If American Dems moved to Norway, they'd have to joine a right wing party

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/08-2

I just returned from a research trip to Norway where the people I interviewed often brought up the topic of our new President. The first was Kristin Clemet, the director of a conservative think tank. "This spring on a delegation to Washington I was struck again," she said, "by how different the political spectrum is in Norway from your country. Here, Obama would be on the right wing." I checked her view with others -- academics, politicians, activists all over the Norwegian spectrum -- and all but one agreed. In Norwegian terms, our President's positions are very conservative.

When Norway hit a major financial crisis in the early '90s (from a real estate bubble and speculating banks), the Norwegians decided against bail-outs. Three of the biggest banks were simply taken by the government, their senior management fired, their stockholders sent packing. The government nursed the seized banks back to health over time while the economy made a quick recovery. The other troubled banks were left to declare bankruptcy or find new capital. Norway's action sent a clear message to the banks: mismanagement and greed don't pay. The result is that today its own financial sector is clean and only needs to deal with the impact of other countries' disasters. Norway's strategy was very far from Obama's bank-friendly game plan.

When Norwegian oil was discovered, the country decided not to risk putting their new treasure in private ownership. Norwegians were therefore able to lead the world in environmental responsibility and to avoid boom/bust impact on their seacoast cities. Most important, Norway has been stashing the oil profits in a public, socially responsible "Pension Fund" that will support the Norwegians' famously high living standard for many generations to come.

[cali]

1. I'm always somewhat amused by comparisons of Norway or other Scandanavian countries

to the U.S. Do you know what the population of Norway is? It's ethnic make up? The answer to the former is that the population is under 5 million. Under 5 million. Think about that for a moment. The population of Norway is about 2% of the population of the U.S. And the answer to the latter is that Norway is 90% ethnic Norwegian.

[datasuspect]

3. how does that specifically relate to what the op was saying

?

[cali]

4. sure. for one thing, there are tens of millions of American democrats

and a significant number of them would not be considered conservatives in Norway. But the larger point is it's really rather silly to compare a country that has no more than the population of a smallish American state to the U.S. with its population of 300,000,000.

[eridani]

5. OK, then how does Montana or Wyoming compare to Norway?

Same comparison. If it's just small homogenous populations, shouldn't US states with low populations of mainly white people be more like Norway? Seems to be the exact opposite.

[cali]

7. Ok then. How does Vermont compare to Norway?

Same deal, small homegnous population. How about MA? Btw, none of the states either of us mentioned have the same kind of homogenous population that Norway does. Yes, they all have largely white populations, but none have the same kind of homogenuous population that Norway does.

[Zen Democrat]

2. In Norway they would treat an American needing healthcare, for no charge

Happened to a friend of mine who traveled to Norway with her husband on a business trip, and unfortunately fell and broke her arm. She went to the hospital, got all fixed up, and there was no charge. Not a penny. She's a very conservative girl, and was shocked and amazed at the wonderful healthcare she received under "socialized medicine." It turned her around because it affected her personally.

Here lately I hear this talk about how the US will definitely NOT provide medical care to non-citizens. Someone from Europe visiting the US and having an accident would be shit out of luck. Why would they come here at all, I wonder?

[BB1]

9. The view.

It's awesome.

[Echo In Light]

10. Why would they come here ... and when will more of us eventually bail?

[cali]

13. There are as many Americans of Norwegian ancestry as there are Norwegians.

[RedCloud]

6. We've been pushed so goddamn far to the right that

now right looks like center to most.

Killing people because they are Arabs (1 million plus in Iraq alone)? Occupying their oil fields for decades so you can forget about that?

Using Orwellian terminology for our military? Loved ones=soldiers? Harm's way=genocide?
Not explaining how steel towers incinerate to dust?
Raping Social Security to pay for wars of aggression?
Still protecting torturers?

etc. Norway would do those things a lot differently.

[cali]

8. Again, comparing a country of under 5 million to one of 300,000,000

just doesn't make any sense.

[druidity33]

11. it makes absolute sense...

but of course there are problems with the analogy as with any. You are referring to economies of scale, i imagine. But think about how scientists would do an experiment. They usually start with a small testing group. The Norwegian example could have been an extremely useful starting point in deciding how best to deal with our soured economy. But we didn't go that way.

The difference in pop numbers is really a red herring. There are many things we could learn from Norway's system and actions to reclaim their autonomy from Banks and Corporations. Scale can be adjusted.


Again though, we didn't go that way... so the point is kinda moot.



:shrug:

[cali]

12. It's totally not a red herring. The U.S. is an enormous, diverse country

Norway is a tiny country with a very homogenous population. Not saying that there aren't possible lessons to learn from Norway, but scale does matter.

[bigbrother05]

17. Right about diversity, hard to hate someone that looks like your family

When it feels like everyone is your neighbor, you have a different view of things and are willing to look for universal/communal solutions.

Don't you wish someone would create a country where everyone is equal under the law with certain inalienable rights?

[druidity33]

18. i take your point

but i still disagree. Of course scale "matters", i didn't say it didn't. But to not even consider/dismiss using Norway as an example by dumping "scale" on the argument as an excuse is to me a red herring. There are many ways to assault the problem of inadequate healthcare here in the US. Using Norway as an example might have helped if we were headed in the direction of true Universal care, but like i said earlier, we are not.

Solutions can be found anywhere. Perhaps the right idea to avert our crisis could come from studying ants in colonies, i don't know. But i'm not willing to dismiss an idea because it only partially helps explain a problem. Sometimes that's all you get. A partial explanation.


:shrug:

[ipaint]

14. Go back 40-50 years in this country.

The top tax rate was 91% in 1960.

LBJ-

"Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty but to cure it, and above all to prevent it," declared President Lyndon B. Johnson in his State of the Union address, Jan. 8, 1964. The Economic Opportunity Act that followed established the Office of Economic Opportunity, which coordinated Head Start, a national job corps, legal services, family planning, community health centers and many of the other poverty-fighting initiatives signed into law by LBJ.

"Community action" was the theory of the day—the radical idea that government should fund local groups that were run for and by poor people. The EOA required the poor to have "maximum feasible participation" in poverty program planning. Under the directorship of Sargent Shriver, John and Robert Kennedy's brother-in-law, the OEO established more than a thousand Community Action Agencies at the local level to implement the so-called Great Society programs. If some inside the Johnson administration saw "community action" funding as a way to calm the tempers of local activists at a riot-prone moment in U.S. history, plenty of grassroots anti-poverty activists embraced the program as a mechanism for local empowerment.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0112-08.htm

We have no real party on the left. It has morphed into another conservative party. When comparing ourselves to more humane societies outside of the country, people will always have excuses as to why "we are different". Go back 40 years here and size and diversity in the population didn't stop us from pushing progressive, humane domestic policies that benefited the poor and working class. Nor did we have a problem re-distributing wealth in a way that benefited the country as a whole.

[marmar]

15. That's probably true of most Western European countries.

nt

[Canuckistanian]

16. Same compared to Canada

Democrats (where they are now) are the equivalent to our Conservative party here in Canada.

Our "small-L" liberals and progressives would not put up with the most of the corporation-friendly, socially conservative, and government regulation-averse Democratic party.