Much of the US doesn't think of it in terms of proactive vs reactive governance but instead in cultural/moral expectations of how you should "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" to be great. This view is often to the point many see removing the need to pull oneself up from their own bootstraps as removing the ability for them to better themselves (& wasting everyone else's money/freedom/whatever to do so). A soldier and an obese person are examples at polar opposites of that moral spectrum.
The policies just follow that. This comes up in all sorts of areas such as prison as punishment vs rehabilitation.
I think you're looking at an effect instead of a cause. The main reason for the desire for a small government is not some inherent and absolute obsession with smallness, but because of the belief that larger governments are incapable of effectively utilizing their power (for reasons beyond just incompetence), are prone to inevitable abuses, and so forth. And that belief itself is not simply ideological, but based on history through most of all time.
Even with rehab versus punishment - it's the same story. The view isn't that punishment is inherently superior, but simply that rehabilitation is more of an ideal than a reality, and that typical appeals to places like Norway - a relatively homogenous and extremely wealthy microstate - don't necessarily translate well to large diverse societies, especially ones where there are substantial chunks of society that adopt cultures that glorify criminality.
My views on this subject are far too detailed to want to get into here, but I am confused at your choice to call Norway a "microstate". It's certainly on the smaller side of countries, but there are over 5 million residents and 300,000km2 in size. It's just a normal country.
"Microstate" is a term generally reserved for tiny geographical locations that can't even support their own defense.
It has a lower population than e.g. Wisconsin, in an area about twice as large. You could fit 61 Norways (in terms of population) into the US. I think there's a lot of things that work really well at smaller scale, but just don't work at larger scale. It's not really possible to say where 'smaller scale' ends because it's going to depend on factors other than just population, but I think Norway is comfortably far into the very small side of things in part because of population and in part because of those other factors.
A microstate is not just "one smaller than another" though, and nobody lists Norway as a microstate of Europe/the EU.
But with what you had meant - it means Norway is pretty comparable to a typical US state division or, in other words, something US states could be expected to implement successfully in their state prison systems if there weren't other reasons than scale they do things differently.
And you'll find that a number of states of a comparable makeup as Norway have comparable and even lower recidivism rates than Norway. Oregon is the lowest in the US, with a recidivism rate of 12%, contrasted against Norway's ~20%. [1] And that has nothing to do with punishment vs rehabilitation.
Similarly, Asia is another interesting counter-example to Norway. For instance the Chinese penal system makes the US look like a trip to Disney Land. Beatings, physical+psychological torture, and more are regular aspects of their prison system which is not only punitive but borderline sadistic. And their recidivism rate? One of the lowest in the world, around 8%. And perhaps even more important than the recidivism rate is their crime rate, which is also one of the lowest in the world.
[1] - https://usasymbol.com/rankings/crime/recidivism-rates-by-sta...
As a former resident of Oregon, I would strongly suggest that the low recidivism rate is likely due to Oregon’s far above average level of available social services compared to most other states.
I would also loosely suggest that social services should be considered part of the rehabilitation pipeline.
This got me wondering, because I find the topic interesting but haven't really dug deeply into it in a while, and it's so much easier to get data (especially foreign language) now a days thanks to LLMs. It turns out that there's one huge factor that most people don't consider. That is - what is recidivism? Definitions vary radically between areas, and that goes a long way towards explaining the difference.
So for instance in both Norway and Oregon somebody isn't considered a recidivant unless they are arrested, prosecuted, and receive a minimal standard of punishment. In locations where you see much higher rates of recidivism it's because they use a more intuitive definition - if somebody's convicted of a crime, then they are a recidivant. By contrast here [1] you can see Oregon's raw data. And about 50% of people released from prison will be convicted for another crime within 5 years. In Norway 55% will face criminal charges within 4 years, and 42% will be convicted again!
So the whole point about Norway having an exceptional recidivism rate comes down, in large part, to statistical definitions! It'd be interesting to dig more into China/etc and see if there's some similar 'nuance' there. It often seems that so many things that 'everybody knows' just end up wrong upon closer inspection.
[1] - https://www.oregon.gov/cjc/CJC%20Document%20Library/2018SACG...
[2] - https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-...
I don't think there is a clear cause and effect (or even separation) of those two things. The early views/situations of those who made America are largely the same force which drove the desire for small government and vice versa. I.e. what you believe is ideal in reality is going to be based on the way you weigh things morally just as much as the way you weigh things is going to be based on what ideal is held.
There is, of course, more than one reason people hold the views they do, but I do believe things like rugged individualism & the Protestant work ethic definitely played a major role in why the majority of Americans hold the desires and fears about government they do - particularly in the aspect of these examples. Without those influences, I think what America has tried vs what it has feared would be a very different list today (which is not to say whether it'd've been more successful or not).
Did you know that you can be sentenced to life imprisonment in the UK for suggesting that the monarchy should be abolished? [1] That's quite progressive, since it used to be the death penalty. Now in reality you probably won't be, but that law is an echo, still ongoing, of the sort of systems everybody used to live under. That directly leads to ideals of a smaller government. So I don't think these sort of values we're speaking of are abstract or moralistic in nature.
It's also not just in the past. We continue to live in the era of mass domestic surveillance, Patriot Act, Snowden leaks, regular oppression for political views (see: pro-Gaza protests), two tier legal systems, and much more. All the while governments with vast resources plunge sizable chunks, verging on a majority of discretionary spending, into militarism flirting with WW3 and the viable end of humanity it would entail. And I'm not even going to get into the insanity that's going on, worldwide - including the West, with the treatment of political candidates and elections. Suffice to say that's also enough to make a lot of people quite concerned.
So again all of this makes one begin to think 'perhaps governments shouldn't have this much power or wealth' at a point that I imagine you would say is, itself, already relatively low. I think that should all be fairly reasonable, even if one might disagree at some point. But I'm not entirely sure what the comparable evidence for the alternative is.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...
Well, again, it's not that these things take place of each other it's that they influence each other. Taking the first example, America only exists because individuals went to settle and conquer new lands and then pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to defeat the tyranny of the monarchy. There is no way in which this can happen without these cultural traits in the same way there is no way it could have happened and not driven these cultural traits further. The other examples follow the same line.
That's not arguing small government is supposed to be good or bad, it's just saying what the American mindset considers important when judging things - which is on traits which align with its mindset over its history, not on whether or not the application of policy seems evenly distributed to all.
I'm not going to debate the history beyond observing that most people were fleeing persecution or seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Scarcely few set out to conquer anything. But I think the most important point is that now a days I think if you put just about anybody in the current state of America, you'd see a trend towards desiring smaller government.
The exact phrase 'smaller government' is triggering because it's been so politicized into being a left vs right concept, but when left leaning individuals seek to decrease the strength of ICE, decrease the rights/capacity/scope of law enforcement, limiting executive powers especially as related to war, and other such things they are themselves also directly appealing for a smaller government, in at least some ways.
I think this hypothesis (that 'anybody' would trend towards seeking smaller government) is even testable with things like Asian Americans. Many/most have roots from more social type societies, and predictably trend towards voting liberal in America as a result of such, to say nothing of historical issues. But they are leaning more and more conservative over time, to the point that at current trends they will likely be a majority conservative bloc within a few decades.
It's simply that once one sees what 'big government' amounts to in the US and the current state of the US government, it quickly leads many people to start running in the opposite direction. And once you start running from such, the opposite (self responsibility/reliability/etc) inevitably grows in proportion simply because there is no other choice.
> in cultural/moral expectations of how you should "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" to be great
Another word for that is freedom. With freedom comes personal agency and personal responsibility.
The primary purpose of prison is neither punishment nor rehabilitation, but rather to protect the general public. Whether incarceration is the best approach to accomplish that goal is a separate issue, but the reality is there are a lot of dangerous and antisocial people who can't be running around loose.
From Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five:
To put it in context, the poor elsewhere were poor by class. No attempt to become rich was permissible by law so it was key that this supermajority of the population did not believe they were downtrodden, and unfairly opposed.
Claiming the poor have more virtue, but only in their class status, is one way to do it.
Consider how many caste systems claim the farmer is the highest status, the wisest, the most virtuously hard working … but well still needs a good noble king to lead them.
Things have changed a lot since Kurt Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five in 1969. Now even people in the poorest US state have higher incomes than the UK. America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, and its people are mainly rich (relative to global standards).
We should do more to help the underclass and remaining desperately poor citizens to lift themselves up. But it's amazing what we've accomplished since 1969. Let's celebrate that.
> Now even people in the poorest US state have higher incomes than the UK.
Higher income does not mean higher quality of life.
I'm an American who has spent the majority of my adult life living abroad, and much of that time has been in developing countries.
I have no illusions about poverty and am not going to pretend that the US isn't a "rich" country. But I've also noticed a very stark trend in the past decade: fewer and fewer people express interest in emigrating to the developed world.
I currently live in one of the fastest-growing countries in the world. Its per capita GDP PPP is about a fifth of the America's and...the number of people I meet who say they'd want to live in the US is tiny.
People around the world are increasingly hip to the reality: the US is still the land of opportunity. But opportunity is more and more difficult to come by. The country is expensive, has massive social problems and lacks attributes (such as safety nets provided by family) that make life in poorer countries feel better to many people.
Even your idea that the "underclass and remaining desperately poor citizens" need to "lift themselves up" is a distinctly American idea. There are tons of working poor in the US. They are trying to "lift themselves up" but can't afford a $1,500/month apartment, $30,000 starter car, $5+/gallon gas, $5,000 health insurance deductibles, etc.
Hear, hear. It would be good for more people to travel abroad and experience firsthand how much better we have it in the US than most other places. The concern is that we actually have it better than most yet too many actually want to replace our current system with something else that has a horrible track record.
If many of our welfare programs actually helped their intended recipients we would be able to help those in need get to being self sufficient instead of the fraudsters stealing all that money.
Everything is America is about race
America does a better job at assimilating immigrants than most of the rest of the world. It’s just a very hard problem, and the US does more of it than anyone.
Not everyone in this country who isn't white has ancestry from an immigrant (or at least not a willing one).
Also, non white immigrants face discrimination.
People facing racial discrimination can and have overcome it, throughout our history.
People hold out willing non-white immigrants succeeding as proof there is no significant racial discrimination. But this ignores a large selection bias. People who voluntarily immigrate almost always have a great deal of drive and often some resources. Most of them would have been more successful then average if they had stayed in their home country.
I definitely wouldn't say my lineage had any call in "immigrating" into the US.
And yes, don't underestimate how such maneuvers are very indirect means of white flight. African Americans could only (legally) own a home in much of the US for 50 years. At the very best, that is 2 generations of wealth to accrue, which puts that demographic a good century behind what potentially could have been economically.
50 years would be 1976. Perhaps you're confusing it with the myth about women being legally prohibited from opening bank accounts. (1972 was when sex discrimination by businesses was outlawed at the Federal level, though there was never a law that prohibited a women from having a bank account, not directly, and not indirectly since the 1800s. Some banks discriminated against married women, but unless they lived in a one-bank town there were others that were happy to have their business.)
My timeline was loose, but I was specifically talking about the Fair Housing act of 1968: https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1
So 58/59 years if we want an exact date. But a law passed de jure doesn't mean everyone throws their hands up and willingly complies, so the sand will still be shakey for a good decade.
Of course, YMMV per state, so it's not like the Midwest or west coast had the same level of discrimination as the deep south. But that's the line that this policy became federal.
Okay, but like with the banking myth there was no law or official government policy that specifically prohibited black ownership. And the only legally enforceable impediment after the 14th Amendment were racial covenants on private property (drawn up by property owners themselves by private agreement), which became void in 1948 after SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional for courts to enforce racial covenants.
Notwithstanding that they were examples of extra-legal discrimination (in the sense of not being direct legal prohibitions), racial covenants and red lining also didn't just effect black Americans, though nationwide they were disproportionately impacted. I only point that out because most people would say it was incongruous to claim Jews or Polish or Asians were legally prohibited from owning land in many areas.
I think it's an important distinction because there are vestiges of redlining that persist today. First time homeowner mortgage subsidies, the first major stepping stone for building wealth for most people, effectively exclude many kinds of multiunit housing, such as condos and, IIRC until recently, attached housing like duplexes. This disproportionately impacts prospective urban black homeowners, and quite deliberately. Likewise, IIUC prefabbed homes or similar are excluded, which disproportionately impacts poor rural whites and blacks alike. There are legitimate concerns behind those restrictions, such as developer and rental fraud, just as nominally there were legitimate concerns behind redlining, namely sustainability of property valuations. Though in all these cases it's obvious the reason they persist(ed) as-is is for largely discriminatory reasons, as the legitimate substance of the concerns could be addressed. At the same time, we wouldn't say they legally prohibit ownership; if you're wealthy enough they're no impediment at all, just like redlining and covenants were no impediment if you were wealthy enough (racial covenants could be overcome by just buying up all the adjacent property so there was no other property owner to enforce the covenant; the government couldn't by itself enforce such covenants, only adjoining property owner "beneficiaries").
Perhaps counterintuitively, black letter property law was one of the legal areas most resilient to both racial and sex discrimination. The 1800s saw some regression, but that didn't last long, often because courts themselves couldn't tolerate the illogic. People criticize it, but property is indeed sacrosanct to American legal and political culture, and it was very difficult to carve out exceptions that permitted blacks and women to be excluded without threatening the underlying principles of the system that secured owners' rights. That's why prejudiced treatment tended to come in the form of private, regulatory, or extra-legal discrimination, which arguably persists today in the form of restrictive zoning and related development policies which not coincidentally are impediments to free & clear property ownership, just enough to be tolerable to the well-off while disproportionately impacting the real targets.
This kind of thinking is how you get trump 3.0 after you blame and alienate people who want their lives to improve.
I don't know why you got downvoted. If you don't believe this, read "Dying of Whiteness" by Jonathan Metzl. Something like 30% of this country will reject quality of life improvements for themselves if they see that it will also benefit people of other races who "don't deserve it".
The entire social structure of the south was (and mostly still is) based on wealthy whites convincing poor whites to accept the situation because blacks are even worse off.
And those that haven’t lived in the south can’t comprehend that it really is the core animating belief behind the entire apparatus of government.
You shouldn't have to believe, because the various poor white guys who died for the south wrote plenty about how their driving motivation was that a black guy having the same social status as them was worse than death.
They literally wanted to kill northerners for daring to make them equal to black people.
Still do.
Then really shouldn't it be "everything is about money"? After all, it's clear that the actual lie is convincing a big group of people that they don't share a common cause. Racism has many causes, but using it as a divide and conquer tactic has to be one of the most disgusting ones.
It’s super easy to get whatever survey results you want by careful tweaking of wording.
Not to mention how often people misinterpret a survey and add their own bias to the results.
*Everything in America is about class, with race as a frequent proxy for class
Fixed that for you
Judging by the color of one's skins is one of the easiest and oldest ways to discriminate. Only behind by the contents of one's genetalia. But the latter at least has a biological need to care for one another.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. At least when someone looks at someone who "looks like them" but is poorer, they see "potential" (there's a name for this effect, but I forget). But the end goal is getting theirs first and foremost.
True, but this effect tends to diminish at the highest levels of wealth.
At lower levels you have the “labor aristocracy” effect, which gives the more well-off workers a material stake in racism. And this division is useful to prevent organization.
> the end goal is getting theirs first and foremost
Seconded
Its also about language and colloquialisms. If you grow up poor, but go to a school with many wealthy children, you will learn to speak the "language" of the wealthy, which is, in my opinion, what mostly explains the "having potential" that the ruling class will see in your as you enter adulthood.