[omginternets]

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.

[arp242]

"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]

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]

> 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.

[omginternets]

>I don't know what "slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases" refers to specifically

I'm rather shocked that you're unaware of this.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_farmers%27_protests

- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/ireland-...

- https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-f...

>Greenhouse gases are bad and reducing them is good

Agreed, but that's hardly the point. Reducing crime is also good, but I'm sure you'd agree that the methods employed matter very much.

[arp242]

> Reducing crime is also good, but I'm sure you'd agree that the methods employed matter very much.

Of course, which is why I ask for specifics; I am not unaware of these things, but I am unaware what exactly you have in mind with a vague general statement.

I know the most about the Dutch case, which is not about greenhouse gases but nitrogen and its effect on soil quality (but that's a relatively minor detail for the purpose of this conversation) and that has been a point since at least the 90s. For decades serious measures had been delayed under protests from the farmers, until things really came to a head a few years ago.

Anyway, there were huge protests, for measures that had been delayed for decades, and the measures were changed. The newly established "farmers party" is doing reasonably well in polls for the upcoming elections. I don't really see how this is an example of a 'high tolerance for the involvement of government authority in such things as "you shall slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases"' that you mentioned. These have been the largest protests in the country since the 80s, so that seems like an odd definition of "high tolerance", or "unshakable trust".

The Guardian report about Ireland simply says "if we want to meet our goals, then we must reduce greenhouse gases". No one is forcing anyone to slaughter anything. Actually, that wasn't the case in the Netherlands either: it was just about a long-term reduction in the number of farm animals.

This kind of "looking out for the greater good" thing that the government does is hardly unique to the EU, or "positively unthinkable in other parts of the world".

[g-b-r]

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

[omginternets]

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]

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]

I've found it to be a class divide more than a national divide.

[g-b-r]

Mah, higher class people are for sure generally more convinced of the necessity of the European Union

[gpderetta]

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]

To be fair, I should have said "Milan".