What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[dps]

Eh?

Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

Why not? Explain please.

Apparently, he believes that Canada is more intolerant than the US.   

[Eddie Teach]

Orange lives matter.

[Syt]

Yeah. We've moved entirely into the Carry On phase of Britsh history

Now that you mention it,  current British politics makes a lot more sense when you think of it as a Carry On movie. Corbyn is Kenneth Williams and BoJo is Sid James.

[jimmy olsen]

Eh?

The American equivalent of "peace, order and good government" is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The two phrases neatly summarize the differences in outlook between the two - the US is more focused on individualism as the highest good; the Canadian, more focused on community. To the Americans. Canadians seem boring; to Canadians, the Americans seem dangerously anarchistic and lacking in principle.

Recent political events have made the differences starker than ever. Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

Rob Ford was mayor of your largest city. Canada could absolutely elect a Trump

[The Brain]

Eh?

The American equivalent of "peace, order and good government" is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The two phrases neatly summarize the differences in outlook between the two - the US is more focused on individualism as the highest good; the Canadian, more focused on community. To the Americans. Canadians seem boring; to Canadians, the Americans seem dangerously anarchistic and lacking in principle.

Recent political events have made the differences starker than ever. Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

I was under the impression that "eh" is an important part of being Canadian.

[Eddie Teach]

Apparently just an Ontario thing.

[mongers]

Yeah. We've moved entirely into the Carry On phase of Britsh history

Now that you mention it,  current British politics makes a lot more sense when you think of it as a Carry On movie. Corbyn is Kenneth Williams and BoJo is Sid James.

[Maximus]

Ok, what would you say the one unifying culture Canada has?

I've long argued that there isn't one.

[crazy canuck]

Eh?

Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

Why not? Explain please.

Apparently, he believes that Canada is more intolerant than the US.   

Of right wing lunacy - certainly

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh?

The American equivalent of "peace, order and good government" is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The two phrases neatly summarize the differences in outlook between the two - the US is more focused on individualism as the highest good; the Canadian, more focused on community. To the Americans. Canadians seem boring; to Canadians, the Americans seem dangerously anarchistic and lacking in principle.

Recent political events have made the differences starker than ever. Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

I've never really understood the idea that America is historically an individualist country. I don't really think the history follows this to be frank. I've long pointed out the stereotyped American paean to "rugged individualism" is really a product of fiction, created in real time, during the latter half of the 19th century and even then it arguably didn't become a dominant cultural narrative until probably the mid-20th century. The history of the colonization of North America, of thirteen of those colonies later engaging in an uprising against the colonial power and then establishing a new country is one of collective action and collectivist behaviors from almost start to finish. The colonists that created the early Puritan colonies in the Northeast lived in very planned and deliberate collectivist societies. The Jamestown Colonists had no rugged individualists among them--considering its early troubles with unfriendly natives no white man or white family was living long if they had established 19th century style solitary and remote homesteads.

Even into the 19th century in certain key aspects American society was far more collectivist and social than it is today. For example many States had a period of a few weeks every single year where adult males were pressed into government service. Sometimes for militia duties, but more often they were just required to perform various public works tasks around the region that had lay undone for a long time. Abe Lincoln had some recollections about his time doing this sort of mandatory state work in his young adulthood in Illinois. Many, many American communities were centered around the community church, and Christian churches have almost never been very individualistic in their operations or teachings, and 19th century American churches don't really buck that trend.

America was largely built by people who cared a lot about living in stable and vibrant local communities, it was not built by rugged frontiersmen. Rugged frontiersmen largely lived on the margins of society, and many were also only very deliberately living as rugged frontiersman due to some potential quick profit possibilities. Lots of the more famous rugged frontiersmen as they aged into middle age married, established homesteads, and usually became very involved in the local politics of their new communities. The two most famous frontiersman in early American history were Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. One the son of a tavern keeper the other grew up in farming, both married and owned farms very early in life. Both largely farmed for much of their business lives, both were involved in politics for much of their lives. Their stints as frontiersmen tended to be brief and usually were undertaken to supplement their regular settled incomes and/or in the case of Davy Crockett were done in short stints with the militia in the 1812 War-inspired conflicts with local native tribes and Crockett's later involvement in Texas affairs. Even in the case of his move to Texas Crockett spent most of his time working land, and organizing Anglo settlers into political and military bands, this is an intrinsically un-individualist set of actions to say the least.

My take is that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just inherited language from British thinkers like Locke, and not particularly intended to establish individualism as t he cornerstone of American life. Especially since the Founding Fathers were mostly not very individualist themselves, either in their policies or actions. Although Jefferson did often idealize the concept of the "yeoman farmer and his nuclear family" as being the building block of a correct society. But Jefferson's voice was one in a big group, and Jefferson himself was often someone who was kind of a personal loner to a degree, he enjoyed many friendships over lengthy, lifelong written correspondences but was always reportedly at ill ease in social gatherings when engage in direct interpersonal interactions. So not surprisingly the founding father that spent a huge portion of his life hanging out with only himself and some slaves for company was the one most likely to most deemphasize community.

[mongers]

Eh?

The American equivalent of "peace, order and good government" is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The two phrases neatly summarize the differences in outlook between the two - the US is more focused on individualism as the highest good; the Canadian, more focused on community. To the Americans. Canadians seem boring; to Canadians, the Americans seem dangerously anarchistic and lacking in principle.

Recent political events have made the differences starker than ever. Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

I've never really understood the idea that America is historically an individualist country. I don't really think the history follows this to be frank. I've long pointed out the stereotyped American paean to "rugged individualism" is really a product of fiction, created in real time, during the latter half of the 19th century and even then it arguably didn't become a dominant cultural narrative until probably the mid-20th century. The history of the colonization of North America, of thirteen of those colonies later engaging in an uprising against the colonial power and then establishing a new country is one of collective action and collectivist behaviors from almost start to finish. The colonists that created the early Puritan colonies in the Northeast lived in very planned and deliberate collectivist societies. The Jamestown Colonists had no rugged individualists among them--considering its early troubles with unfriendly natives no white man or white family was living long if they had established 19th century style solitary and remote homesteads.

Even into the 19th century in certain key aspects American society was far more collectivist and social than it is today. For example many States had a period of a few weeks every single year where adult males were pressed into government service. Sometimes for militia duties, but more often they were just required to perform various public works tasks around the region that had lay undone for a long time. Abe Lincoln had some recollections about his time doing this sort of mandatory state work in his young adulthood in Illinois. Many, many American communities were centered around the community church, and Christian churches have almost never been very individualistic in their operations or teachings, and 19th century American churches don't really buck that trend.

America was largely built by people who cared a lot about living in stable and vibrant local communities, it was not built by rugged frontiersmen. Rugged frontiersmen largely lived on the margins of society, and many were also only very deliberately living as rugged frontiersman due to some potential quick profit possibilities. Lots of the more famous rugged frontiersmen as they aged into middle age married, established homesteads, and usually became very involved in the local politics of their new communities. The two most famous frontiersman in early American history were Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. One the son of a tavern keeper the other grew up in farming, both married and owned farms very early in life. Both largely farmed for much of their business lives, both were involved in politics for much of their lives. Their stints as frontiersmen tended to be brief and usually were undertaken to supplement their regular settled incomes and/or in the case of Davy Crockett were done in short stints with the militia in the 1812 War-inspired conflicts with local native tribes and Crockett's later involvement in Texas affairs. Even in the case of his move to Texas Crockett spent most of his time working land, and organizing Anglo settlers into political and military bands, this is an intrinsically un-individualist set of actions to say the least.

My take is that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just inherited language from British thinkers like Locke, and not particularly intended to establish individualism as t he cornerstone of American life. Especially since the Founding Fathers were mostly not very individualist themselves, either in their policies or actions. Although Jefferson did often idealize the concept of the "yeoman farmer and his nuclear family" as being the building block of a correct society. But Jefferson's voice was one in a big group, and Jefferson himself was often someone who was kind of a personal loner to a degree, he enjoyed many friendships over lengthy, lifelong written correspondences but was always reportedly at ill ease in social gatherings when engage in direct interpersonal interactions. So not surprisingly the founding father that spent a huge portion of his life hanging out with only himself and some slaves for company was the one most likely to most deemphasize community.

Thanks for that Otto, an interesting viewpoint.

[Grey Fox]

The unwillingness to admit they're culturally American. 

Eddie Teach had it right after the question was asked.

The RoC is just America lite.

[Razgovory]

Otto has some good points, but I think definition of individualism may have changed a bit from the 18th century to the 21st.  One thing to keep in mind is that many of the things that made the United States strange (republicanism, separation of church and state, popular sovereignty) are now typical.

[OttoVonBismarck]

My broad read on American history is we shifted to this view where we believe individuals, or at the very last nuclear families, should largely exist as little mini-countries of their own without concern for broader society at exactly the same time our level of economic safety and stability had reached such an advanced place that large portions of the country didn't have to worry about day to day survival. Back when people were actually broadly more reliant on the occasional help of neighbors I don't think people believed in walling themselves off from society to the degree they do now.

[Zoupa]

I think if an independent Scotland applies to join, Spain will come under intense pressure from other members to not veto. Most notably France.

I'm just going by public mood here, not hard data.