4 ms·

As someone who has spent a fair bit of time both in the EU and the US, one thing that continues to puzzle me about the average Western European voter is his uns

As someone who has spent a fair bit of time both in the EU and the US, one thing that continues to puzzle me about the average Western European voter is his unshakeable trust in government institutions. Given what happened in living memory, I would expect a very different relationship with Big Government.

g-b-r 3y ago
You probably spent time in northern Europe (Scandinavia, in all likelihood)
- omginternets 3y ago
  Actually, no. I spent most of my time in France, Italy, Spain and the UK. I insist: most upper-middle class (and above) voters are stuck in what I can only qualify as a "govern me harder, daddy" mindset.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    Hmm, if you were raised to dread the "nine most terrifying words" I suppose you could see it like that, but southern Europeans most definitely don't look at their institutions with trust and confidence
    - omginternets 3y ago
      I've found it to be a class divide more than a national divide.
      - g-b-r 3y ago
        Mah, higher class people are for sure generally more convinced of the necessity of the European Union
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    You mention Italy: there the EU is often (but very much not always) seen as the lesser of the two evil compared to the local government.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      To be fair, I should have said "Milan".
arp242 3y ago
"Unshakeable trust" is stating it rather strongly; I think almost no one has that. Also "EU" is far too broad to generalize: Sweden is very different from, say, Spain, which is very different from Romania. But in general, compared to average US views, there is probably more of a recognition that a government is needed, and that it's better than the alternative. But to be honest it's kind of hard to really say too much meaningful without specifics.
- omginternets 3y ago
  In my experience it goes a fair bit beyond that. There is a high tolerance for the involvement of government authority in such things as (to sample from recent history): "you shall slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases", or "you shall not leave your residence". This is positively unthinkable in other parts of the word. Puzzlingly (or perhaps not-so-puzzlingly), large swaths of Western Europe are comfortable with this, despite having recent experience with totalitarian states that were positively brutal. Say what you will, I do see a connection between the two.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > There is a high tolerance for the involvement of government authority in such things as (to sample from recent history): "you shall slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases", or "you shall not leave your residence". I don't know what "slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases" refers to specifically, but Greenhouse gases are bad and reducing them is good. As I see it the only way to meaningfully take action on it is by government control. I don't actually like this but it's just the reality of the matter: companies will keep doing what nets them a profit, and millions of consumers can't really do an in-depth study on everything they buy, and the only party that can take meaningful action is government. I think climate change denial has always been primarily about opposition to government action, and not so much about the science of it. "You shall not leave your residence", presumably, refers to COVID lockdowns? Most of the world had these kind of restrictions, including the US, and some locations much more severe than Europe. Many people thought they were a good thing and followed them because of that, and didn't blindly follow government for the sake of obeying the government. And in both cases there was/is plenty of opposition too (presumably anyway, because I don't exactly know what you're referring to). People can protest. People can vote different. They can go on the internet and TV and say politicians are a bunch of wankers. Comparisons with "totalitarian states" is just silly.

g-b-r 3y ago

You probably spent time in northern Europe (Scandinavia, in all likelihood)

omginternets 3y ago
Actually, no. I spent most of my time in France, Italy, Spain and the UK. I insist: most upper-middle class (and above) voters are stuck in what I can only qualify as a "govern me harder, daddy" mindset.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  Hmm, if you were raised to dread the "nine most terrifying words" I suppose you could see it like that, but southern Europeans most definitely don't look at their institutions with trust and confidence
  - omginternets 3y ago
    I've found it to be a class divide more than a national divide.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      Mah, higher class people are for sure generally more convinced of the necessity of the European Union
- gpderetta 3y ago
  You mention Italy: there the EU is often (but very much not always) seen as the lesser of the two evil compared to the local government.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    To be fair, I should have said "Milan".

arp242 3y ago

"Unshakeable trust" is stating it rather strongly; I think almost no one has that. Also "EU" is far too broad to generalize: Sweden is very different from, say, Spain, which is very different from Romania. But in general, compared to average US views, there is probably more of a recognition that a government is needed, and that it's better than the alternative. But to be honest it's kind of hard to really say too much meaningful without specifics.

omginternets 3y ago
In my experience it goes a fair bit beyond that. There is a high tolerance for the involvement of government authority in such things as (to sample from recent history): "you shall slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases", or "you shall not leave your residence". This is positively unthinkable in other parts of the word. Puzzlingly (or perhaps not-so-puzzlingly), large swaths of Western Europe are comfortable with this, despite having recent experience with totalitarian states that were positively brutal. Say what you will, I do see a connection between the two.
- arp242 3y ago
  > There is a high tolerance for the involvement of government authority in such things as (to sample from recent history): "you shall slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases", or "you shall not leave your residence". I don't know what "slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases" refers to specifically, but Greenhouse gases are bad and reducing them is good. As I see it the only way to meaningfully take action on it is by government control. I don't actually like this but it's just the reality of the matter: companies will keep doing what nets them a profit, and millions of consumers can't really do an in-depth study on everything they buy, and the only party that can take meaningful action is government. I think climate change denial has always been primarily about opposition to government action, and not so much about the science of it. "You shall not leave your residence", presumably, refers to COVID lockdowns? Most of the world had these kind of restrictions, including the US, and some locations much more severe than Europe. Many people thought they were a good thing and followed them because of that, and didn't blindly follow government for the sake of obeying the government. And in both cases there was/is plenty of opposition too (presumably anyway, because I don't exactly know what you're referring to). People can protest. People can vote different. They can go on the internet and TV and say politicians are a bunch of wankers. Comparisons with "totalitarian states" is just silly.