The central political variable - Left vs. Right - is about how much or how little “Socialism” is desirable: The Right wants little of it, the Left wants a lot. By Socialism, I mean: (1) Giving priority to collective well-being over individual freedom. (2) Empowering - who else? - the government to achieve this.
By this definition, America has been a right-wing country, whereas Europe has been more on the Left.Why has America been on the Right?
Here is an hypothesis: Because it could. And why could it? Because it was huge, spacious, with lots of resources, and a low population density. Even today, with its 310 million people, America’s population density is still only 80 per square mile. Compare this with Germany (603), the United Kingdom (640) and the Netherlands (1230), or even the entire European Community (310).
My hypothesis is common-sensical: As people get more and more crowded, they have to learn to cooperate more. And Cooperation = Socialism.
Here in America, we could afford to have the Wild West. Everybody trying to strike it rich on his own. Europe was different.
So if I am right, then as America becomes more crowded, we can expect more Socialism, just as in Europe. The government will regulate more and re-distribute more. Less freedom for the Bernie Madoffs of this world to swindle people out of $50 billion. Less freedom for other things too, I suppose.
But do the facts fit my hypothesis, which postulates a correlation between population density and socialism?Some countries fit: For example Brazil has only 57 people per square mile, and the country is a chaotic free for all. Somalia has even fewer people - 33 per square mile, and it’s practically ungovernable. There are many other good examples.
But then, what about Russia? One of the most sparsely populated countries in the world - 20 people per square mile, Yet, they had Socialism with a vengeance (it was called Communism). Of course, post-communist Russia was a different story, it became as lawless as the Wild West ever was. And what about Canada? Even fewer people (8 per square mile), and yet more “socialistic” than the US. Same with Australia, with only 7 people per square mile, yet more left-leaning than America...
So I’ll conclude as a true sociologist: This theory needs further research. (And please, send the research grant $$$$ to my home address).
leave comment here
1 comment:
I am biased regarding this issue. I think in terms of the collective benefit that people achieve by helping each other out. I also dont want government too regulate things as much as it will if this 800 billion bailout plan passes. However, I am tired of people arguing for individualistic ways of working through our economic downturn. I dont see how tax cuts will solve the problem and I dont think that big corporations will do the right thing without government intervention. A good example of this is the thousands of people who have experiencec home foreclosures. It would have been considerate of the banks to refinance these homes are give families who are experiencing financial difficulty a 90 day grace period.
Are we do greedy for our own good?
I would like to further explore your educated guess taht population density could be related to political values. Perhaps its population density plus old world protestant thinking that if you work hard enough the monetary blessings will come down to earth. Personally, I get upset when I hear republicans disapprove of the stimulus package. I think that this is serious and something needs to be done. Its the big businesses that got us into this jam so the right wing folks should at least be willing to let government step in and talk care of the mess. Thanks my two cents!
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!