This is about more than single matters – it’s about direction and values.
Development is about Humanism: personal freedom, equal opportunities (even for women and minorities), compassion, and justice for all. Building bridges instead of walls. Choosing diplomacy over friction. Assessing a society by observing the weakest, not the strongest. Building a strong, stable and resilient society.
In some isolated instances altruism has been exaggerated or exploited, and minorities have set the agenda unchallenged; they deserve equal opportunities and respect, no more, no less. Here and there it requires adjustments – not a big bully showdown. Punish the individual offenders, not the entire group.
The old tyrant trick of dehumanising opponents and minorities is the opposite of development: it’s regression and misantrophy.
This is where the Western world and the United States differ: The present US government and 77 million US voters have chosen regression, while the Western world choose development.
With unsubstantiated arrogance the present US administration has turned allies into adversaries, and the president have humiliated both himself and the USA beyond repair.
Meanwhile most of the insane international vanity projects have failed outstandingly (Canada, Greenland, Board of Peace, etc.)
The future will undoubtedly be characterised by skepticism towards the United States, and by market relocation.
In the short term some production will expand to the USA, to counter the tariff roller coaster, but long term they will obviously focus on stable markets.
Meanwhile, spreading Euro-myths does not pass the scrutiny of knowledgeable voters anywhere.
Yes, NATO without the US can actually withstand a conventional attack from Russia, China or even the USA – and retaliate against a nuclear attack (not ten times, but one should be enough).
No, the economy of the European Union is much healthier than the economy of the United States.
Yes, immigration into Europe from the Middle East and Africa is an issue, but no, it’s not suffocating Europe, or making Europe bow to “exotic doctrines”.
Yes, people with challenges receive subsidies from the state in European countries, but no, it does not make society or the economy weaker, as clearly proven (e.g. Denmark is debt-free.) Nor does it make people slaves to the state.
Yes, we have education, healthcare, parental leave, sick pay, and pensions financed by taxes. This creates equality, but does not make the state or the population weaker – as also proven beyond doubt.
Yes, we have freedom of speech (though some countries call it “freedom of expression”); we have more freedom of speech than citizens in the United States – and nobody gets sued by their state leaders, or rejected at the border over SoMe posts – regardless how much we insult our leaders.
Yes, we have something called a “vote of no confidence”, in case a state leader goes too far.
No, we don’t have as easy access to firearms as in the US, but that doesn’t make us slaves to the state. It does mean that the number of murders per capita is 5-15% of what it is in the US. (In the United States, everyone can own guns so that a tyrant can’t remain in power. But they don’t use them now?)
No, Europe is not weakening, rotting, or in serious economic trouble.
And as you have seen, Europe can’t be tricked or threatened into giving in.
Civilised development isn’t perfect anywhere. It’s a work in progress, and presumably always will be. But the direction in Europe is forward.
The challenges in a civilised society are obvious:
How do we make people do everything they can to sustain themselves, when there are alternatives?
How do we welcome refugees from war and persecution, without opening the gate to exploiters and criminals?
To these two questions the answer is “with a balanced set of measures – not by taking the support away from those in need.” This balance is always a work in progress.
Where do we look for inspiration to improve the things we do better than anywhere else – crime prevention, equal opportunities, healthcare, education, and social security?
How do we balance religious freedom with individual human rights, if some religions dictates social control?
All these questions are hard, and the ones we can never give in to are the people who have fast and easy answers.
That’s why we don’t listen to arrogant people with assumed self-confidence, but to those who admit that they have doubts; wise people who recognise that it’s not easy.
But to claim that Europe have more or bigger problems than the United States is absurd. We have more rights, more freedom, more security, more stable economies, and more social and cultural stability. We have significantly less crime and poverty.
To claim that the United States has “paid” for our freedom, security, or social welfare is insanity, that only people who don’t understand economics believe.
In 1945 the USA had a population aproximately the same size as Europe, had fought Japan, and participated in the last showdown against the Nazi regime, but hadn’t fought at home, and not been invaded and bombed. The economy was strong, and money was simply printed with the expectation that they would become worth their value with the reconstruction after the war. A new building in Europe or Japan made the dollar worth it’s value. A new kind of economy that greatly enriched the United States itself. That’s 80 years ago, and meanwhile the United States has indebted itself four times the country’s total value. Societies in Europe and parts of Asia have developed, while the United States, with its imagined self-sufficiency, has stagnated.
Americans who are aware look to Europe – and especially Scandinavia – with envy.
The so-called Happiness Index doesn’t in fact meassure happiness, but the prerequisites for happiness: Security and trust. Most Europeans trust their neighbors, their authorities, their courts, their education system, their healthcare system, their future. The Scandinavian countries are always at the top of the Happiness Index – and at the bottom of the Corruption Index.
What can you do as an American? The long hard work to develop the country, or simply accuse Europe of moral and political decay? Well, some choose the easy, short-term “solution”, while others are ready to roll up their sleeves.
Are there people in Europe who depend on the state for their survival? Yes, definitely. The alternative would be to depend on handouts. Possibly as a homeless beggar or a survival-criminal. Is that better? More dignified?
They can still vote (even against the government that feed them), go to the hospital and see their children get a university degree.
A famous archaeologist was once asked what the first sign of civilization was. She replied “a healed thigh bone.” Animals that break their bones die before they can heal. Here was a person who had been cared for. That’s why we build societies: To protect and care for eachother.
Are there immigrants in Europe who oppose typical European values? Who want social control and religious law? Yes, and more have arrived faster than our societies has been able to adapt to. And faster than we have been able to “de-religiousize” them. That is why we are now making balanced rules and controls to ensure that individual human rights always come before religion, right into the family. It may sound eerily like thought control, but it is actually thought control that we want to dismantle. You can believe what you want, but if your daughter wants to believe something different, or choose a partner outside the family’s religion, she must be able to decide for herself. Religion is a right, but must never become an obligation. That is why you don’t hear the Swedish Prime Minister talking about God, or see a Bible in a French courtroom. Having your daughter genital mutilated (even abroad) carries a prison sentence in most European countries.
If politicians in Europe talk about religion, it is about limiting it, not strengthening it.
And many immigrants from the Middle East and Africa welcome this with joy. Some have actually fled religious oppression, others have just been “infected” by European thinking.
Europe is not perfect. But we strive for thoughtful, long-term perfection. Not quick fixes. Not dehumanizing entire groups of people, or removing rights without thinking it through. And as we develop, the world around us changes. We can’t always keep up. But we are better today than we were yesterday, and tomorrow we will be even better. For the benefit of the people, not the leaders.
People in Europe who say they are not being heard, or that their opinions are being suppressed, are rarely right. They simply don’t belong to the majority, and that is the lot of democracy. But they can still speak out, and say exactly what they want, within a few and entirely reasonable limits.
There will always be a few, but incredibly vocal, conspiracy theorists who claim that the entire government and press are distorting the truth, in collusion with social media. Both in Europe and in the US. But even they speak out in the press and on social media.
If enough people say you’re crazy, it’s worth giving them the benefit of the doubt.
If the situation in Europe was as terrible as some MAGA people claim, there would have been 29,000 demonstrations against our leaders in the last year. In one day, 0.96% of the entire EU population would have taken to the streets to demonstrate. Like in the US – where this has actually happened.
And believe me: No European leader would ignore as many protests as Trump has. Maybe one. At most five. But long before they reached 29,000, they would have started a dialogue. Listened and taken note. Looked for compromises. Called referendum.
We have an ugly history. A history that we have learned from.
Are there rules in European countries, or the EU, that I personally disagree with? Yes, lots. Hundreds. And leaders that I think are stupid.
- That European human rights say that we can’t send criminal asylum seekers back to a country where they risk torture. (Well, if you are afraid of torture, little friend, then don’t commit crime.)
- That the countries haven’t armed themselves more earlier. That the rules for construction are too strict. That the rules for marketing are too lax. That the EU hasn’t put the US in its place sooner. That we haven’t intervened more clearly against Russia. That the ban on Niqāb came so late. Lack of control over religious schools and institutions. Etc. Etc. Etc.
But I have the right to vote and freedom of speech, both in my municipality, my country and the EU. I can join any association and participate in demonstrations. I can be heard and ask questions, as long as I don’t dehumanize an entire population group with my words, or incite violence.
So how do we balance equality for minorities? It’s actually not that hard, but not easy either. Some wants to eat halal, others want to eat vegan. They can do that. In my faith (Ásatrú – Norse Paganism) eating pork is sacred. If they ask me not to do it, out of consideration, I tell them to go fuck themselves. And I don’t ask them to eat pork “out of consideration”. If a person is born a man, but wants to be called “she”, that’s not a problem. Who cares? If she wants to participate in women’s sports, that’s not going to happen.
Live and let live – with fairness and mutual respect.
If a Greenlandic member of parliament wants to speak Greenlandic in the Danish parliament, with an interpreter, it’s a big expense for a small minority. Sometimes a big expense is a small investment in a society that creates strength through mutual respect.
So why can’t a woman wear a Niqāb, if she wants to? Because the vast majority didn’t choose it themselves, because anonymization is impractical and disrespectful to everyone else, and because it’s neither historically nor religiously rooted. Furthermore it’s a setback for the equality for women that we have spent many years achieving. The very few women who really want it themselves must sacrifice themselves for the majority who are happy to get rid of it. That is also the lot of democracy.
Even the smallest minority deserve equal opportunities and respect, no more, no less.
So what about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), that the Trump government hates so much – why is it celebrated in Europe?
Simply put: Some people need more assistance than others, to reach their potential. The smartest and cheapest way to handle this, is to set up some measures to include everybody.
In certain corners of society and business, men have had a monopoly for hundreds of years. To say that now women have equal rights and we hire solely on merit is incredibly naive. If we don’t (for a period of time) help women get in, they will never get in. The same is true for certain minorities. A deaf carpenter may be incredibly skilled, but without encouragement, an employer may hesitate to hire him.
In Scandinavia, we have proven that it works, and we can slowly scale back the measures, now that the female firefighter, the Greenlandic board member and the deaf carpenter have proven their merits for years.
In Europe we take two steps forward and one back. Some steps to the right and some to the left. And often we go where no one has gone before. A misstep here and there. That is the lot of democracy. But most of us are somewhat in agreement about the direction: Development – humanistic and with respect for integrity. Assessing a society by observing the weakest, not the strongest.
In Europe we have many small countries. And many minorities. From the suburbs of Paris to a village in the Austrian Alps, we all want the same thing: to know that our children will have a secure future, can go to university, be admitted to hospital, pay their rent on a single salary, and make fun of their president without fear.
We want to be part of a modern community that makes all this possible, but also preserves our individual ancient cultural characteristics. Never to be forced into conformity. We are united in the desire to remain unique.
Trump claiming Greenland, made our values light up. No fucking way. If anything, we would help the Greenlanders become even more Greenlandic.
Small countries and small minorities is not a weakness – it’s a strength, if we stick together.
If I really thought the US was doing better than Europe, I would go there.
Look: No plane ticket.
If I should leave Europe, I would consider New Zealand or Canada, maybe Japan, Australia or perhaps South Korea – but not the USA.
It’s about direction and values.