[TimJRobinson]

As someone who was born in Australia and now lives in Amsterdam I feel like he's the most sane politician in America. I still don't understand why Americans are so insistent on keeping their "Bad for the people, good for business" policies.

If you're in the 1% sure that makes sense, but for everyone else life is so much nicer with free healthcare, good vacation time, maternity leave, good public transport, proper prisoner rehabilitation, and strong welfare safety nets.

Having a high GDP country is cool and all but wouldn't you want a much nicer life instead?

[andrewfong]

Thomas Frank took a stab at this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansa... Worth a read.

From my perspective, there's no one answer, but I've noticed a handful of things:

* Race - Most democratic socialist countries tend to have more homogeneous populations. The U.S. has sizable African-American and Latino-American minorities, often segregated into their own neighborhoods, and that often informs how the white majority votes -- i.e. things like welfare and prison reform are viewed as handouts to people not like themselves. You might say it's comparable to how perceptions of Greek laziness inform German attitudes towards debt cancellation.

* Geography - The U.S.'s political system grants a disproportionate power to sparsely populated states (e.g. a state like Wyoming has more electoral votes per person than California, and states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a large say in how the presidential primaries turn out). This matters with respect to policies that might be considered urban-centric -- e.g. public transportation.

* Militarism - The U.S. is the only country that regularly projects force halfway around the globe, and it's super expensive. Every dollar spent on bombs is a dollar not spent on healthcare. It's a good question as to why American voters constantly favor military might, but it's not necessarily an irrational choice. Or rather, you could argue that it wasn't an irrational choice during WW2 and the Cold War, but that the development of a military-industrial complex has had lasting effects on American politics.

[mikeash]

Regarding your last point, if proper health care reform brought us in line with other first-world countries, it would dramatically reduce health care spending, freeing up even more money for blowing up brown people if that's what we wanted to do with the savings.

[dragonwriter]

> Every dollar spent on bombs is a dollar not spent on healthcare

The US spends more on healthcare -- measured in total, and per capita, and as share of GDP -- than any other OECD country, even though it and Mexico are the only OECD countries without universal healthcare. It spends more out of public funds on healthcare (again, by all three measures) than many OECD countries providing universal healthcare spend in total, while also spending more in private spending on healthcare than it does in public spending.

While the US spending about as much (a while ago it was a little more, right now I think its a hair less) as the rest of the world combined in military spending may be argued to limit resources for other activities, it is manifestly not meaningfully constraining health care spending.

[MaysonL]

Healthcare ≠ pharmaceutical corporate profits and inflated physician salaries.

[lstroud]

On the first, these are cultural problems that are not solvable by politicians without creating worse problems (as evidenced by current events).

The second is a misunderstanding of the concept of a republic. Each state has a say. That's not unfair. It certainly wouldn't promote stability for heavily populated cities to have complete control and entire states neglected.

Not sure I completely disagree on military spending. Like most things, it's a balance. We probably needed a rebalance (was done in the gov shutdown deal). However, I'm not sure it needs further cuts. Maybe just better focus.

Healthcare is a joke. What was passed, and the way it was passed, was deceitful. Turns out it was snake oil. Made some things better, made more things worse, and didn't fix the problem (cost of healthcare).

From a politics perspective, it sure would be nice to have a leader that brings people together. This administration is far to willing to leverage our political differences as a tool for political gain. That has made us culturally worse by creating an environment of distrust, disregard, and division Among our citizens just for having different ideas.

[Apocryphon]

Isn't the problem of a military industrial complex is that the industry ends up being a huge employer, and so it's not simply matters of jingoism or foreign policy, but to cut the military would be to cut jobs? The military itself is a huge employer as well, and a way to provide additional social services (tuition for veterans, etc.) because Americans are unwilling to provide that in other ways.

[rogerbinns]

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― John Steinbeck

Also remember you are seeing a media/attention filter on everything. Nobody reports or passes on the mundane things. Instead controversies have to be found that outrage some people, all the better to get eyeballs on the TV/site and go viral on Facebook.

I do recommend following Scott Adams' blog (creator of Dilbert). He has an mba, is a trained hypnotist, and various other skills unrelated to comics. He has been writing about the various techniques Donald Trump is using, and why they are so successful. (Note not endorsing Trump, but rather observing.) http://blog.dilbert.com/

[malkia]

A lot of my bulgarian friends, and others, living here in America are thinking that taxes, free schools, even police, firefighting, etc. are just things that should go away.

Essentially you have to pay, and be a "share-holder" in everything. You should be on top of things everywhere, etc. etc.

And someone recently posted this on his fb page: "If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences." - Ayn Rand.

In essence the above is correct, but it does not tell the whole picture. While the businessman most likely would suffer, nothing is being said about lots of innocent people that would suffer too (and being on Hacker News, the recent story of security breaches leaking lots of personal information).

Also it's not always the case that people would suffer the consequences due to a bureaucrat (assuming public office of sorts), and even if they do, it'll be less painful (distributed over all the population of the country, state or city), rather than people directly being affected by certain business.

To my friends, it's really painful that they have to pay taxes - some of them don't have kids, and they don't think they should pay for school. I fuckin don't get this, since not having good education is the road to ruin...

[gjm11]

> "If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences." - Ayn Rand.

There is some truth in this. It is the almost-exact flip side of this: If a businessman does something right, he reaps the gains. If a bureaucrat does something right, you reap the gains.

... which doesn't sound so bad, now does it?

Neither is exactly correct. If the senior management of a large company make a big mistake, they aren't the only ones who lose: some employees may lose their jobs, the company may be less effective in providing customers with useful products or services, etc. And, conversely, if they do something very right, their employees may get bonuses or pay rises and their customers may get useful things to buy. And even government bureaucrats are likely to do better for themselves when they make good decisions than when they make bad ones.

But it's a reasonable approximation. On the whole and on average, businessmen are in business to benefit themselves, and fortunately it turns out that when you have lots of people doing that it brings benefits to everyone. On the whole and on average, government bureaucrats are in their jobs to benefit The People.

And, surprise surprise, if you focus only on the downside then you see businessmen hurting themselves and bureaucrats hurting The People. But it cuts both ways.

[ZenoArrow]

> "If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences."

Makes for a catchy soundbite, what a shame it's not true.

A businessman can make a mistake that impacts millions of people. Here are a couple of prominent examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue

To summarise the first, Bayer had to stop selling some blood transfusion products in the US after they were found to be contaminated with HIV and Hepatitis C. What did they do with the blood? They sold it in Asia and South America instead. A cold-blooded capitalist may argue this was a 'win' for the company in terms of income, but regardless a business decision was made and there was huge damage as a result.

To summarise the second, Nestlé tried to encourage groups of mothers in developing countries to give up breast feeding their babies and sell them infant formula instead. They do so at first by giving out free samples. Numerous problems ensued (including the mothers' no longer being able to produce breast milk for their babies, leading to deaths once the free samples stopped and the mothers were no longer able to afford the infant formula).

There are plenty of other examples (especially in the areas of environmental pollution and worker conditions), I'm guessing I don't need to go on.

[Roodgorf]

On the whole I agree, but I also think that the business person's decisions/consequences case only works out if you are fairly optimistic and fully believe in the trickle down theory.

That is, anecdotally it seems if an exec makes a good decision, or even if someone at a lower level does, they will benefit substantially more than the rest of the employees. At the same time, if they make a company-endingly bad decision, employees may be out of a job while they will still probably make out okay (golden parachutes and the like).

[tmaly]

This is a battle of power between the federal level and the state level. With more power centered at the state level (distributed), it would be less likely that everyone would suffer across all states. Look at policies such as "No Child Left Behind" act, it applies a one size fits all law to all schools. It has its problems, and all schools across the country suffer because it is applied at the federal level.

[aridiculous]

As if large corporations aren't full of bureaucratic businessmen.

[microcolonel]

That's my main gripe with this inclusion of every service and charity under the sun in government. Sure, most people consider these things important, and sometimes many people could stand to benefit if it all goes well; but ultimately the problem is that everyone is expected to simultaneously have opinions on every policy in every sector at once, and come to some voting decision based on that, furthermore that their preferences should affect their entire jurisdiction or riding. This is just unrealistic.

[hackuser]

> ultimately the problem is that everyone is expected to simultaneously have opinions on every policy in every sector at once

That's why people elect representatives, to do that for them. The U.S. is not a direct democracy.

Regardless, the problems are there and must be dealt with, however difficult that is. Ignoring problems because they are difficult would be a willful negligence. It would also be irresponsible to let people suffer, and also harm our entire community, because the problems are difficult and mechanisms imperfect.

[alwaysAttending]

Part of it has to do with xenophobia and racism. Social Safety Net policy was more popular back when blacks were excluded. Throw in minorities, and people start singing a different tune. It's not like Europe is immune from this either. This is basically the platform of UKIP and the National Front. USA is much more diverse and has to deal with these issues up front. Except in Vermont, where the populace is 95% white. They're much more supportive of socialism. Coincidence?

[hackuser]

A counter-example: Cities are much more diverse and much more liberal than rural areas.

[gjm11]

The slightly bigger picture: People become less liberal when they are aware of the existence of other people Not Like Them with whom they're sharing a country, but become more liberal when they actually interact with those people.

(This is conjecture, but it seems awfully plausible and explains both the observations here.)

[kbenson]

I think that makes sense.

When another group with (possibly) different norms has no affect on you, it's easy to ignore them.

When that group can exert some effect on you, but the effect is unknown, people get scared, and act accordingly. This is exacerbated by people that like attention and/or power that will stoke these fears to further their own agenda.

When that group is finally encountered, often there's understanding, a willingness to compromise where needed from both parties, and as the unknown subsides, so does much of the fear (and the power that grants those that use fear).

[rch]

The population density effect works against Democrats too...

"This demonstrates the level of gerrymandering that republicans have accomplished, maximizing the number of districts that are republican, even if just slightly, while shoving all democrats in their states into a few districts that are heavily democratic."

http://forrestry.blogspot.com/2013/09/population-density-com...

[keithpeter]

"USA is much more diverse and has to deal with these issues up front."

What metric of diversity? UK is pretty diverse in larger cities.

[slg]

It all comes down to our "freedom" fetish. Why should the government force me to take 4 weeks of vacation when I can make due with 2? Why would I want to build my day around a train schedule when I could just get in my car and drive? And so on.

[xeromal]

You are kind of simplifying it to make it seem more stupid than it already is.

My dad would be annoyed that he has to pay for all this "extra" stuff in order to grow his business. Simple as that. He believes that the big companies already provide some semblance of benefits so really the only people hurt are the people with small businesses. You can go get another job if you don't like it.

[slg]

I wrote it somewhat tongue in check from the employee's perspective. No one would refuse being offered more vacation. However, like you said people don't want to be forced to offer and/or pay for that vacation. The belief is if people really want the vacation, the free market will force employers to give that vacation and therefore any government requirement is either not needed or overly onerous. It is a simplification, but when combined with Cold War fallout of Capitalism v. Socialism (which is often just a softer term for Communism in this country) it explains most of the things described in the original post.

[grecy]

You missed the point entirely.

Just because those things are available, you are not forced to use them.

You would have the best of both worlds, because you would have more choices, not less like you have now.

[slg]

You are asking me to defend a point that I disagree with, but as the argument goes, you pay for them regardless. Because these type of things are provided for the government, it means they are funded by tax dollars. I am therefore in a way participating in them because I have to pay for them.

If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation?

[grecy]

> If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation?

You want to pay for things like that because it makes your society stronger and healthier overall.

You already pay for everyone to use the police, jails, firemen, roads, sidewalks, parks, libraries, courts, etc. etc. even though you probably don't use them, or use them frequently. Why do you pay for other people to use police, courts and jails?

Have you ever wondered why the crime rate in the US is so high compared to developed countries? One of the reasons is because people are very desperate. They have low education, no healthcare, so safety net, so they have nothing to lose. If you had "paid" for them to have those things, those people would be happier, healthier, and you wouldn't be 10 times more likely to be murdered than I am.

After 10 years in the US I went back to Australia for a few weeks and it slapped me in the face - there are very few desperate people in Australia. Even the lowest paid people have healthcare, education, own their own home and have toys like project cars.

That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us"

[slg]

I don't disagree with you, I am just providing the general reasoning for these things.

[kbenson]

> That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us"

I like how that can work to further your point whether you read is as "us" or "U.S."

[unfamiliar]

To play devils advocate: allowing 4 weeks of paid vacation, no questions asked, will eventually be reflected in the salary as a result of economic forces. Then someone who can make do with 2 days vacation will not be able to get paid for those extra 4 weeks, even if they are willing to work them.

[microcolonel]

If this would prevent my employer from rewarding me for only taking two weeks of vacation, I would argue that it'd be unconstitutional.

[gjm11]

What part of the constitution would it be contrary to?

[caffeinewriter]

It might be interesting to you to watch John Oliver's video on the wealth gap in America. He covers why people consistently protect the 1%, even if it's not in their current best interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno

[cynoclast]

Because we average citizens have no voice in public policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

[spectrum1234]

But incentives are not aligned so therefore in the long run GDP and life are both worse off.