4 ms·

> They graduate from college with little to no debt That is true for most of Europe. There must be more to US problems.

avidiax 2y ago
> There must be more to US problems. Yes, there are many people in the US that are highly insecure financially and socially. The E.U. has a much higher floor. Workers have more rights. There is more social support. Medical bankruptcy is practically impossible. It's not to say that it's all sunshine and rainbows, but I'd guess that very few Europeans are one paycheck and 3 months of eviction proceedings away from being literally homeless. In the U.S., a large fraction of people are like that. And our government, as the article says, is largely run by people that have "got theirs". They have some savings. They may have a home (albeit with a mortgage). They may stand to inherit from relatives. They have better job prospects, maybe even the luxury of a high prestige, low paying job. And these people, for the most part, can't or won't imagine or understand what it's like to live a life of insecurity. The E.U., in my opinion, has some sense of class consciousness and solidarity among the workers, especially those that would be insecure if they lived in the states. But in the U.S., there's a substantial fraction of vulnerable people that feel morally opposed to welfare even though they'd benefit from it. They have a mentality often called that of "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". So when a politician comes along that promises that he'll give them security without a handout, that they've already earned it but he'll stop those stealing it, these people will support him wholeheartedly. This particular lens is just one of several that explain the rise of someone like Trump. There are also accelerationists, people that think that blowing up a stable system will accelerate the revolution. There are bigots, who think that some "other" is the cause of their suffering. There are people that are merely self-interested, and think that Trump with benefit them, either correctly or incorrectly. And on and on, so many various and overlapping reasons. And there is a missing condition: the existing political parties in the U.S. did not empathize or respect or give voice or deliver for the insecure. It was easy to think that the system as it existed offered a binary option where neither choice served their interests, so why not pick something radical and risk blowing it up? Europe, I think, is getting close to these conditions in some respects. The far right has been doing too well recently. But Europe is also constitutionally more capable of pulling back from the brink and providing an effective centrist government in spirit, even if it sometimes has trouble affording it.

> There must be more to US problems. Yes, there are many people in the US that are highly insecure financially and socially. The E.U. has a much higher floor. Workers have more rights. There is more social support. Medical bankruptcy is practically impossible. It's not to say that it's all sunshine and rainbows, but I'd guess that very few Europeans are one paycheck and 3 months of eviction proceedings away from being literally homeless. In the U.S., a large fraction of people are like that. And our government, as the article says, is largely run by people that have "got theirs". They have some savings. They may have a home (albeit with a mortgage). They may stand to inherit from relatives. They have better job prospects, maybe even the luxury of a high prestige, low paying job. And these people, for the most part, can't or won't imagine or understand what it's like to live a life of insecurity. The E.U., in my opinion, has some sense of class consciousness and solidarity among the workers, especially those that would be insecure if they lived in the states. But in the U.S., there's a substantial fraction of vulnerable people that feel morally opposed to welfare even though they'd benefit from it. They have a mentality often called that of "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". So when a politician comes along that promises that he'll give them security without a handout, that they've already earned it but he'll stop those stealing it, these people will support him wholeheartedly. This particular lens is just one of several that explain the rise of someone like Trump. There are also accelerationists, people that think that blowing up a stable system will accelerate the revolution. There are bigots, who think that some "other" is the cause of their suffering. There are people that are merely self-interested, and think that Trump with benefit them, either correctly or incorrectly. And on and on, so many various and overlapping reasons. And there is a missing condition: the existing political parties in the U.S. did not empathize or respect or give voice or deliver for the insecure. It was easy to think that the system as it existed offered a binary option where neither choice served their interests, so why not pick something radical and risk blowing it up? Europe, I think, is getting close to these conditions in some respects. The far right has been doing too well recently. But Europe is also constitutionally more capable of pulling back from the brink and providing an effective centrist government in spirit, even if it sometimes has trouble affording it.