
If we pay roughly as much as Europeans in taxes, why do we have to pay for everything we need on our own, in addition? Why don't our taxes pay for our needs? The primary reason is that so much of our taxes goes to wars and the military. Recently much of it also goes to Wall Street and corporate bailouts. And this is not entirely new. In a given year, our government gives roughly $300 billion in tax breaks to businesses for their employee health benefits. That's enough to actually pay for everyone in this country to have healthcare, but it's just a fraction of what we dump into the for profit system that, as its name suggests, exists primarily to generate profits. Most of what we waste on this madness does not go through the government, a fact of which we are inordinately proud.
Europe is not perfection, and indeed has much to learn from us. Notably, we are ahead of Europe in confronting the endless menace of racism and nativism. Europe faces many dangers, but any lamented little steps its nations take in an American direction on taxes and benefits are relative to the great distance that separates us. Even were Europe to implode tomorrow, which seems far less likely than the United States doing so, it would have shown us the basic model for a more just and sustainable capitalist society in which wealth is more equitably distributed and most people are happier, less stressed, and less prone to severe frustration or violence.
The key to this, as Hill demonstrates, is a deeper and richer democracy in which workers share seats with owners on councils overseeing corporations, children's assemblies propose new laws to legislatures, everyone is automatically registered to vote, proportional representation allows more voices to be heard, free media is provided to campaigns (and newspapers and independent public media subsidized), and campaigns are financed by the public -- using some of those hated taxes that we prefer to bestow on weapons makers and bankers.
Of course, when I say "we prefer" I'm being tongue-in-cheek. The point is that Americans, in polls and surveys, would prefer to move much of our money from the military and bailouts to human needs. The problem is primarily that our views are not represented in our government, as this anecdote from "Europe's Promise" suggests:
"A few years ago, an American acquaintance of mine who lives in Sweden told me that he and his Swedish wife were in New York City and, quite by chance, ended up sharing a limousine to the theatre district with then-U.S. Senator John Breaux from Louisiana and his wife. Breaux, a conservative, anti-tax Democrat, asked my acquaintance about Sweden and swaggeringly commented about 'all those taxes the Swedes pay,' to which this American replied, 'The problem with Americans and their taxes is that we get nothing for them.' He then went on to tell Breaux about the comprehensive level of services and benefits that Swedes receive in return for their taxes. 'If Americans knew what Swedes receive for their taxes, we would probably riot," he told the senator. The rest of the ride to the theater district was unsurprisingly quiet."
73 Comments so far
Show All"The point is that Americans, in polls and surveys, would prefer to move much of our money from the military and bailouts to human needs."
This is what I want to happen. It's what I thought a Democratic presidency and a Democratic Congress would do.
However, they are moving in the opposite direction; that is,
they are assigning more money to the military and more money to Wall Street.
However slow Obama and the Congress seem to be on reforms for the common good, they ironically move with lightning speed to move tax money to the rich.
Right on JMALH ! Anybody who hasn't noticed the lightning speed that the Obama Regime and Congress move at to accomodate their corporate masters at our expense is either locked in a closet or in serious denial. With Obama's recent approval ratings hovering around 50%, the denial epidemic in America is worse than the swine flu epidemic could ever get. It will take am even more widespread epidemic of anti-incumbant fever this year to prompt any real hope or change.
Also, "The wheels already invented in Europe" (and Canada as well)WERE discussed many times during the great American health care debate. Unfortunately the facts were twisted to villify European and Canadian systems, rather than providing an objective analysis.
Dave Swanson, highest regards to you always. The issue isn't about "Solutions". We HAVE SOLUTIONS for EVERY issue we face as a people and as a species. Solutions that could provide abundance for all humans. That's not the issue. The issue is maintaining a society based on Exclusion. A society that in its guts refuses to reject (White) Male Supremacy; Gender Slavery; Constant War; and feral blood drinking Oligarchy (they are the glue that binds the shit-cake together.
The "Best of Class" societies make equal starting places for EVERYONE at the table from one end of their countries to the other; they DO NOT spend TRILLION$$ for conquest and constant war; and they have either eliminated or sharply reduced the wealth gap in their countries. These are societies based on Inclusion. Not the Roman Slave Republic ruled with impunity by feral blood drinking richfilth patrician clans, called Oligarchy. The White Majority GAVE THEMSELVES to these 'creatures' and wished to be one of them. They have not yet demonstrated they wish to "take themselves back". Maybe hunger will provide the motivation, maybe not.
And no, our "American Pravda" exist to reinforce only one reality: TINA, there is no alternative. They are rats. They are our rats. WE made them, and only WE can 'unmake' them. Full Spectrum Response.
You are absolutely right. If Americans got their moneys worth from the taxes they paid, maybe they'd be happier. However, what's happening in the U.S. is part of a larger trend that will soon subsume the globe. It's just a matter of time. So long as financial control is maintained by a few, always the wrong few, over the world's economy, the majority will suffer. Sorry, David Swanson, but you seem ready to believe that Fox News watching Americans will all of a sudden see the light. This is beyond reasonable. It will take decades, if all the conditions were right, to become an informed, critically thinking society. Knowledge, wisdom and humility are not things that you suddenly wake up with. My sense is that we are so far behind the curve that a democratic, humane and civil society are now effectively beyond our reach. The majority of media polluted minds in the U.S. are not just clueless as to the facts. The very ability to reason, to critically think and to see ourselves as part of a larger whole has disappeared. The only Good News I see on the horizon is that the epic collapse is happening faster than most of us anticipated. Good Riddance seems more appropriate than Good News. America drank the Kool Aid for which there is no antidote.
Your optimism is contagious.
Sorry Hamster,
If you knew me, you'd know me to be a fun loving, positive person. However, in my estimation, optimism must be based in reality, as opposed to hope. I am optimistic about many things. The state of our union is not among them.
Maybe this will give you some real optimism, it has for me.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/
re: "However, what's happening in the U.S. is part of a larger trend that will soon subsume the globe. It's just a matter of time."
Or one can believe this: "The arc of history bends towards justice." M.L.KingJr.
The myth of american exceptionalism exposed.
Wayout: "Knowledge, wisdom and humility are not things that you suddenly wake up with."
Wonderful inclusion of humility, a vital ingredient to a changed world view. Religions have failed miserably in this regard.
Yes. I've long considered compassion (which is directly related to humility) to be the benchmark between conservative and liberal ideology.
Whenever I debate a conservative I always sense that any potential for agreement ends with "what about the other guy's feelings/needs?..."
Concisely stated. Yet, a few days I as accused of being polarizing and hyperbole-laden when I made the same point to a US scientist living in France/Switzerland on this forum. I think he has forgetten how extreme US conservatism is.
I don't think rational decision-making has anything to do with social policies a country adopts. The reason the United States takes this (faux) "rugged individualism" path has to do with the nature of the immigrants to this country. Most were poor, oppressed by the upper class of Britain and elsewhere, and believed that, through hard work, they might enjoy the fruits of a good life. Poverty was considered an individual failing--the poor had only themselves to blame. For much of the country's existence newly arrived citizens achieved what they sought: enough wealth to buy necessities and a few luxuries.
The trouble is, individualism can't really compete with collective action towards achieving social goals. Europe succeeds because it rejects "each man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost," and seeks to solve problems cooperatively. China imposes collective solutions, a system which might bring wealth to the country but has other shortcomings. Anyway, the United States will not change to become more like Europe for rational reasons. It will change only out of the depths of despair.
As we've said many times on this site, nothing will change in the US until we dismantle the corporate media - and hang Rupert Murdoch and his counterparts at the other outlets.
q
I fail to understand the evidence for this particular point Mr David Swanson makes:
'.....Europe is not perfection, and indeed has much to learn from us. Notably, we are ahead of Europe in confronting the endless menace of racism and nativism. Europe faces many dangers...........'
?????????
There's a real ugly situation in Italy regarding immigrant African workers. Recent ugliness in France with Muslim immigrants. Stuff like that.
And some more "stuff like that". For example, this from today's UK Independent on a "London consensus" of both major parties that Britian's "tight little island" can't support a projected 70 million population and that immigration must be reduced from "hundreds of thousands" per year to "tens of thousands." And it's that way over much of Europe. Denmark is one of the worst for xenophobia.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-will-cut-immigration-to-avoid-population-of-70m-1863890.html
If one asks for the "evidence" that the U.S. has something to teach Europeans in terms of freedom from racial and ethnic prejudice, well that's a bit more problematic. The evidence would probably show that more "minorities" are involved in higher rungs of political and economic power than is true in most of Europe, but no one with an activated brain could possibly claim that the U.S. is anything like a racial democracy, even though (and maybe partly because) it has a (sort of) black (hey, I didn't do the Harry Reid thing) President who, unfortunately, has taken a leave of absence from any serious effort to address the remaining racial inequality of the country. And we aren't forbidding minaret construction as in Switzerland, but we're doing precious little to make Muslim Americans feel like Americans.
Don't kill the messenger. Life is shades of gray and Europe has its warts. That said, their socialist system is far superior to ours. The common right wing rebuttal to Sweden is to claim that their racially homogeneous society allows them the ability to have a more equitable and superior system. I fail to see the correlation between value for my tax dollar and racial purity but some right wing study must have proven it.
Lefty: "I fail to see the correlation between value for my tax dollar and racial purity but some right wing study must have proven it."
Right wing studies don't bother to prove anything like this: they just assert its truth and, really, I'm a sociologist and yet I can't imagine any "study" that would correlate racial homogeneity and a socialist society. If anybody knows of such I'd like to know about it, but any such hypothesis seems on its face to be untenable; I mean, what's the "logic" of a connection?
You're asking me? I have no idea. I've just heard the mantra repeated to me enough to know that it is the best they have in counter. The other normal response is to run off like a...jackal.
Let us never forget what Wanker admitted:
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
The theory is more about cultural homogeneity.
Most people in Sweden are Swedes, most people in Denmark are Danes, etc., therefore most people share the same language and cultural background. When things are determined democratically, more people, then, are in fundamental agreement than fundamental disagreement because of common value systems. Hence democracy "works better" in the sense that greater consensus in the populace leads to more substantive and more popular action from the government.
Having been in small consensus-operated groups before myself, some culturally homogeneous and others very much not so, I would say that this theory is true to some extent. The homogeneous groups certainly came to consensus faster and got more "done". But was this "better" in terms of QUALITY of action, not quantity? I don't know.
I will say that -having been on the ground in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland and lived my life in the U.S.- the democracy certainly works better in Scandanavia (and Finland) than here FOR WHATEVER REASON, and we should certainly be looking to their example.
Also, "right wing", or Social Right, arguments in the U.S. rarely rely on any "study". They instead rely on appeals to "common sense", i.e., anecdotal evidence. It is the Social Left, in its scientism and university prejudice, that is swayed by "stud(ies)".
BTW, I would argue that it is these Nation-State's low POPULATION, that results in such cultural homogeneity in the first place, and that THAT is the true source of their "superior" democratic systems. It is understood that direct democracy has a functional upper limit on participants, it follows that REPRESENTATIVE democracy does as well.
-matti.
Good point. Folks in northern California do not share that many common values with those from Louisiana. Fact is, the US is what Kurt Vonnegut would call a "grandfalloon," a body whose members share no common interests to speak of, a body which exists only to perpetuate itself. Another "grandfalloon" would be the Democratic party.
Whenever populations get too big, people do not care about people they do not see, hear about, or interact with-so they are not inclined to rush to their aid if they get in trouble. My state of Michigan is a perfect example--unemployment rate over 15%--and no one in the federal government cares enough to offer resources to help people cope with a problem mostly caused by policies carried out by Washington. We are too big to function as a republic. It's time for the breaking apart to begin.
>>BTW, I would argue that it is these Nation-State's low POPULATION, that results in such cultural homogeneity in the first place, and that THAT is the true source of their "superior" democratic systems. It is understood that direct democracy has a functional upper limit on participants, it follows that REPRESENTATIVE democracy does as well.
I am not sure I would entirely agree with you. If you look at US States at the State level with like populations as the Swedens or Norways , many of those states are MORE Homogenous yet just as democratically "dysfunctionaL" as the Larger United States of America.
As well Sweden just as example has a greater percentage of foreign born Citizens then does the United States. 18 percent are foreign born. Just as example they have about 100,000 people from Lebanon. This is not an insignificant population out of a total population of 10 million.
Now Sweden does not have single large populations of as the US does with the Blacks and Hispanics . That said...
The Majority of the blacks in the United States and a significant portion of Hispanics are not of a different "Culture". They have roots in the USA that goes further back then many "White Americans".
I suggest that the difference in the United States in fact has little to do with "Cultural Homogeneity".
It has FAR more to do with the Wealth Gap. That Blacks and Hispanics tend to be poorer is both a legacy of slavery and racism , and of the Capitalist system as structured in the USA wherein those with the money can pass it on to their offspring and their offspring thus have an advantage in generation next.
I suggest the reason democracy works better in Sweden is because there a better distribution of wealth and a fairer distribution of wealth due to the Social program spending. If you are of Swedish descent or of lebanese descent you have much more EQUAL opportunities.
In a nation with poor wealth distribution especially in one structured as in the USA where the Wealthy of so much more political power, democracy suffers.
Sweden, Finland and Norway have had more homgenous populations in the past, but that hardly meant they were more "democratic". They hardly had consensus when they were fighting amongst one another for land and resources even with that more homogenous population.
What ultimately lead to "consenus" even as the populations grew less homogenous were the principles of Socialism and a fairer distribution of wealth.
Rest assured if Sweden adopted the Policies of the USA wherein the GINI Coefficient grew to 56 and where masses of people lived in Poverty, children went hungry, peoples slept in the street, and only the very rich could have an education, you would see MUCH less consensus and the people would start pointing fingers at groups that stood out from the whole.
In summary if you want a more workable democracy in the United States of America, you need not shrink the population or become more homogenized. What you need to do is empower all the people with a better distribution of the nations wealth.
Thanks for setting these xenophobes and localists straight.
Indeed, the governance at the state level in the US IS both more disfunctional and more right-wing than at the federal level - certainly that is the case here in Pennsysvlana, and in the so-uniform-they're-inbred state of West Virginia.
Ther are countries (albeit non-European ones) that ARE ahead of the US in being open to multi-ethnic harmonious societies and massive immigration, Canada, particularly Toronto and Vancouver certainly are. London come to mind too.
Putting "harmonious" aside for a minute (since it is such an ephemeral and disputable notion):
What makes Canada "ahead" of the U.S. in "massive immigration"?
Surely you have noticed that the vast majority of the population of the U.S. is made up of either immigrants of the decendents of immigrants who arrived here post-founding?
Even today, I would doubt that the per-capita immigration numbers are much in Canada's favor.
In fact, I suspect that your belief in Canada's "ahead"-ness on this matter is directly tied to the type of immigrants that they allow.
Both the U.S and Canada have been importing high-education Indian, South Asia, and East Asian workers for decades. The difference is that the U.S. ALSO imports millons of low-education "guest workers" from Mexico and Central America.
Back too "harmonious":
It is apparent that Canadian society is more harmonious than U.S. society full-stop.
-matti.
>>Even today, I would doubt that the per-capita immigration numbers are much in Canada's favor.
Per Capita Immigration in Canada is the highest in the world . The USA accepts about 1 million Immigrants per year. Canada accepts 275,000 which means a about 3 times more per capita and that is significant.
Canada also accepts aound 30,000 refugees per year as opposed around 80,000 per year in The USA so again on a per capita basis Canada is higher.
Canada's family reunification program is much more generous then is the USA's allowing a person to sponsor, Children , Parents and Grandparents along with the spouse and even nephews and neices.
Canada has about 20 percent of its Citizens that are foreign born as opposed to about 12 percent in the USA.
In Canada slightly over 80 percent of all legal immigrants apply for and receive Citizenship. In the USA 50 percent of legal immigrants apply for Citizenship.
Thank you for the correction. USAns need to do more travelling.
Where's the "xenophobia" in this example?
I would doubt that Britain COULD support a population of 70-million without severe ecosystem degradation and citizen hardship.
If I wish to move to someone else's land, do they now have a moral obligation to allow me to do so?
As far as Denmark, it seems to me that laws on immigration and protection of rights of ethnic and cultural minorities are as strong there as anywhere else. I would argue that if xenophobia and even ethnic prejudice seem relatively strong there, it has more to do with Denmark's relatively strong attitude on free speech than "race".
Are the Dutch the horniest people in Europe just because the allow open and regulated prostitution in Amsterdam?
The Swiss ban is xenophobic, certainly. But It seems to me that giving the central government the power to dictate building styles in the country is ludicrously anti-libertine and -ultimately- anti-democratic in and of itself. Therefore the Swiss have worse problems than this.
-matti.
I had an exchange with a teabagger here the other day where I pointed out the success of European socialism. The exchange ended quickly. Funny how that works with these right wing jackals.
Teabaggers view the world as a place where silver bullets (simple solutions to complex issues)are the only solution. For them, 90% of the world's problems can be solved with the grand daddy of all silver bullets...more tax cuts.
The other one is the invisible guiding hand of the free market. Any economist on the planet will tell you that unbridled capitalism will always lapse into monopoly, oligopoly and price gouging. Sound familiar? The problem is, most of these teabaggers can't even spell the word economist let alone understand what one says.
I think it's a case of them not viewing themselves, or people in general, responsible for any problems. If people aren't responsible for the massive problems that we have, then they can't feel any guilt over it, and feel no need to change their behavior.
Ignorance is bliss.
Lefty -
If your goal was to end the encounter quickly, congratulations. If the goal was to nudge a bigot's mind a few notches in a tolerant direction by giving this teabagger some food for thought, I doubt you succeeded.
Right wing nativists in the United States sneer at Europeans (the French in particular) in order head off at the pass just this sort of rational, comparative, internationalist mindset. Remember the bipartisan Congressional ban on French fries in the aftermath of 9/11, and the neocons' continuous diatribes against wussy international human rights law?
Domestically, there is partisan method behind this xenophobia, if flag waving is always the centerpiece when framing your message.
Bill from Saginaw
My intent was to educate the poor fool. They seem impervious to truth and knowledge, ergo my comparison to a jackal. What I find even more alarming is how many people give these folks a free pass. Acceptance of evil is evil. I never could understand Nazi Germany but now I find myself living in the midst of one. Not good.
Propaganda can be "black: -- spreading lies, or "white" -- telling the truth. We need more of the latter.
Gary
yes the author's points are well taken. In terms of Social policy Europe is superior than US. and plenty of other industrial nations now offer upward mobility much more faster to Immigrants than te US ..but the eventual winner will be CHINA. how can one beat 9% per annum GDP Growth...?
I think those guys are cooking the books. Short China!
One can "beat" it with the stick of:
Environmental Limitations!
Also, since when does GDP (the skewed step-child of GNP) determine either the general social good OR the "upward mobility" of anyone?
And since when is "upward mobility" (assuming this means: "accumulating more wealth") the measure of nations either?
A strangely Horatio Alger/Milton Friedman set of underyling assumptions for someone with your net-handle.
Europe is already a wasteland and things there are continuing to head in the wrong direction. If their social systems appear good (they aren't) it's only because they've been propped up in a nonsustainable way, in part through massive immigration. The reason you don't hear more complaints is that the people are too beaten down to speak up or mount resistance!
Interesting post. Anything like evidence to back up your assertions? As for immigration propping up their economies, aren't they the cause of the racial tension? And don't we have massive and illegal immigration in this country that doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of "propping us up."
Gary
If the poster you are responding to is in the U.S., I'd say this is a classic case of "projecting the Shadow".
If not, I'd guess personal experience has clouded their judgement.
Either way, not a very useful post.
Note the lack of response.
Hmmm...
Gary
This is, obviously, the work of a bunch of socialist conspirators who are out to take away our freedoms. What good is a healthier society if a man can't be tenured on Wall Street, the White House, the Senate and Congress so he can steal as much as he can get his hands on?
If this is what happens when a man sits at one of those fancy sidewalk cafe's, drinking wine and eatin cheese, and talking to a queer, all I can say is, "Gimme a beer!" and I'll keep my guns.
I'm worried. Unless our resident exceptionalist has assumed another new nym already, he should be here by now to say, "Europe, Schmurope!" and assert that the You Ess of Eh don't need no stinkin' Europeans to tell us how to live!
That's how "we" got here in the first place! ;)
· Yr Obd't Servant
Swanson: "We would rather suffer more... than learn from people who... learned a lot from us, even if we imposed structures on them a half-century ago that would have benefitted us as well."
This bears repeating. I read that a lot of the socialist reforms Europe has today (including nationalized healthcare) were actually imposed on Europe BY the United States after WWII, when they had no government (of entrenched interests) to oppose them. These reforms were desired in America, but were opposed by entrenched private interests here, so were never adopted here, and we suffer for it.
History has a wicked sense of irony.
"The rest of the ride to the theater district was unsurprisingly quiet."
I have a similar feeling after calling my representatives.
It is good to study the "European Promise" or as Jeremy Rifkin called it, the "European Dream" (as opposed to the failing "American" dream).
I do not mean to bring in a note of negativity, but there are a number of aspects of the European Union which we need to keep in mind.
The shared experience of two horrendous "World Wars" in the first half of the 20th Century was very much a part of the rude awakening for many Europeans. They realized they had to stop that cycle.
The European Union has been and remains a rather fragile enterprise. There has been an enormous amount of time and effort dealing with crises between "states". Margaret Thatcher and the smug Pride of British "exceptionalism" was only one of the almost insurmountable obstacles which had to be endured. Trying to balance the economic power of Germany and other nations, especially France, was/is another. Most of these crises stemmed from what Sam Sang Jo called "European Myths".
Religious devotion is not so much a source of PRIDE, for the most part it is TOLERATED in Europe.
Racism (and its "nationalistic" disguises) seems to be the most constant devil.
The question I guess, for me, is - Will it take a horrendously devastating, destructive war in North America for the United States to stop itself?
The majority of people seem so terribly short-sighted and the desperate grasping for (THE LIE) security which is religiously promoted in the United States of Global Domination is, I think, what this article is trying to challenge.
I wish you well.
. . . the failing "American" dream)
The "American Dream" is dead. It's been dead for so long that the worms have eaten even the bones. The nation itself is now primed to be eaten alive by the cannibals of high finance with the indispensable aid of the federal government.
"Mordechai Shiblikov"
I think part of the problems with the U.S. is that so many people still cling to an "american dream" despite the fact that much of it is a lie and much of it is toxic. I would not say it is dead. That is precisely the main problem. It is more like a diseased suicidal predator which feeds on the hopes of those clinging to it (the "dream").
When people see beyond the dream - to the reality of our shared situation - beyond the familial, beyond nationalism, beyond patriotism, beyond the lies of religious righteousness and royalty, and beyond the stupid need to feel superior to nature, then we begin to improve the quality of life.