The Torture Report

[Trinidad]

But when you mention the term "social-democracy" in the US, people think it's a euphemism for communism.

Social democracy is, at heart, socialism. I'm not sure what social-democracy is. But no form of socialism is best, IMO.

Q.E.D.

 

If you're not sure what a social-democracy is, then it seems premature to label it socialism. (See: Nordic model.)

The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state.

Simply put: It is a capitalist, free market system with a tight safety net to prevent poverty, sickness and insecurity (the major contributors to unhappiness).

 

Many Non-Nordic countries in Western-Europe essentially follow the Nordic model, in a slightly moderated form. IMO this is the reason why the Nordic countries are doing even better in terms of Health, Security, Happiness, and Education (across the entire population, from "poor"-est to wealthiest) than those other European countries. OTOH I realize that a country such as The Netherlands (where I currently live) is mentally not ready for the all out Nordic Model, but 90% of it is more than good enough.

 

Rik

[barmar]

In my mind, the ideals of the social-democracies that you list are very similar to those of the US. We may not call ourselves by that label, and we have a political party whose platform includes reduced social programs, but welfare programs are still an enormous part of government policies. The main thing we're missing is socialized medicine.

 

But in terms of the ideals that we try to export to other countries, I think those differences between us and other western democracies are just minor details. Critical things are democracy, freedom of speech and press, rule of law, universal access to education, civil rights, free markets, and perhaps separation of church and state.

 

Will this make people happier? Probably not in the short term. Like I said, the transition is hard. When the Soviet Union broke up and the former members switched to capitalism it was a good thing, but the initial economy was in really bad shape.

[Winstonm]

One of the arguments for "spreading democracy" is that if these third-world societies had democracy, freedom, and universal education, their basic needs (e.g. food) would come along naturally. Education and access to information is necessary for a society to improve itself. What's holding them back in many cases is totalitarian regimes that deprive the masses of health care, obsolete traditions that deny education to girls (not to mention condoning molestation and mutilation), etc.

 

Democracy is not just "what we believe is best", there is strong evidence that it's a big part of how America made so much progress in the 200 years since it was founded.

 

Yes, when given the opportunity for free elections, some of these countries vote back in the old regimes. The conversion to a free society comes with enormous growing pains. On the other hand, "Mussolini made the trains run on time" (not actually true, but widely believed: Snopes.com).

 

"Universal education" implies a state-run education system, i.e., public education, i.e., socialized education.

[blackshoe]

What I said was that I am familiar, to some extent at least, with social democracy (two words). Rik put a hyphen between the words, so I don't know if the two terms are synonymous.

 

Why does "universal education" imply a state run education system?

[Winstonm]

What I said was that I am familiar, to some extent at least, with social democracy (two words). Rik put a hyphen between the words, so I don't know if the two terms are synonymous.

 

Why does "universal education" imply a state run education system?

 

How else do the poor get educated? When an action is determined to be in a country's best interest (universal education, say), then the most effective way to attain that goal is behind the power of the federal government to enforce its laws.

 

Do you have a different method that is equally effective?

[PassedOut]

The Fox News channel, which tends to lean republican, argued that the torture report should not have been released at all. Andrea Tantaros of Fox explained it this way:

 

"The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome," she said. "Weve closed the book on it, and weve stopped doing it. And the reason they want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how were not awesome."

Well, it's not the BBC...

[kenberg]

I can't say I had ever heard of Ms. Tantaros before but she sounds just, well, you know, like totally awesome.

[mycroft]

"which tends to lean Republican"? It's true, Michiganders are laconic and use subtlety for emphasis.

 

"tends to drag the Republicans hard to the right with a choke chain" seems closer. "Is the active, if unpaid (for tax purposes) propaganda arm from the GOP" - with the caveat that because they aren't in fact, run by them, sometimes they wag the dog more than the people running the party would like - may be more accurate.

 

It seems with this particular administration (note, for instance, the above quote versus "we've closed the book on the attack on the Libyan consulate" - yeah, not until the election was over, it wasn't, at least not on Fox), the only thing of importance is that the Administration is Wrong. There are many who ascribe darker reasons behind it than I, I think it wouldn't matter who was the Democrat in the White House; but whatever reason has to be invented for the Administration to be Wrong, even if the last Administration, who did exactly the same thing in a different situation, was Right, will be invented.

 

Then again, I get most of my Fox News from the Daily Show; I don't get it by default here in North Montana, and when I have had it forced upon me, I've managed to last no more than a minute before the urge to throw a brick at the screen overwhelms me and I leave. Note that that's 10-15 seconds longer than I've survived the Big Bang Theory, so...

[blackshoe]

So the only way universal education works is to force it on people?

[barmar]

When I said "universal access to education", I wasn't really talking about compulsory education. What I meant was that the society shouldn't actively prevent certain segments (i.e. girls) from getting an education, which is a real problem in many Muslim countries.

 

If girls are denied an education, they grow into ignorant women with few prospects other than getting married and depending on their husband. They're likely to be trapped in poor marriages, and they'll put up with spousal abuse because they have no choice. And since they're the primary caregiver for children, they pass on their ignorance. This is a self-perpetuating recipe for cultural stagnation -- it explains why many of them are barely in the 20th century.

[mikeh]

.

 

If girls are denied an education, they grow into ignorant women with few prospects other than getting married and depending on their husband. They're likely to be trapped in poor marriages, and they'll put up with spousal abuse because they have no choice. And since they're the primary caregiver for children, they pass on their ignorance.

 

Sounds like a social commentary on 19th century NA and Western European society to me, not to mention some growing segments of the US (google 'quiverfull)

 

It is tempting to see our own culture as the exemplar to which all should aspire. It is tempting to see our current situation as having always 'really' been the way it is. It is tempting to see our own culture not as it is but as we'd like it to be.

 

I am a white, heterosexual male from a middle class background. While I like to think that what success I have had in life is entirely the result of my own efforts, even I have had to recognize that my background either helped or, more likely, was not the obstacle that it would have been had I been other.

 

In 1973, when I was graduating in Engineering, I was a member of a small class of about 25 students (Chemical Engineering). We all sent resumes to various large potential employers.

 

We had several Chinese students, some of them native to Vancouver, which has long been multi-cultural, and some students sent over by their parents from Hong Kong. By the end of our 4th year we were all getting along well. While the white students ranged in ethnicity from Anglo-Saxon to Polish to Italian and so on, the non-whites were all Chinese.

 

We noticed that one large company invited some to interviews and not others. All of the whites got interviews, with one exception. None of the Chinese got interviews, and it didn't matter whether they were completely 'Canadian' or from Hong Kong.

 

The one white guy (and we were all male) who didn't get an interview was Al Twa. Now, I don't know the ethnic origin of his last name but it seemed obvious to us that the recruiting people from this large company viewed him as oriental.

 

I suspect that these days somebody might have laid a Human Rights Complaint, but back then all we could do was to try to laugh it off.

 

Part of the annual practices of the Engineering Student body back then was to organize a Lady Godiva ride: a hooker would be hired to ride naked around campus on a hired horse, escorted by rowdy engineering students....she would then be invited to a private function with some of the student executives, or so rumour had it. This was part of a pervasive attitude towards women, which was possible only because there were virtually zero women enrolling in Engineering at the time. I remember being told, as if it were funny....and I confess that as a 17 year old I probably laughed....that it cost the engineering student society a lot more for the horse than for the girl.

 

Now, I don't for one moment think that this sort of thing goes on now at my old university, and I think that any employment discrimination is likely to be more subtle than it was for my classmate, Al Twa. My point is that it is easy to point to practices and attitudes in the 'benighted' parts of the world and proclaim our superiority, but the truth is that we aren't that superior and that it was only recently that we became even partially enlightened on gender or race issues. Indeed, while I didn't watch Borat, I am told that some of the more painfully funny scenes involved filming real people exhibiting horrific attitudes when unaware that they were being recorded. Scratch below the surface in many parts of the Western world, and bigotry may be a lot closer than you would like to think. Indeed, the media is constantly full of examples of domestic abuse and sexual assault of and on women in NA, so it seems somewhat hypocritical for a NA male to claim that it is Islamic cultural values that lead to that sort of thing.

[PhilKing]

"which tends to lean Republican"? It's true, Michiganders are laconic and use subtlety for emphasis.

 

I took it to mean "tends to lean Republican" when compared to the far right ...

[kenberg]

others. All of the whites got interviews, with one exception. None of the Chinese got interviews, and it didn't matter whether they were completely 'Canadian' or from Hong Kong.

Now, I don't for one moment think that this sort of thing goes on now at my old university, and I think that any employment discrimination is likely to be more subtle than it was for my classmate, Al Twa. My point is that it is easy to point to practices and attitudes in the 'benighted' parts of the world and proclaim our superiority, but the truth is that we aren't that superior and that it was only recently that we became even partially enlightened on gender or race issues. Indeed, while I didn't watch Borat, I am told that some of the more painfully funny scenes involved filming real people exhibiting horrific attitudes when unaware that they were being recorded. Scratch below the surface in many parts of the Western world, and bigotry may be a lot closer than you would like to think. Indeed, the media is constantly full of examples of domestic abuse and sexual assault of and on women in NA, so it seems somewhat hypocritical for a NA male to claim that it is Islamic cultural values that lead to that sort of thing.

 

These things are always a mix. I went to the Institute of technology at the University of Minnesota from 1956-1960. this was part of the general campus, but we were the science/math part.

 

A. There were wmen students in IT and they were successful. This latter is not surprising since unlike the guys, who may have been there simply because their fathers said so, the women were making a conscious counter-cultural choice.

 

B. There were not many women.

 

Yes, it was male oriented. In a Physics class the students asked for a review before the final. The Prof., the cosmic ray physicist Ed Ney agreed to do so under the condition I would lend him my notes. He never wrote out his lectures. He was very good, one of my favorites, but he did not write it out. So I said fine, and on the day of the review I gave him my notebook. I had stuffed it with a number of pictures from, I think, Playboy. He took it in stride and showed them to the class.

 

OK not a very inviting atmosphere for women I suppose, but it is not the same as shooting them

[Trinidad]

Sounds like a social commentary on 19th century NA and Western European society to me, not to mention some growing segments of the US (google 'quiverfull). ...

I would have upvoted this post 100x if the software allowed me too.

 

When I was a kid, in the late '70s, we had a gay couple living in our street. (This was in the "free, tolerant" Netherlands.) They lived there for less than a year. Then they couldn't stand the mobbing and abuse anymore and sold the house*. The neighborhood was celebrating.

 

Rik

 

* In the Netherlands, if you buy and sell houses frequently that will cost you a lot of money: each time you buy, you will need to pay approximately 10% of the value of the house in taxes and registration fees. So, apart from the abuse, humiliation and mobbing, these people probably lost an amount of money equivalent to 2 nice new cars.

[helene_t]

Sounds like a social commentary on 19th century NA and Western European society to me, not to mention some growing segments of the US (google 'quiverfull)

"a social commentary on 19th century ...." sounds to me consitent with Barry's remark "barely live in the 20th century". I am not sure if you disagree on anything.

[barmar]

Sounds like a social commentary on 19th century NA and Western European society to me, not to mention some growing segments of the US (google 'quiverfull)

 

It is tempting to see our own culture as the exemplar to which all should aspire. It is tempting to see our current situation as having always 'really' been the way it is. It is tempting to see our own culture not as it is but as we'd like it to be.

I have no illusions that America has always been like this. Although I'm tempted to say that we've mostly been as good or better than many others. Yes, we had slavery, but so did much of the world; our beliefs about race at the time were consistent with most of western society. We also slaughtered and stole land from Native Americans -- European cultures, from which we came, had little regard for "primitives" at the time. We were a product of the times.

 

But that's all water under the bridge, I don't see that it matters today what we were like 150 years ago. We've grown as a society, and we continue to improve (e.g. LGBT rights). We're hardly perfect, we still have serious problems with race relations and violence. But we've made significant progress -- where racial discrimination used to be overt (from segregated schools and neighborhoods down to "whites-only" drinking fountains), now it's mostly unconscious.

 

And one of the benefits of culture is that it can be passed on to other groups. Should we just sit back and wait for other societies to discover on their own that it's better for everyone if they improve civil rights as we've tried to do?

 

I admit that there can be problems with this approach. Religious evangelists think that's what they're doing. To them, being part of an organized religion is an obvious improvement in life, so why shouldn't they try to spread it? Figuring out the appropriate line between "helpfully passing on what we've learned" and "unwanted, inappropriate interfering" is tricky. But that's what we hope the smart people we elect, and who they appoint as ambassafors, will be able to do.

[mikeh]

But that's what we hope the smart people we elect, and who they appoint as ambassafors, will be able to do.

Have you looked at your House of Representatives recently?

[helene_t]

And one of the benefits of culture is that it can be passed on to other groups. Should we just sit back and wait for other societies to discover on their own that it's better for everyone if they improve civil rights as we've tried to do?

That sounds like a case for things like giving financial support to primary schools in the third world. Putting pressure on the multinationals you host to practice affirmative action abroad, maybe. Or to provide training for their local unskilled employees.

 

Or whatever. There are many ways to export the best elements of our culture. Most of them don't involve use of military power, though.

[mycroft]

Heh, Mike, have you looked at our pols recently? Federal or provincial, although clearly your provincial politics are differently dysfunctional from mine.

 

Having said that, they *are* smart. They're very smart. It's just that, like Google and Facebook and the rest, their customers aren't who most people think they are. And even if they do have some lingering respect for "the voter", I note that all the people getting "the benefit of [u.S.] culture" aren't voters - so there's *no* downside to doing what's right for their customers.

[Trinidad]

I have no illusions that America has always been like this. Although I'm tempted to say that we've mostly been as good or better than many others.

 

[]

And one of the benefits of culture is that it can be passed on to other groups. Should we just sit back and wait for other societies to discover on their own that it's better for everyone if they improve civil rights as we've tried to do?

 

I admit that there can be problems with this approach. Religious evangelists think that's what they're doing. To them, being part of an organized religion is an obvious improvement in life, so why shouldn't they try to spread it? Figuring out the appropriate line between "helpfully passing on what we've learned" and "unwanted, inappropriate interfering" is tricky.

But this is one of the key things: We judge that religious evangelists values are not better than ours and we don't like it when they are trying to convert us to their superior system. We can think that we are mostly better than many others. But the question is whether they think we are better. If they would, we could try to help them in modelling society to ours. But it seems clear that they don't think we are better than they. And then "helping them" isn't really helping, is it?

 

Rik

[barmar]

But this is one of the key things: We judge that religious evangelists values are not better than ours and we don't like it when they are trying to convert us to their superior system. We can think that we are mostly better than many others. But the question is whether they think we are better. If they would, we could try to help them in modelling society to ours. But it seems clear that they don't think we are better than they. And then "helping them" isn't really helping, is it?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

[Trinidad]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

Just for clarity: What truths are you referring to? If it is about what I wrote then I am flattered and I wish the US would base their foreign policy on them..

 

If it is referring to the truths in the Declaration of Independence then I can only say: "But they don't."

 

Not to mention that I myself don't. They are not self-evident. Some of them are not even truths. I think they were considered truths in another time by smart people in the culture of those days. But now we know better...

 

Rik

[barmar]

Not to mention that I myself don't. They are not self-evident. Some of them are not even truths. I think they were considered truths in another time by smart people in the culture of those days. But now we know better...

Which of these do we know better about now? The right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?

[Trinidad]

Which of these do we know better about now? The right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?

I just underlined a couple from the main line...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal¹, that they are endowed by their Creator² with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty³ and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

1. 
    
   
2. The declaration was meant for white males. We should know better now... (do we?)
   
3. The declaration assumes a Creator. We know better now.
   
4. It assumes that Liberty (and, of course, particularly the American variation where Liberty is virtually endless as long as you have the money to back it up) is a primary need. It completely disregards that there are primary needs that need to be addressed. And that taking care of these primary needs for all those men that supposedly are equal puts a major limitation on individual Liberty. We know that the world can simply not afford American Liberty, neither from an economical nor ecological point of view. Nevertheless, the USA keeps trying to export it... even to places who don't want it. By the way, that fact alone already makes clear that the right to Liberty is not a universal truth, let alone a self-evident one. The same holds for the pursuit of Happiness. These are very culture dependent.
   

 

Rik

[mikeh]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

I suspect this unthinking veneration of 18th century enlightenment values is the result of the parochialism inherent in the US educational system. As Rik points out, a number of those self-evident truths are neither true nor self-evident. And one think history teaches us is that context is paramount. Hence those very people who proclaimed those truths included slave owners and I suspect all of them would have been outraged at the notion that women, let alone negroes, we're truly created equal to white rich