How come Europeans are so much more into protesting than Americans?

[raccoon]

Or so it appears to me.

I've been reading LES MISERABLES and I'm developing an admiration for the French. They were, and still are so ready to take it to the streets.

[babylonsister]

1. Consider the size of France compared to the US; it's a bit more

complicated logistically for the US.

[napi21]

30. I think you have that right! It's a lot easier to get a country the size

ofthe UK, Italy, Poland, France, Germany etc. to get a majority tgether on something than it is to get all the different States we have!

[Tesha]

2. They still have functioning *LEFT-WING* media.

Not "Fair and Balanced".
Not "centrist".
Not "Moderate"
Not "Scared of our own shadow"

Actual, genuine, *LEFT WING* media, *LOUD* and *PROUD*.

Tesha

[sweetheart]

17. bingo

Viva la difference.

[blm]

35. At this point all we have is Olbermann and even he just kicked in over the

past 18 months. He was much more subdued before Schiavo and Katrina. Since the torture debate, he's been endlessly fearless.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. McDonalds and Burger King

For one thing, it is far easier for them to stand up and involve themselves in a "pedestrian" activity. Our teens and young adults drive two blocks to pick up a newspaper.
Euro cities were built for walking 500-1000 yrs ago, so it is easier to walk than drive. We weigh so much that it hurts to move.
Euro cities have natural meeting places, squares, fountains, and city centers. We have LA.
Euro people read newspapers and books, and discuss philosophy. We have Playstation 2.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. They have Playstation 2 in Europe, too.

And if you go to any McDonald's in France in the middle of the day I guarantee you it'll be packed - and not with American tourists.

[hedgehog]

19. Bingo!

There really isn't a place to demonstrate in most areas. If you live in the suburbs, there's no there there. The notion of driving into the city center to demonstrate seems ludicrous. We do have demonstrations in the big cities - San Francisco, New York, Washington.

I would remind people that during the Vietnam war, students did take over various campuses. The difference now is that there wouldn't be much of a point to doing that. I suspect campus administrators hate this war more than the students do!

[Bill McBlueState]

29. I doubt it, about campus administrators

University administrators like to pretend they're liberal, but they get very conservative as soon as students or employees try to demonstrate about anything, form a labor union, or otherwise exert their rights.

Upper middle class parents don't want to send money to a place where people challenge the status quo, and university administrators always side with upper middle class parents. They're where the money is.

[bicentennial_baby]

51. Um, they have *and* eat fast food there...

McDo is Paris...Always jammed with Parisians...
They also have video games...and Mtv...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

84. Having traveled around Europe I can safely say...

the place is fucking filled with McDeath and Murder Kings. They also have Playstation 2.

Actually, I very much enjoy my Playstation 2 and can spend hours playing Grand Theft Auto and Need for Speed. I also have attended quite a few protests and have an arrest record to back it up.

:shrug:

[magellan]

4. I'd hazard a guess and say

...it's because Europe now has a tradition of governments that practice soft socialism -- national health care, pensions, benefits -- and so the people who protest there haven't been tagged as "loony leftists" and dismissed as "threats to democracy" as they have been here.

[YOY]

5. They actually work humane hours

and have social lives outside of their workplaces.

I have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet, how the frick can I protest?

[SOS]

52. Good point

After WW 2 the US saw the rise of the middle class. From 1946-1973 many families could actually live a nice life on one 40 hour a week job.
At the same time we saw the rise of the civil rights movement, the women's movement and the anti-war movement.
Sometimes it almost seems as though the ruling class decided "Hey, the peons are getting restless. Time to put the screws on 'em."
Whether this is actually a ruling class plot or just a series of convenient and encouraged developments is difficult to know.
However our current state came to be, one thing is certain: It now takes 2 people working 50 hours each to sustain a family.
This is known to our overprivileged class as "increased worker productivity". To the average person it's resulted in working around the clock to stay afloat.

If someone works 50 hours and is raising a family, they don't even get home in time to see the news, let alone protesting.
Barbara Ehrenreich has an article at the Nation, available online now, about the hidden destruction of the middle class. Worth reading!

[bdamomma]

6. Europeans are more political savvy

[irislake]

32. Yes

They have a freer press. Americans don't get much news. Propaganda mostly.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. They've "been there, done that", survived it and don't want to go back.

Knowledge is power. So is suffering. They've been through the ringer so to speak. They know the outcome of state sponsored propaganda, we have yet to learn that lesson.

[bdamomma]

59. yup, and we are going to learn the hard way too.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. So depressing because we shouldn't go down this path. We should

know better!

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. I think it's the Anglo-Saxon blood. What other country would make

a brilliantly successful series called, "Upstairs, Downstairs", about the grotesque Norman/Anglo-Saxon social chasm.

Please don't tell me it's been a raging succcess, world-wide. I cherish the thought that our squalid, anarchic social fabric in the UK has not been a matter of random chance, but is the direct result of our supine national mindset, as evidenced by said TV series, and is correctable.

[valerief]

8. Yeah, in the U.S. life is more like "Inside, Outside." Not a very

hospitable environment, unless you're on the inside.

[Ghost Dog]

20. 'Winners/Losers', you mean?

n/t

[valerief]

22. Yeah, that and in homes vs. homeless. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. Yep.

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. Exactly.

[Ghost Dog]

16. UK is not Europe (and even less so recently).

Otherwise, many thanks for the interesting comments. Paying attention here.

On a 'cultural' note, so typically 'American', beyond the ancient mixture of Mediterranean (ed. and even more Southern), Nordic as well as Gallic, Germanic and Slavic (ed. and, indeed, Turkic and from points even further east) peoples, in at least 'the West' of Europe the ever-subtle presence and influence of Celtic populations may at bottom be more significant than that of so-called 'Anglo-Saxons'.

Perhaps indeed European societies are somewhat more 'human', and connected to deep history. (And let's not right now get into the history of philosophies and religions).

Perhaps, indeed, the USA needs to re-examine some of its more selfish, possibly self-destructive, and possibly excessively superficial 'values'.

[Joe Chi Minh]

60. Oh, European culture in its broadest sense, is, as you suggest,

much richer and more humane for being pan-continental, rather than insular and chauvinistic.

The brutish ambitions and tawdry material gains of Empire have given us a truly risible sense of superiority to the Continentals. And we can see it mirrored to some extent in Australia and the US. You might scoff at the way Australian journalists shamelessly fish for compliments from foreign visitors, until you remember that we, the Poms, "wrote the book" on that pusillanimous kind of nonsense. Our journalists do the same with bells on.

On the face of things, at least, the worst thing to happen to the British people was the Norman conquest. A Saxon peasant would own several acres of land. That was knocked on the head smartish and poor, who often relied on the deer and rabbits in the forests for their food, would be executed or mutilated, have limbs amputated, if caught with them. It was the special preserve of their Norman overlords, a Brahmin-like caste, for the hunting that they considered sport.

According to Chambers Dictionary, the word, "danger" is derived from the Old French word, "dangier", signifying "absolute power" (of a feudal overlord), hence "power to hurt".

Because of his proximity to his employer, a workman working on a feudal overlord's premises was in danger, because if he upset him, he could be murdered with impunity. To this day, in the UK and US, I believe, the wives of powerful men have been consigned to mental institutions for the rest of their lives. I think a wife of T S Eliot was one such unfortunate victim.

Still, the longer I've witnessed the conduct of national politics, the clearer it has become that, while after WWII the best of the toffs were good Christian men and women - even if they did seem to be baffled by Christ's words concerning the worldly riches, ambition and status, it was the soft underbelly of the upper and upper middle classes, the vicious and unprincipled toffs, which enabled the rise to power of the ambitious, godless riff-raff who have governed this country during these last 27 years of far-right barbarism and vandalism.

To this day, in fact, the good, decent and honourable toffs, together with the Irish Catholics are probably the last bastions of Christianity in an increasingly godless and totally insane country.

So the upper middle class are not the ultimate bogeymen today by any means (I'm not talking about today's Tories, of course, who are wild animals, just stupider than New Labour). Cameron's learnt that they have throw a few bones, but goes overboard and promises everyone the sun the moon and the stars, whatever they want to hear. Doing so immediately after Blair's ministry isn't much smarter than failing to throw any bones.

[shance]

10. Firstly, our protests are not covered by our Media Industrial Complex

So I don't believe that is really a fully accurate assessment.

[raccoon]

13. Good point. nt

[valerief]

23. You said a mouthful. McMedia is McFair and McBalanced. nt

[marions ghost]

31. This is the #1 problem IMO

Americans don't like to put out a lot of effort for nothing. When the media does not cover protests this effort is perceived as futile. The American media is not perceived as responsible to the people or even relevant on the issues--with a few notable exceptions you can count on one hand. The media serves their masters, not the viewers. The big media is fully complicit with the Neocon agenda. There is an absolute ban on covering any form of political protest.

But now, with news and video getting out on the net, there is a chance that such grassroots efforts will be seen and voices of protest heard.

Obviously no amount of political protest will impress the Republican goons in power now. They just tighten their forces of repression. Protests speak to people of conscience, some of whom may still call themselves Democrats. Protests have the power to inspire people--not only to take to the streets themselves, but to work in other ways to bring about the changes we so desperately need.

[Tesha]

48. I'm pretty sure that if a million Americans stormed the White House...

> Americans don't like to put out a lot of effort for nothing.
> When the media does not cover protests this effort is perceived
> as futile.

I'm pretty sure that if a million Americans stormed the White
House (and I really mean stormed, as in "ripped down the gates,
pulled down the helicopters through sheer force of numbers,
and hauled the escaping chickenshit bastards inside out onto
Pennsylvania Avenue"), the media would probably cover it. ;)

(And yes, I understand that several thousands would probably
get killed. But more than that many of our soldiers have died
in Iraq alone, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died
at the hands of this corrupt, illegal "administration".)

We simply don't care enough.

Tesha

[marions ghost]

71. hmmmm......

Are you serious? Storm the gates of the fortress and create havoc and get killed by the stormtroopers. Romantic way to go but doesn't sound too smart. Pointless. Now if protests had good media coverage like in Europe, we could have a peaceful march that makes a point without resorting to violence. Where would violence get us? The US govt is good at erasure. They would round people up, ship em to Gitmo and then go out to Starbucks. What practical gain would that be? We need more creative solutions than being impaled on the White House lawn.

We do care. But a lot of Americans have children and family to worry about. We don't need any more martyrs to this lost cause, this trumped-up "war". There are other ways to work against it.

[resist_vote on paper]

87. Protesters don't even need the media!

If the media plays the music of their masters, forget the media and don't focus on that!

You can't win, if you try to beat them on their ground.

Just keep away from your job every monday, and take to the street and stay calm!

It has worked out well in East Germany too.

And think about this: the french revolution took place without internet, radio, tv, and I guess without a communication at all except personally.

Don't give up! It's your country, your freedom, and it's up to you to go and get it back!

God bless you all, good luck from Germany!

Sonja

[Tesha]

89. The French, though, were actually willing to take some nasty steps.

> And think about this: the french revolution took place without
> internet, radio, tv, and I guess without a communication at all
> except personally.

As I recall, though, the French populace was willing to take
some nasty steps to remove their monarchy permanently. As you
can see from Reply #71 above, a lot of Americans don't seem
willing to take these steps (and I didn't even advocate killing
our present "leadership").

The sad part for me is that I'm pretty sure there's violence
ahead for Americans in the not-too-distant future. The only
question in my mind is: Do we let them "do it to us on their
schedule" or will we eventually take affirmative steps to
control the schedule of how the changes come, reform this
country, and set it back on the path of a true Jeffersonian
democracy?

Tesha

[marions ghost]

93. You refer to my response but

don't respond to me directly. If you think that violence is inevitable, at least consider how it might be avoided before you give in to "inevitability." This is the kind of one-track thinking that got us into Iraq in the first place.

As bad as it is, I still think we can bring about reform without resorting to violence. This does not mean being apathetic or wussy. There are many ways to fight. Getting even more people killed at the hands of our ruthless 'leaders' is not warranted. I don't know why you think it is.

[Tesha]

95. It *MIGHT* have been avoided if...

> If you think that violence is inevitable, at least consider
> how it might be avoided before you give in to "inevitability.

It *MIGHT* have been avoided if the necessary steps (reining
in the NeoCon/corporate cabal) had been taken years ago. But
the steps weren't taken, and I believe we've now passed the
"tipping point" where they will no longer give up power
peaceably.

I hope I'm wrong and you're right, but I'll bet that I'm not
wrong. A few years will tell the tale.

Tesha

[marions ghost]

92. thanks for the encouragement

from Germany. Your support is much appreciated.

However, as posters here have pointed out, we have some fundamental differences from you when it comes to the effectiveness of protesting. We face enormous obstacles that are not found in your country. Most Europeans cannot imagine the situation here. I don't have time or space to go into a full discourse on these many differences, some of which are ingrained and some of which are new forms of oppression rapidly instituted by the Neocon Republicans.

As for keeping away from jobs every Monday, most people here would scoff. For many Americans this would mean loss of pay and most likely immediate loss of job. With no social safety net and a surplus of wage earners, Americans have great fear of job loss. There is little to no job security in many areas of employment. Employers can cheerfully say bye-bye. Not enough people would risk it.

Media coverage is crucial. Without media coverage, protests here have very little impact on the general public. That is overcome somewhat by internet coverage now, but still does not get the attention of the powers that be. I don't think you can compare the situation here to the French Revolution. The forces that would quell any large public resistance in America are formidable. Protestors have to be very careful.

What protesting does is provide visibility for those who have no political voice--inspiring people to work against the various forms of abuse--but it does not directly change anything. Protests are no threat to an oppressive government in a country where personal freedom is limited and workers are treated as disposable commodities. There is very little investment in the health, well-being, and quality of life for people in this country. This is so different in Europe. As someone said above, we are consumers, not people. This is no exaggeration.

You have to realize that we are being assaulted on all fronts, exploited by those who take full advantage of the Delusion of Democracy in America. The iron fist of well-funded oligarchs is undermining this country in every way, including controlling the voting machines. The problems in America will not be addressed by taking to the streets every Monday. It's going to be a lot harder than that. There are many fronts to this battle. Some of the smaller battles will be as important as the more visible ones.

[MadHound]

38. Hammer, meet nail, spot on observation

When millions turn out in the streets for a protest, it is rarely covered, or is glossed over by the MSM. The millions that turned out nationwide to protest the IWR was reduced by at least on order of magnitude. The hundreds of thousands that turned out for the Oct. 5 protests weren't covered at all.

Thus people don't hear of these matters, think that the entire nation is apathetic, and thus are less inclined to take to the streets themselves. Meanwhile, the minority opinion in this country is constantly pumped up and reinforced in our media in every way possible, via hate radio, television, etc. etc. The echo chamber effect kicks in and that minority opinion is suddenly looking like the vast overwhelming majority.

[Tesha]

50. "Millions" at one time never turned out to protest.

Hundreds of thousands? A few times.

Tens of thousands? A few dozen times.

But mostly, American anti-war protests have been dozens
to hundreds.

Yes, the media downplayed our numbers, and often, and
usually by an order of magnitude, but the truth remains:
Americans, generally speaking, didn't bother to show up.

I know; I was there more than once.

Tesha

[MadHound]

54. I've been there more than once also, and am still there

As this illegal, immoral war wages on.

And I stand by my statement that yes indeed, millions showed up to protest on 2/15/03. Hell, best estimates of the number in NYC alone range from 300,000-500,000. The protest count in LA and San Fran were in the hundreds of thousands each. Hell, even in my little berg, with a population of 100,000, over two thousand took to the streets, and in a small college town nearby, pop. 10,000, over a hundred people turned out. I've seen the numbers, and yes, they're gross estimates. But the most realistic evidence that I've seen, gatherered from firsthand reports throughout the country, there were aprox 2 million people who turned out that day. In addition, best estimates range from 6-10 million, the number of protesters around the world that day.

Don't be decieved by the media, they lie regularly. Rather hook up with a group who is plugged in and has the resources to truly know what is going on. The one I stay in touch with is the Mid Missouri Peaceworks<http://peaceworks.missouri.org/> Hopefully you have something similar close to you.

[genie_weenie]

11. I disagree completely. Here are some classic protests:

Dorr "Rebellion" 1841
New York Draft Riots 1863
Haymarkey Square Chicago 1886
Pullman Strike Chicago 1894
Ludlow 1914
Washington DC 1932 (Bonus Army)
Washington DC 1963 (MLK)
Kent State 1970
Seattle 1999

This is only a partial list. The history of the US is replete with protests (some peaceful, others not) and strikes, sit-ins, riots, etc. Most have been meet with Government Power and mass arrests/beatings/killings...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. I would augment what you say ever so slightly...

There is one primary cultural difference that is relevant, and that is the fact that most European countries are quite small. I have found that most people here feel they have a closer personal relationship with their government than people in the US. It's more emotional. And protesting is an inherently emotional activity.

[Benhurst]

14. And the corporate media no longer reports on what protests there are.

[cyclezealot]

15. the size thing , bull.

IT's that they have better media, more interested, more aware. We live in Roussillon, probably permamently. We tell them of how corrupt , lousy the US medical system. PM Juppe once tried to install HMO's in France. It was one of the loudest protests ever in French history. Louder than Iraq protests. THey know about the US system and they will not stand for it.
Some call it the third veto. An involved, rowdy, people that will take to the streets. So, even right wing governmetns are tamed by this third veto. They make me proud. Their tv seems truly 'fair and balanced.' Can you imagine actual Communists members of the National Assembly getting 'equal time.' They do. I think it's democratically healthy that unpopular voices are heard.
Meet people in pubs, restaurants, streets, Political discussion is so common. It is as common as pain chocolat. Refreshing.

[tocqueville]

26. Hello neighbor

:hi:

I agree (even if things are far from being "perfect").

I counted once that if the US had to take to the streets on the French scale (for a big event), they'll have to mobilise around 6 million people. That's far from logistically unfeasible provided that there is a will for doing it...

[cyclezealot]

43. favorite french protest we witnessed.

Farmers, protesting agricultural supports. Come into TOulouse with tractors and set afire bags of manure at street intersections. Polls show most French support agricultural subsidies, they want their agriculture healthy and food as pure as possible. I agree.

[Lars39]

49. Size does factor in, though.

I am 1 hour from my state capitol, and 11 hours or 700 miles from DC by car.

[cyclezealot]

70. size. Not so sure.

With instant communications. I do think with the federal/state system and blue/red divisions in the US is the greater difference. And, the French are more likely to think of themselves as one people. Religious /political divisions are not as harsh in France as the US. I never hear in France anything like , we'd be better off if Utah/Kansas could be governered seperately of New York/California.
In the US, I think on different sides of the political divide , hatreds bloom. We have very little in common. Whereas, In France it is in the Constitution, France is a secular state; yet, many are religious and both left/right can worship together without hating each other.There is more respect across the political divide and each can talk to one another.With the exception to the far rightist LaPen faction.
I think this is a greater factor than the size of a country. From Biarritz to Lille is a stretch too.

[Selatius]

78. I think it also has to do with the small French population

There's roughly 50,000,000 people inside France. There's 300,000,000 in the US, a country as big if not bigger than most of Western Europe in both population and geographic area. There's going to be a lot more opportunity for disagreement and division than there would be in a smaller population, and the geographic isolation only reaffirm the divisions.

Personally, I think the people would be better served if the US was dissolved and replaced with several smaller nations catering to the interests of the people in their respective regions.

English may be the common language in the US population, but there's fewer and fewer things in common as far as cultural values and political views go.

[cyclezealot]

80. selatius. I think France has a higher density

compared to the US. I think this is significant when comparing population size . The degree of urbanization.

[Selatius]

81. True, but geographic issues can't be ignored either, especially with the US

Whenever a major incident occurred in France, most if not all of France was involved. There's a common experience, especially in the darkest years of the 20th century. There was no escaping it, mainly because there were few places to retreat. When you live bunched up together, you are more likely to sympathize with those who suffer in your presence than if they suffered thousands of miles away on the other side of the country.

In the US, regionalism has been more prevalent because of massive geographic isolation, and most of the experiences in America in the last 60 years since the end of WW2 have more often divided the people along cultural or political differences, not brought them together. In fact, WW2 seems to have been the exception, as there was major divisions with US involvement in WW1, especially with Wilson's active pogroms of dissident suppression.

[cyclezealot]

83. My point.

Just because we are a geographically diverse country, is justification for lack of social cohesion; don't agree. We supposedly have amongst the most monetary , natural resources from which to support our people. I'd just call it neglegience and lack of passion for our people. Why. Maybe, because of our wild west history, instead of solving our social problems, we escape them with our manifest destiny allusions.

[independentdude]

18. They are free

to do so. Here, if we speak up, we chance going to prison. It is ridiculous. Bush is from a line of Nazi sympathisers and thinks he is a dick-tater <g> and wannabe King.

[tocqueville]

21. it's not only France and it is for historical reasons

#1 reason is that the organisation of popular protest against poverty has been done through unions and political parties like socialist/communist parties. Demonstratiosns, strikes, taking to the streets were the main form of expression.

#2 the violent repression (army, police etc..) has been leading to the fall of RW governments. This has been the case in for example France, Sweden and to civil wars in Italy, Spain, Germany and ultimately to war. But RW governments fell in the end. And in practically every European country (aside of the former communist block with a different history) there is today a strong socialist, social-democratic political base often doing alternance
with the more "republican" forces.

#3 The masses are ORGANISED through different networks, which means very rapid mobilisation. The use of lethal force against peacefully demonstrating forces is out of question.

In the US those movements were broken down by different means (violence, use of the mafia etc..) in the first part of the XXth century. The Churches became the only means to provide relief to the poorest instead of secular organisations. Which meant that everything smelling socialist started to smell sulphur. Besides a certain libertarian mythology (even among Democrats) countered the needs for organisation which means personal sacrifice and discipline.

[Wiley50]

24. They don't have " Free Speech Zones" so protests are more fun n/t

[valerief]

25. Religion has a bigger hold on Merkans than Europeans, and

the bought-and-paid-for preachers spout rightwing nonsense to their flock to keep them in line.

[Jed Dilligan]

27. To some degree it's urban morphology

Our cities were deliberately re-architected in the mid-twentieth century. The decentralization was mostly based on nuclear strategy (the ghettos burn, the suburbs survive) but had the added bonus for corpo-gubernatorial types of suppressing mass movements. European cities with functioning main boulevards, squares, plazas, etc. and generally pedestrian scale are much more suitable for political expression of all kinds.

[kenny blankenship]

36. European countries are also more organized around their capitals

and major cities. By "organized around" I mean economics, cultural life and population. When a huge crowd shows up in the capital to march and demonstrate in a European capital that makes news the whole country is going to know about. The founders of America however intentionally diminished the role of the capital city in the cultural life of our country. They didn't want the riff-raff of a large capital city affecting the nation's politics; they also didn't want the nation's elites to cluster in the capital directing the national energies into building up and glorifying the capital at the expense of the states. Locating the capital in a natural center of national life--an already thriving city--would have the effect of elevating that city and region into a status of being "the one place that matters". At the outset of the new Republic, the states were all still somewhat suspicious of each other and jealous of their autonomy: they didn't want to become tribute paying provinces sending all their wealth away to build marble monuments for the elite or buy bread and circuses for the riff-raff. So Washington D.C. was created from nothing--it was literally a swamp-- and had no industry or population, with the expectation that it would remain nothing. In the states also there have been periods when the state capital was moved away from the big city and to some Podunk town. In the typical European capital, which is a natural center of its country, the country's major media are concentrated there, as is a large percentage of the country's population. Around 1 in 5 Frenchmen live within the metropolitan area of Paris. That population density--or centralization rather-- is both the guarantee of an audience for your message and the base to draw upon for a big demonstration. Other European countries aren't so centralized as France I'm sure. Rome is a natural cultural capital for Italy with its ancient Roman ruins and the Vatican, but economically it has been a backwater compared to the industrial cities of the north. London however is a natural capital for Britain, a center of economic activity, population and culture. Almost any European capital though is more important to the life of its country than Washington D.C. is to America.

You can't have politics without a polis, and in America's founding there was a deliberate attempt to separate the two.

[marions ghost]

41. True

and the suburban mall is the pitiful remnant of what used to be city centers and town commons. The mall is commercial, you can't protest there. Public spaces are dwindling and controlled by people who don't believe in protests. It's harder to know where to assemble peacefully--in ditches like Cindy Sheehan, I guess.

Cindy didn't let the lack of location stop her.

[Jed Dilligan]

65. Cindy's protest is a sad symbol

of the decline of public space and public life. She would be ignored on the Capitol Mall; she had to take her protest to the private home of a private person who happens to control the government.

[marions ghost]

94. yes Cindy had to think outside the box

and that's what we have to do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. That's right

In Europe, you don 't have to drive to the protest site. You hang out in bars and cafes in your neighborhood instead of going to the fern bar or the Starbucks in the mall.

[Selatius]

79. You have better mass transit too. There's less gridlock in Paris, unlike LA or NYC

If you live an hour outside Paris, you just take light rail or city busses. American mass transit networks appear atrophied in comparison.

[stopbush]

28. They're citizens. We're consumers.

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. In a nutshell.

And we British are technically subjects. Increasingly, alas, of a man who sees himself as the rightful sovereign/president, rather than a PM and public servant.

[cyclezealot]

73. ditto

[blm]

33. Geography - alot easier to gather at a central locale in ANY European country

than it is to gather US citizens.

[spinbaby]

90. So very true

They have city centers. We have suburban sprawl.

[Sopianae]

34. As someone who grew up in Hungary,

I can say that one major difference is in the attitude toward government and politicians. In Europe, more people think the government is working for the good of all the people (at least they think that's the government's job) while they are much more skeptical toward individual politicians. So if the politicians screw up - as they frequently do - the population is ready to push back and basically force them to do their job.

Here in the US, there's a general mistrust of the government but politicians are much more revered. Even with all the scandals, the majority of the population cannot accept the idea that there are politicians who do not have the country's interest at hart. As if electing someone proves that they are worthy to serve - no more questions necessary. You can see this in the attitude of the US media toward politicians - nothing like the combative British media, for example. Individualism also plays a part. People simply expect less from their government here. Heck, the majority party is anti-government in it's rhetoric. In Europe, most fights center around how to run the government, not about whether it is necessary or not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

63. "Heck, the majority party is anti-government in it's rhetoric. In

Europe, most fights center around how to run the government, not about whether it is necessary or not."

Weird, sad, hilarious and true. The right wing in the UK, Labour and Tory, comes closest, of course, to the US model, the latter explicitly, since they seem as much amoral in their barbarism as immoral. It's a wonder they haven't picked up on that daft term, Liberartianism that some of your nut-jobs have appropriated, meaning not "a movement for freedom", which always implies responsibility, but plain, simple and unmitigated selfishness: licence; the freedom of Lucifer.

[Annces]

37. Why do we identify more with Europe than our neighbor Mexico?

They just had months of protests, barely mentioned on DU.

[raccoon]

53. IMO we think of European countries as having a sizable middle

class, and Mexico as having a small elite, small middle class, and a lot of poor people.

And it looks to me as if the US is becoming like Mexico in that respect.

Maybe when enough Americans are poor enough, and desperate enough, we'll turn out to protest in as large numbers are the Mexicans did recently.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

39. Better Organization!

Were you to attend a "manifestation" in France, you would immediately be struck by the sophisticated organization apparent among and between the principals. They are primarily led by the "syndicats" (unions). Each sub-group is identified by their characteristic banners/colors and ribbons on their jackets. Each sub-group also operates its own sound-truck, which leads that particular section of the march and coordinates with the other groups.

Artists get heavily involved, bringing their gifts for self-expression to the fore with creative banners and street theatre.

The cops, generally, are there to preserve order and assist the demonstrators, and not to obstruct things or harass participants.

The syndicats have POWER! They can, literally, shut down the country for a big demonstration, and do so, regularly. So, on the day of a grand manifestation, many businesses are closed, and schools are closed also...therefore people have time to attend.

A few months ago, when Villepin came out with his stupid "contrat première embauche" (CPE) reform, the whole country stopped for the manifestations, held in every city in the country. 750,000 people showed up in Marseilles, and similar numbers in Paris and Lyon. A few weeks later, Villepin withdrew the bill.

The French have learned that a strong showing of public support or condemnation can be effective - can actually cause change!

Also, I would agree that the level of public discourse on political matters is very high. During the run-up to the Oui/No vote on the EU constitution, lectures and debates were held in damn near every bar and public meeting place in the country, and the government actually erects portable walls upon which people are encouraged to plaster their posters and fliers throughout the debate.

"Liberte d'Expression" is a noble tradition, dearly loved and cultivated over the centuries.

[Joe Chi Minh]

66. "The cops, generally, are there to preserve order and assist the

demonstrators, and not to obstruct things or harass participants."

Just plain sanity, really, isn't it, but awesome.

Has that justly-reviled globalisation summit ever been held in France?

[otherlander]

74. Walls that are MEANT for self-expression?

Damn, I wish we had those here! Instead of just graffiti/ freeway blogging...

[fudge stripe cookays]

40. Because many of the countries there....

have experienced revolution or civil war much more recently than we have.

If not revolution, takeovers by hostile countries, and they're DAMNED sure not ready to have more.

I think because of this, they have become more vigilant.

[Crankie Avalon]

42. Lots of good and interesting reasons here, but I'd also say that Europeans...

...are a lot less complacent and just plain value their democracies a whole lot more. I think that is especially true for Eastern Europe where after decades behind the Iron Curtain citizens really appreciate their still fledgling democracies and are especially determined to fight for them, as we recently saw in the Ukraine, for example.

Here in America, we've always just taken it for granted that we are the most democratic nation on earth as a matter of course. We don't ever examine ourselves to see if that assumption is really true or not. Not the broader American population, anyway. Democracy is dieing in America? "It can't happen here!"

We Americans are also very conditioned to defer to authority/corporations/wealth. Sure, we like to pretend we're rebels, and over two centuries ago this country was founded by rebels of a sort, but the "rugged individualism" of Americans is largely a myth now, even if it ever really existed at earlier points in our history. We've become conformists, for at least a few decades, now. In fact, not only do most of us defer to and even reverance our power elites, many of us actually attack those of our fellow "Little Guys" when one of us dare to stand up to those elites. In our country, the Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Polluters, and Big-everything-else-having-to-do-with-squeezing-out-even-more-money-no-matter-what-the-cost-to-the-common-good aren't seen as bloodsuckers or crooks, they're seen as heroes of "American Enterprise" and anyone who objects to being robbed by them is seen as a wacko "waging class warfare."

For every Cindy Sheehan, there's dozens of suckups to the powerful like Rush Limbaugh rushing to defame her.

[marions ghost]

46. Good point

Americans operate under a cloud of (conformist) delusion--that our Democracy is alive and well. Part of that is naive trust and, like you say, the deeply ingrained notion that "it can't happen here.."

And that delusion makes it all the easier for predators to hijack the govt -- as we have unfortunately found out.

[Greeby]

44. Maybe it's because our governments are not led by people

So religiously psychotic that no amount of bad PR or embrassment will make them change their minds? :shrug:

[KittyWampus]

45. The French were also willing to go on killing sprees

[rman]

47. The French in particular are more politically aware than Americans -

generally speaking.
Most other European nationalities aren't necessarily as aware as the French.

What happened in France with the protests against the new labor laws; 'mainstream' adults joining the rebellious ethnic youths in their protests - that was quite unique by any contemporary standard.

[Joe Chi Minh]

68. They're now reaping the fruits of the French Revolution.

[cyclezealot]

75. they chopped off the heads of their gentry.

we put them into power and called them revolutionaries.

[Joe Chi Minh]

96. Don't quite get your gist there. Can you explain?

They weren't just gentry. Those who chiefly courted such a revolution were the magnates, who taxed the poor to death.

Sure, in the UK (and elsewhere, I suspect), many of our left-wingers are just chancers, and in no way fit to be compared with the better toffs, but France has had a few hundred years for some semblance of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to take root.

Unfortunately, like other countries in the EU, they are now also reaping the harvest of multiculturalism. Countries with a European heritage who have abandoned Christianity as the religious cornerstone of their national culture, are learning the meaning of Christ's words, "When the salt loses its savour, what is it good of but to be trodden underfoot by men." Wasn't a Dutch publisher, a descendant of Van Gogh, murdered for what was perceived by his Moslem killers as a slight on their religion?

British Airways allows Moslem female employees to wear burkhas, etc, but forbade a Christian woman to wear a necklace carrying a little cross. They're too cowardly to be consistent and apply it to their Moslem employees, much as they'd love to.

Of course, the Moslems don't despise devout British Christians, but do despise those atheists from the bottom of their heart. I believe Oxfam charity shops forbid the sale of Christmas cards, also on the grounds of being "discriminatory".

[Odin2005]

62. Our protests are ignored by the MSM.

And even when MSM does cover protests it tries to make poeple think most of the protestors are Communists, Anarchists, and hippies.

[SoCalDem]

64. It's easier to get people to protest if they fear LOSING

something they already have.

they HAVE good medical benefits
they HAVE high wages
they HAVE lots of paid vacation time
they HAVE effective unions
they HAVE decent old-age pensions
they HAVE decent unemployment benefits
they HAVE free/cost-reduced higher education
they HAVE paid maternity-paternity leave

When people threaten to take something you HAVE, you are more likely to march in the streets.

and when they take to the streets, their governments actually let them march, and their media covers it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. A very interesting point.

[marions ghost]

88. right

Americans put up with far too little from govt and from their employers. They allow themselves to be ground under, used and abused, and still believe they live in a functional democracy.

[otherlander]

72. It probably comes from living in smaller countries.

The international situation is right there; you're not insulated by as much of "this is my country and this is the way everything is".

[DawgHouse]

76. because we are brainwashed to work, work, work

and if we are good sheeple and work hard, we will someday be rich. Isn't that the american dream? Who has time to protest when we must work to achieve greatness? It is about the individual, not about what's best for the whole citizenry.

[Homer Wells]

77. From what I can tell from my trip to Ireland

last year, they have a much less idiotic television schedule in that part of the world than the crap we have here.
No "Irish Idol" for the people to drool over, No "Survivor: Killearny", or other such crap. I think the Europeans are much more attuned toward political awareness also, and follow the major issues of the day.

[Anakin Skywalker]

82. They Have an Hour or More of Lunch Break, OK?

American working-stiffs get what? 30 minutes if you are lucky!
Blame the stupid anti-worker corporate policies of 'Murikkka.

[rman]

85. Uhm, no they don't

But they do have decent wages and worker benefits - compared to the US, that is.

[moondust]

86. Maturity.

All those wars and repressive governments and politcal parties and diversity have made Europe more experienced and mature. History is a part of everyday life. There are reminders everywhere of the consequences of silence and submission. I lived in Berlin for a while in the 70s and was dumbfounded to see some of the older buildings still riddled with bullet holes.

[Temporary1]

91. They've already been in the US state of being

They spent enough time on pointless wars and exploitation and infighting; they decided to hell with all that and created a culture of a lot more participatio and battling of corruptio