• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Socially engineering the US to be like Western Europe

NWO Sentryman said:
So, how would you try to get the US to be more accepting of Scandinavian policies on:
Click to expand...
Well, going strictly with the exposure-through-entertainment approach:
  • Education: Drama, possibly a teen drama.
  • Criminal Justice: Action Drama
  • Healthcare: Doctor Comedy
  • Welfare: Sitcom Comedy
 
The problem is, if you are going by pop culture, those are big risks. What if they flop?
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The problem is, if you are going by pop culture, those are big risks. What if they flop?
Click to expand...

I guess you try again.

Not that there is a direct causation, but using the above example, Will & Grace was popular and on the air for 8 years. It was then another 3 years after it was off the air before the first state law was passed that legalized same sex marriage (as opposed to merely not being outlawed through judicial action).

The odds are already stacked against what you are suggesting happen. Your best bet is to start with broad-based popular support and the way you get that is through pop culture. If there were a formula to follow to get a big hit (or a viral small hit), everyone would do it.
 
MikeG said:
Why would any sensible country feel constrained by a centuries old document?
Click to expand...
Rule of law. The law can be whatever we wish it to be; but whatever the law is, we wish it to be obeyed. Abandon the principle of the rule of law, and it jeopardizes everything else we wish to safeguard. The forest, the devil, wind, man for all seasons, etc.

If it doesn't work properly, change it.
Click to expand...
For sure. And this particular document has been changed many times. But it takes a broad consensus to change it. In the case of gun ownership, I don't really see such a consensus emerging any time soon.

Even at the current rate of mass shootings in the US, there's nowhere near the necessary swell of public opinion to go further than the Constitution currently allows, in restricting gun ownership.

So you tell me: Who do you imagine is supposed to decide that the document isn't working properly? What do you imagine is their authority to change it? How much social engineering do you think it would take to get them there?
 
Upchurch said:
I guess you try again.

Not that there is a direct causation, but using the above example, Will & Grace was popular and on the air for 8 years. It was then another 3 years after it was off the air before the first state law was passed that legalized same sex marriage (as opposed to merely not being outlawed through judicial action).

The odds are already stacked against what you are suggesting happen. Your best bet is to start with broad-based popular support and the way you get that is through pop culture. If there were a formula to follow to get a big hit (or a viral small hit), everyone would do it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that in entertainment, you only have one chance, because if an idea flops, people will be reluctant to try it again.

That said, how will you do a "teen drama" promoting Scandinavian education policies, or an "action drama" promoting similar policies on criminal justice when CSI and Laaw & Order are the big two of US crime drama, or a "doctor comedy" whenever you have Scrubs?.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The problem is that in entertainment, you only have one chance, because if an idea flops, people will be reluctant to try it again.
Click to expand...
Only a specific show, not the underlying concept or even the agenda you're trying to push.

NWO Sentryman said:
That said, how will you do a "teen drama" promoting Scandinavian education policies, or an "action drama" promoting similar policies on criminal justice when CSI and Laaw & Order are the big two of US crime drama, or a "doctor comedy" whenever you have Scrubs?.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I'm not a writer. What educational policies are you trying to promote? Make it sci-fi. That genre is pretty good at establishing new systems of operation for audiences to consume.

However, I do know that there is enough market for roughly 13 different variations of Law & Order and still room for about 20 other cop dramas. And, how do you imagine Scrubs ever got made when there had already been M*A*S*H? Novelty and originality are not required.
 
theprestige said:
.......so you tell me: (1) Who do you imagine is supposed to decide that the document isn't working properly? (2) What do you imagine is their authority to change it? (3) How much social engineering do you think it would take to get them there?
Click to expand...

I was talking in broad terms. I don't actually have any view at all on your constitution, but I'll have a go at answering nonetheless.

1) Either your government, your parliament, your judiciary, or your population through a referendum

2) Won't that actually be covered in the constitution itself? If not, then following whatever established procedures are in place (you say it has been changed before) would presumably provide the necessary authority.

3) No idea, sorry.
 
Loonatic93 said:
Care to give an example? I am honestly curious what someone from Scandinavia (or really any other first world country) would consider a positive attribute of the U.S. Especially in comparison to their own country.
Click to expand...

The first that comes to mind, immigration and integration, is one aspect of American culture that I really admire. When an immigrant becomes an American citizen, then he's an American. That's an area where we are miles behind the US.

Here, even third and fourth generation immigrants are still usually referred to as their ethnic origin. If your grandparents were from Pakistan, it doesn't matter that you and your parents were born here. You're still Pakistani. Calling you Norwegian would confuse people.
 
Upchurch said:
Without commenting on the worthiness of the goal, you can't get acceptance for a new idea without exposure and US exposure to foreign countries and cultures are generally either presented in TV/movies as something mystical or the enemy, but always something alien. So, your first step is to provide enough exposure that most Americans can find a foreign people, with different customs, language, etc., seems completely normal and can be identified with.

As a side note, this will probably have to be done though entertainment media, as massive amounts of physical exposure has not seemed to bring Mexicans up to this level of identification with many, of not most, Americans.


eta: You know what you need? You need a Will & Grace for Scandinavians, that takes the "alien other" and shows them as human and likable.
Click to expand...

So that's why Americans admire Myposian culture so much...
 
MikeG said:
I was talking in broad terms. I don't actually have any view at all on your constitution, but I'll have a go at answering nonetheless.

1) Either your government, your parliament, your judiciary, or your population through a referendum

2) Won't that actually be covered in the constitution itself? If not, then following whatever established procedures are in place (you say it has been changed before) would presumably provide the necessary authority.

3) No idea, sorry.
Click to expand...
Then why even bring it up at all? I pointed out that US gun laws are constrained by the constitution, and that puts a limit on how closely they can approximate European laws. [ETA: And you responded] with"[w]hy would any sensible country feel constrained by a centuries old document?" But when engaged on that topic, you "don't actually have any view at all".

Do you at least now understand why a sensible country might feel constrained by its constitution, and why government policy that violates it would be prohibited?
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Why would any sensible country feel constrained by a centuries old document? If it doesn't work properly, change it.
Click to expand...

You may as well ask for the bible to be amended. It is treated (by enough US citizens to be significant*) as a holy and unchangable document and gets, from the same people, about the same level of critical appraisal. i.e. none.




(*Figures grabbed out of my own head from observation and therefore subject to all the usual disclaimers)
 
3point14 said:
You may as well ask for the bible to be amended. It is treated (by enough US citizens to be significant*) as a holy and unchangable document and gets, from the same people, about the same level of critical appraisal. i.e. none.




(*Figures grabbed out of my own head from observation and therefore subject to all the usual disclaimers)
Click to expand...

Except it has been amended 27 times, last time in 1992.

The problem is not one of critical appraisal but of comprehension. Freedom of speech jumps to mind as the most misunderstand part.
 
theprestige said:
.........I pointed out that US gun laws are constrained by the constitution, and that puts a limit on how closely they can approximate European laws...........
Click to expand...

If something is ill-fitted to the modern world, do you change it, or do you accept it as cast-in-stone? The assumption in the point you have made twice is that the reason the gun laws can't be changed is because of the constitution. If that were the only or main reason, it would be a damn silly reason. It is probably far less important than a whole lot of other reasons, isn't it, such as the "cold-dead-hand" bollocks that so many people espouse? But you put it forward as the only reason cited why the gun laws couldn't be brought into line with Europe.

3point14 put it so much better:
3point14 said:
You may as well ask for the bible to be amended. It is treated (by enough US citizens to be significant*) as a holy and unchangable document and gets, from the same people, about the same level of critical appraisal. i.e. none.




(*Figures grabbed out of my own head from observation and therefore subject to all the usual disclaimers)
Click to expand...
 
MikeG said:
If something is ill-fitted to the modern world, do you change it, or do you accept it as cast-in-stone? The assumption in the point you have made twice is that the reason the gun laws can't be changed is because of the constitution. If that were the only or main reason, it would be a damn silly reason. It is probably far less important than a whole lot of other reasons, isn't it, such as the "cold-dead-hand" bollocks that so many people espouse? But you put it forward as the only reason cited why the gun laws couldn't be brought into line with Europe.
Click to expand...
The fact I have pointed out twice is that changing gun laws beyond a certain point will require amending the constitution. Amending the constitution requires broad consensus. Achieving that broad consensus about gun laws would require a lot of social engineering. This answers the question posed by the OP in the specific case of making the US more like Europe with regard to gun laws.

I didn't put forth the immutability of the constitution as a reason. I put forth the need for broad consensus as a reason.

The government can do a lot to make the US more like Europe. Within the limits of its authority, the Executive branch can make "European" policy with little or no consensus. The President can even engage in a certain amount of social engineering, in order to create consensus where none previously existed (e.g., the "bully pulpit", etc.).

The Legislature can pass all kinds of "European" laws--including about gun control, with a much smaller amount of consensus. There is much that can be done--up to a point. Beyond that point, to do more requires amending the constitution, and therefore requires broad consensus. On the topic of gun control, that would require a lot of social engineering. Q.E.D.

Amending the constitution on gun control is going to be difficult, due to the "cold-dead-hand" bollocks that so many people espouse", as you put it. It would need "an epic level of social engineering" as I put it in my very first post in this thread.

I'm not sure how you read that and assumed I meant that the constitution is set in stone, unless you just assume that's what people mean any time they use the word "constitution" in a sentence.

3point14 put it so much better:
Click to expand...
3point14 isn't saying anything relevant to anything I've said.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
It's often been commented that the US should be more like Western Europe, especially in terms of criminal justice, gun policy, healthcare, welfare and social attitudes. I'm just wondering what level of social engineering it would take for the US to be more like Western Europe.
Click to expand...


You need not necessarily look that far afield. You could take an intermediate step and try to get the U.S. to be more like Canada, a country which in many ways is the middle ground between the United States type of government and societal 'culture' and that typically seen in Europe.
 
MikeG said:
Why would any sensible country feel constrained by a centuries old document? If it doesn't work properly, change it.
Click to expand...
If it is changed on the average every eight years (27 times so far), then is it really still a centuries old document?

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom