So, I've been reading over 250 pages of Martin Gelin's "The American Promise" since I last wrote about it. Quite a bit to cover, but I will make an attempt.
When writing on Obama and public speeches, it is interesting to note that Gelin often makes comparisons to Baptist ministers, as a resemblance in style and how to address a crowd. It especially caught his eye (or ear) when he attended a ceremony, which started sound a lot like an Obama-rally. Obviously the two influenced each other, creating a movement among African-Americans; a political mobilization among this minority probably never witnessed before in American history.
One other interesting note was the one that Gelin makes on the styles of campaigning, where both Hillary Clinton and John McCain used negative campaigning and smear-tactics against Obama, which seemed to have been successful for neither of them.
I will come back to Gelin's notes and thoughts on America, the most interesting part in the book I believe, at a later stage. I will just leave with an entertaining story on David Axelrod, the chief strategist of the Obama-campaign, who is devoted an own chapter. To Gelin, Axelrod is anything but the traditional political strategist; he "wasn't very terrifying. He had a mild voice and a timid aura. His gaze seemed chronically a little sad, like a dog who had just been left home alone. Cheeks kind of puffy, like he just woke up." Axelrod also surprises by showing an incredible sense of self-distance, saying that his mother used to tell him "I looked like an unmade bed". Terrific sense of humor, among a lot of serosity that was the Obama-campaign.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The US enters the Swedish election
It rarely happens, but this year it has. The United States plays a role in the Swedish election race. The red-green coalition of the Left, the Greens and the Social Democrats writes in their program on Sweden's relation with the outside world that "a red-green government will demand that the US discontinue their nuclear weapons and military bases outside of the country's borders". The center-to-right-coalition Alliansen (currently in power) did not hesitate to jump on it, and criticized the policy heavily. The minister of foreign affairs, Carl Bildt, believed it would threaten Sweden's relationship with the US and give Sweden a minuscule role in world politics. Further, he claimed that this was an "apparent display of anti-Americanism". Right wing media has interpreted this as a show that the Left has gotten to much of a say as the party "remains in the isolationist world view of the 1970s where the US and Israel make up the axis of evil".
I am very much interested in the discourse of anti-Americanism, and to say that this policy bears the markings of it is an overstatement. Anti-Americanism is usually (although contested) defined as something close to "sharp criticism towards America with signs of hatred and despise towards the entire nation". This policy is more colored by a general criticism and, most important, skepticism among the Swedish Left towards the United States. The Right has in modern times usually been more positive towards American influence and American policies, in Sweden or in the world. During the Cold War the Left (then with the appendix "Communists") was closely aligned with Moscow, which has of course shaped their view on the US and how Sweden should relate to it. It has lead the Left to very critical of U.S. involvement in the world, almost regardless in which shape and form it has taken, and much of the view is a general skepticism towards American intentions. I will come back to the view of American among the different parties as the election comes closer (to be decided in September).
So the Swedish relationship with the United States has gotten a place in the election debate. Is it likely to affect much of the outcome? Highly unlikely. The sad state of Swedish foreign policy very rarely decide anything in elections, and I would be very surprised if this debate moves more than a handful voters between the blocs. Especially in meager and dire economic times domestic issues completely dominate the debate, sadly.
I am very much interested in the discourse of anti-Americanism, and to say that this policy bears the markings of it is an overstatement. Anti-Americanism is usually (although contested) defined as something close to "sharp criticism towards America with signs of hatred and despise towards the entire nation". This policy is more colored by a general criticism and, most important, skepticism among the Swedish Left towards the United States. The Right has in modern times usually been more positive towards American influence and American policies, in Sweden or in the world. During the Cold War the Left (then with the appendix "Communists") was closely aligned with Moscow, which has of course shaped their view on the US and how Sweden should relate to it. It has lead the Left to very critical of U.S. involvement in the world, almost regardless in which shape and form it has taken, and much of the view is a general skepticism towards American intentions. I will come back to the view of American among the different parties as the election comes closer (to be decided in September).
So the Swedish relationship with the United States has gotten a place in the election debate. Is it likely to affect much of the outcome? Highly unlikely. The sad state of Swedish foreign policy very rarely decide anything in elections, and I would be very surprised if this debate moves more than a handful voters between the blocs. Especially in meager and dire economic times domestic issues completely dominate the debate, sadly.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Americanization of Swedish weddings?
Sweden has been plagued with a debate regarding this year's largest event, if you are to believe the tabloids; the royal wedding. The discussion has been over whether the crown princess Victoria should be led down the aisle by her father, the King, and "handed over" to her fiancé to be, Daniel. This is quite uncommon in Swedish wedding traditions, where the bride and groom walk down the aisle together. Now America has been drawn into this debate, with the editorializing of Helle Klein, in Sweden's largest tabloid, Social Democratic "Aftonbladet". She writes:
So Klein, herself a priest, is very indignated, so much so that she believes this will threaten the liberty of every Swedish woman and the sanctity of Swedish traditions! I will not dwell at length on the idiotic statement, but merely say that I doubt very much that it is a tradition that will spread to the broader segments of Swedish society and culture. It hasn't so far, although the wedding movies of the 1990's that Klein so despises are 15-20 years away. Klein also follows a long and strong tradition of fearing American influence over Sweden. Americanization here meaning unwanted conservative ideals, threatening the liberty and equality of Swedish women, and our way of doing things. The very notion of invoking "Americanization" when trying to make a point about negative influences we want to avoid is not an uncommon trick in Western Europe. To the Swedish left, traditionally, the very term Americanization means negative undesired influence, without having to explain how and why. Swedish liberals and right-winged have had fewer problems with American influence, which is also shown in this case when the editorial page of Liberal tabloid "Expressen" rebuked Klein's claims and accused her of wanting to remove the traditional wedding kiss as well, "a custom that has also reached Swedish wedding culture in recent years, through the Hollywood movies that Helle Klein is so horrified with".
Playing the Americanization-card is often an easy and fast way of trying to make people understand that it is influence that we don't desire in Sweden. Sometimes it is done for good reason, for instance when wanting to keep political TV-commercials and negative campaigning out of Swedish elections, but when it is done where the logic and cause and effect are anything but clear, it is just crude and dumb. Americanization is just negative, the natural order of the word, we don't even need to explain how and why.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Martin Gelin's America, part II
Though I have yet to continue reading Martin Gelin's odyssey through Barack Obama's America, I remember two quite different things from the first 60 pages of the book that I forgot to report yesterday.
The first encompasses Gelin's own feeling regarding the events of 9/11. The journalist was actually on his way to New York City mere hours after the attacks on the Twin Towers, but the plane he was on was forced to u-turn somewhere over Greenland. In that instant, Gelin immediately wanted to return back to Sweden to family and friends, but was also surprisingly overcome with the feeling that he wanted to fly to New York; "it was as if a friend had gone to the hospital after a terrible accident - I wanted to go there to make sure everything was alright". Just like more or less the whole world, the west at least, Sweden also felt compassion with America and expressed that "we are all Americans now". Gelin claims, rightly, that this sudden support for the US had nothing to do with politics or support for George W. Bush, but that Swede's shed tears for America because "the American people held a special place in our heart". In that I believe he is absolutely right. Many Swedes have, although distant, relative in the US due to the extensive Swedish immigration across the Atlantic, which have created special ties between the nations. Sweden has also accepted much of American popular culture, and many of us have grown up with American movies, TV-shows, and music, and, in Gelin's words, "fantasized about Hollywood, Harlem and Nashville". Although Gelin's very amiable knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 was not representative for the Swedish general public, the large majority of Swedes did show honest support and sympathy for the US in the immediate aftermath of the events (feelings got less friendly as the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq unraveled though).
-----------------------------------------
One a more funny note, a story about the first parody on Obama was news to me. It involves Sweden, although Obama's classmates behind the comedy has mistaken it for Norway (possibly the worst possible insult to a Swede). They made fun of his way to always talk about his complicated background: "I was born in Oslo, Norway. Son of a Volvo factory worker and ice-sea fisherman. My mom was a choir-singer for Abba. They were good people. When I moved to Chicago I realized for the first time that I was black and has remained so ever since". Despite their horrible error of mixing Sweden and Norway, it was a at least kind of funny attempt at mocking Barack Obama.
The first encompasses Gelin's own feeling regarding the events of 9/11. The journalist was actually on his way to New York City mere hours after the attacks on the Twin Towers, but the plane he was on was forced to u-turn somewhere over Greenland. In that instant, Gelin immediately wanted to return back to Sweden to family and friends, but was also surprisingly overcome with the feeling that he wanted to fly to New York; "it was as if a friend had gone to the hospital after a terrible accident - I wanted to go there to make sure everything was alright". Just like more or less the whole world, the west at least, Sweden also felt compassion with America and expressed that "we are all Americans now". Gelin claims, rightly, that this sudden support for the US had nothing to do with politics or support for George W. Bush, but that Swede's shed tears for America because "the American people held a special place in our heart". In that I believe he is absolutely right. Many Swedes have, although distant, relative in the US due to the extensive Swedish immigration across the Atlantic, which have created special ties between the nations. Sweden has also accepted much of American popular culture, and many of us have grown up with American movies, TV-shows, and music, and, in Gelin's words, "fantasized about Hollywood, Harlem and Nashville". Although Gelin's very amiable knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 was not representative for the Swedish general public, the large majority of Swedes did show honest support and sympathy for the US in the immediate aftermath of the events (feelings got less friendly as the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq unraveled though).
-----------------------------------------
One a more funny note, a story about the first parody on Obama was news to me. It involves Sweden, although Obama's classmates behind the comedy has mistaken it for Norway (possibly the worst possible insult to a Swede). They made fun of his way to always talk about his complicated background: "I was born in Oslo, Norway. Son of a Volvo factory worker and ice-sea fisherman. My mom was a choir-singer for Abba. They were good people. When I moved to Chicago I realized for the first time that I was black and has remained so ever since". Despite their horrible error of mixing Sweden and Norway, it was a at least kind of funny attempt at mocking Barack Obama.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Martin Gelin's America, part I
Esteemed Swedish journalist Martin Gelin recently released his story on the arrival and success of Barack Obama. Det Amerikanska Löftet (The American Promise) documents his two years of traveling across the United States, portraying Barack Obama, the people who supported him, and the sense of new hope in America.
So far I have read the first two chapters and it is a pretty good read. Gelin is a good descriptor of social environments and has great knowledge of American history and politics, making sure that his story is not just one of Barack Obama but also of American society in general. In my reviewing and analyzing of Gelin's book I will try not to have Obama as a person as the main focus, but his views on America from a Swedish perspective.
He begins by noting, and comes back to several times already in the first 60 pages, that there is a great divide between America's high and big ideals and its actual reality. He denotes, as many America-descriptors before him, a sort of disappoint that the US does not live up to the ideological standards it claims. But Gelin also sees this "gorge" between ideal and reality as what makes American politics and society interesting:
To talk something about Gelin's views on America as a foreigner looking in from the outside, we can say that he follows a long tradition. Many before him have expressed disappointment that America does not live up to its ideals, and some scholars have claimed that is in that disappointment that make up much of the starting ground for (at least Western) anti-Americanism. Others have also, like the Swedish journalist, talked about the Americans ideals as "high and mighty", to denote them as being somewhat "ridiculous" or too "high-flying" (my wording). Coming from Sweden, this might be a natural reaction as we have a much smaller sense of what, idea-wise, is "Swedish" and we rarely speak of the "Swedish way of life" or Swedish ideals. Often we can not agree on what it really is to be Swedish, whereas it is often quite clear what it means to be American (patriotic and individualistic, for instance).
I will continue to review and analyze Gelin's autopsy of American society as I read more and more of it. As one of the largest volumes written recently on America from a Swede, it is definitely worth talking about.
So far I have read the first two chapters and it is a pretty good read. Gelin is a good descriptor of social environments and has great knowledge of American history and politics, making sure that his story is not just one of Barack Obama but also of American society in general. In my reviewing and analyzing of Gelin's book I will try not to have Obama as a person as the main focus, but his views on America from a Swedish perspective.
He begins by noting, and comes back to several times already in the first 60 pages, that there is a great divide between America's high and big ideals and its actual reality. He denotes, as many America-descriptors before him, a sort of disappoint that the US does not live up to the ideological standards it claims. But Gelin also sees this "gorge" between ideal and reality as what makes American politics and society interesting:
"it is in the dynamics between ideals and reality that the unique story of the US always drew its power from, and it is there that this motley, huge, impossible country has found its unison direction further, toward something better".It is in this dynamic, the will to live up its high standards and ideals of democracy, possibility, liberty, and "justice for all", that the campaign of Barack Obama could thrive, according to Gelin. It really did, according to the author, give people (especially the young, and African-Americans) hope, that change was possible. He notes that something had gone lost in the years of Bush and Cheney; "something basic in the American idea, the American values and the American optimism about the future, had begun to be questioned". Gelin continues by saying that "the US as a nation has always been obsessed with the myth about itself", but that after the Bush-years it was like "that very myth itself was about to die". Gelin brings up increasing disappoint with the Iraq-war, tax-breaks for the wealthy, the poor handling of the Katrina-disaster, as examples of peoples' lost faith in the American ideals, or the American myth. It is an important note, which has been done before though, that a new presidency if often a reaction to the previous. George W. Bush named his foreign policy "ABC" (Anything But Clinton), and the reason why Obama could speak so much about hope and change, was the Americans' increasing disillusionment and disappointment with their political leadership.
To talk something about Gelin's views on America as a foreigner looking in from the outside, we can say that he follows a long tradition. Many before him have expressed disappointment that America does not live up to its ideals, and some scholars have claimed that is in that disappointment that make up much of the starting ground for (at least Western) anti-Americanism. Others have also, like the Swedish journalist, talked about the Americans ideals as "high and mighty", to denote them as being somewhat "ridiculous" or too "high-flying" (my wording). Coming from Sweden, this might be a natural reaction as we have a much smaller sense of what, idea-wise, is "Swedish" and we rarely speak of the "Swedish way of life" or Swedish ideals. Often we can not agree on what it really is to be Swedish, whereas it is often quite clear what it means to be American (patriotic and individualistic, for instance).
I will continue to review and analyze Gelin's autopsy of American society as I read more and more of it. As one of the largest volumes written recently on America from a Swede, it is definitely worth talking about.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Wetterstrand is Obama
Young, charismatic, eloquent speaker, leader of new visions and ideas, popular among the youth. Sounds like a description of president Barack Obama in his campaign of 2008 (and previous), but it could easily fit the leader of the Swedish Green Party (MP), Maria Wetterstrand. The Greens are having their party-convention this weekend, therefore receiving a lot of attention and critical examination. The Green Party has gone through a substantial reformation over the past years, maturing and proving to be more capable of being part of a government. They have shaved off many of the unreasonable ideas and policies that before frightened more independent, or "middle-of-the-road", voters. MP now looks to do their best election ever, and has seen numbers even up to 10 percent in polls.
Maria Wetterstrand may have a few things in common with Barack Obama as a politician, but more than that they share the fate of being more popular than the party they lead. Wetterstrand is the second most trusted party-leader, after Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, but MP ranks fairly low on a number of issues, such as trust in handling the economy. The comparison falters a bit, as Obama is not so much the leader of the Democratic Party, but the leader of the country and will be reviewed as such. Swedish politics works differently. But much points to the fact that MP and Wetterstrand will have to travel down the same road that has Obama. It is one thing conducting an eloquent, visionary campaign, but quite a completely other to lead a country. Both Obama and MP have shown that they can lead, but much like the support has for the former, it is likely that the numbers for the latter will decrease when carrying out administration and day-to-day leadership politics instead of speaking of lofty goals and ideas.
Another problem in common for the two is who fill the shoes of the young and charismatic once they step down. Wetterstrand, the most popular green politician in Swedish history, will have to step down as leader of the party next year. Although there are very qualified people to step in, it will be very difficult, not to say impossible, to be a new Wetterstrand, who has taken many years to establish herself and gain trust and admiration from the general public. Obama will leave party-politics in 2016 (I take for granted that he will be re-elected in 2012), which will leave the Democrats in quite a pickle. No one, at least present so far, can match his charisma and possibility to attract voters and lead a campaign, and will likely be problematic for the Democratic Party in the election of 2016. Though having very little in common when it comes to politics, it is likely that the Swedish Greens and the American Democratic Party will travel down similar roads in the years to come.
Maria Wetterstrand may have a few things in common with Barack Obama as a politician, but more than that they share the fate of being more popular than the party they lead. Wetterstrand is the second most trusted party-leader, after Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, but MP ranks fairly low on a number of issues, such as trust in handling the economy. The comparison falters a bit, as Obama is not so much the leader of the Democratic Party, but the leader of the country and will be reviewed as such. Swedish politics works differently. But much points to the fact that MP and Wetterstrand will have to travel down the same road that has Obama. It is one thing conducting an eloquent, visionary campaign, but quite a completely other to lead a country. Both Obama and MP have shown that they can lead, but much like the support has for the former, it is likely that the numbers for the latter will decrease when carrying out administration and day-to-day leadership politics instead of speaking of lofty goals and ideas.
Another problem in common for the two is who fill the shoes of the young and charismatic once they step down. Wetterstrand, the most popular green politician in Swedish history, will have to step down as leader of the party next year. Although there are very qualified people to step in, it will be very difficult, not to say impossible, to be a new Wetterstrand, who has taken many years to establish herself and gain trust and admiration from the general public. Obama will leave party-politics in 2016 (I take for granted that he will be re-elected in 2012), which will leave the Democrats in quite a pickle. No one, at least present so far, can match his charisma and possibility to attract voters and lead a campaign, and will likely be problematic for the Democratic Party in the election of 2016. Though having very little in common when it comes to politics, it is likely that the Swedish Greens and the American Democratic Party will travel down similar roads in the years to come.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Why Sweden needs a U.S.-type Supreme Court
President Obama has nominated Elena Kagan to fill the newly vacant seat in the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan is more or less a liberal replacing a liberal, but she has working strongly for the rights of homosexuals which is expected to give her some problems among the Republican Senators who will approve her. However, as the Democrats has 59 seats they have a necessary majority to approve her, and only need one more vote to avoid delay-tactics such as a filibuster (continuous talking until the session time in the Senate ends). It will be interesting to see whether any of the not-so-Conservative Republicans will vote with the Democrats and make Obama's an easy and uncontroversial process. The Republicans has been anything but bi-partisan since Obama took office, and much points to the same thing here. But more on that another time.
The Supreme Court holds a very special place in American politics compared to other Western nations. It is an important part of the system of checks and balances between the executive (the White House), the legislative (Congress), and the judicial. In general the system of checks and balances makes passing legislation more difficult, especially large and groundbreaking legislation. The role of the Supreme Court is to check whether laws are unconstitutional or not, to make sure laws do not oppose the intentions of the U.S. constitution. The highlighted word is very important here as it often gets thrown around, misused and abused. The Supreme Court has through history guaranteed a woman's right to abortion (Roe vs Wade) and ended law-regulated segregation in American schools (Brown vs Board of Education). On the other end of things, it is responsible for the difficulties to regulate U.S. gun laws, as it so far has been seen as an infringement of individuals' rights to carry firearms, as guaranteed by the constitution. It in general makes sure that the rights of Americans are guaranteed.
Sweden so far has not had an equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court, although the Justitekansler (JK) is supposed to guard individuals' constitutional rights and Lagrådet checks whether laws can be threatening to the constitution. Neither of these have worked very well though, or have been used that often. Lagrådet has acted when a law that would forbid protesters to mask or shield their faces in demostrations, and the law never passed. JK has been seen as quite a toothless and has not been able to act when the rights of individuals have been abused (for instance by government authorities). This is a central theme in the oh so popular Millenium-triology by Stieg Larsson, where I must admit the idea to this blog-entry came from. I don't know whether I argue for U.S. style Supreme Court for Sweden; as has been mentioned the political systems and realities of the two nations are very different and conditions can not easily be translated from the one to the other. However, Sweden would need something that better guarantee the rights of individuals against abuse and guards the ideals of the constitution, such as free-speech. However I twist and turn this issue I wind up seeing a necessity for some sort of Supreme Court with more responsibilities and abilities than both the Lagrådet and JK. Surely, it would not have same political weight as the U.S. one, as the Swedish constitution does not have the same huge importance that the U.S. does. If possible, a Swedish Supreme Court would need avoidance of the partisan politics that has plagued nominations and discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court. That can largely be avoided if politicians aren't eligible, but only lawyers, as these are not involved in politics at all in the same manner as in the US.
This could create a strong important judicial organ which would hold over shifting political majorities. Sweden has so far been reluctant to incorporate ideas and systems from American politics, and often with good rationale. But a Supreme Court might really be a thing to consider.
The Supreme Court holds a very special place in American politics compared to other Western nations. It is an important part of the system of checks and balances between the executive (the White House), the legislative (Congress), and the judicial. In general the system of checks and balances makes passing legislation more difficult, especially large and groundbreaking legislation. The role of the Supreme Court is to check whether laws are unconstitutional or not, to make sure laws do not oppose the intentions of the U.S. constitution. The highlighted word is very important here as it often gets thrown around, misused and abused. The Supreme Court has through history guaranteed a woman's right to abortion (Roe vs Wade) and ended law-regulated segregation in American schools (Brown vs Board of Education). On the other end of things, it is responsible for the difficulties to regulate U.S. gun laws, as it so far has been seen as an infringement of individuals' rights to carry firearms, as guaranteed by the constitution. It in general makes sure that the rights of Americans are guaranteed.
Sweden so far has not had an equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court, although the Justitekansler (JK) is supposed to guard individuals' constitutional rights and Lagrådet checks whether laws can be threatening to the constitution. Neither of these have worked very well though, or have been used that often. Lagrådet has acted when a law that would forbid protesters to mask or shield their faces in demostrations, and the law never passed. JK has been seen as quite a toothless and has not been able to act when the rights of individuals have been abused (for instance by government authorities). This is a central theme in the oh so popular Millenium-triology by Stieg Larsson, where I must admit the idea to this blog-entry came from. I don't know whether I argue for U.S. style Supreme Court for Sweden; as has been mentioned the political systems and realities of the two nations are very different and conditions can not easily be translated from the one to the other. However, Sweden would need something that better guarantee the rights of individuals against abuse and guards the ideals of the constitution, such as free-speech. However I twist and turn this issue I wind up seeing a necessity for some sort of Supreme Court with more responsibilities and abilities than both the Lagrådet and JK. Surely, it would not have same political weight as the U.S. one, as the Swedish constitution does not have the same huge importance that the U.S. does. If possible, a Swedish Supreme Court would need avoidance of the partisan politics that has plagued nominations and discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court. That can largely be avoided if politicians aren't eligible, but only lawyers, as these are not involved in politics at all in the same manner as in the US.
This could create a strong important judicial organ which would hold over shifting political majorities. Sweden has so far been reluctant to incorporate ideas and systems from American politics, and often with good rationale. But a Supreme Court might really be a thing to consider.
Friday, May 7, 2010
System of a Whatever
American research published recently cast some interesting light on the importance of political systems. It shows for instance that the about 1.2 million Swedes who immigrated to America experienced the same amount of poverty as the Swedes who stayed in the homeland, this despite very different health and socioeconomic conditions in the two countries. About 6,7 percent of Swedish-Americans lived below the poverty live, and the exact same number was shown for domestic Swedes when putting their economic situation in an American context. Stunningly enough similar things were shown when comparing Swedish and American life expectancies over time. 50 years ago the average Swede lived 2,7 years longer than the American. 2010, the difference remains at 2.7 years despite diverging directions over the past half century of the nations' health-care systems and income disparities within the publics. Does this mean that it simply doesn't matter which political system you incorporate? American limited government with private sponsored health-care, laissez-fair capitalism, individualism -or Swedish active government, extensive welfare state, and collective solutions seem to give the same results. So what's the point?
An important distinction is of course that Swedish life expectancy is still substantially higher than the American; especially considering we are talking about two Western countries. Another point, which was also made in this cited research, is the difference within the two nations. Whereas life expectancy in Sweden remains fairly similar across different socioeconomic strata, in the US big differences are present. Asian-Americans are expected to live a stunning 16 years than African Americans on average (89 years compared to 73; the number for Caucasians is 78 years). Reasons are of course to be found in the huge segregations of American society, where Asian-Americans have been able to gain higher level of education and start own enterprises, raising standard of living and thus life expectancy. African-Americans are on the other hand much more likely to experience poverty, crime, and gun violence.
We should of course have expected to see these differences between Sweden and America's political and economic systems. It follows what we have always been taught and told, and Americas system of fend-for-yourself-equality-of-opportunity have always yielded huge differences between people. Despite all the talk of the United States being the land of opportunity where everyone can live the American Dream, you are six times (count 'em) more likely to move upwards socioeconomically in Sweden than in the US. It is clear that the direction and color of our politics will continue to matter greatly.
An important distinction is of course that Swedish life expectancy is still substantially higher than the American; especially considering we are talking about two Western countries. Another point, which was also made in this cited research, is the difference within the two nations. Whereas life expectancy in Sweden remains fairly similar across different socioeconomic strata, in the US big differences are present. Asian-Americans are expected to live a stunning 16 years than African Americans on average (89 years compared to 73; the number for Caucasians is 78 years). Reasons are of course to be found in the huge segregations of American society, where Asian-Americans have been able to gain higher level of education and start own enterprises, raising standard of living and thus life expectancy. African-Americans are on the other hand much more likely to experience poverty, crime, and gun violence.
We should of course have expected to see these differences between Sweden and America's political and economic systems. It follows what we have always been taught and told, and Americas system of fend-for-yourself-equality-of-opportunity have always yielded huge differences between people. Despite all the talk of the United States being the land of opportunity where everyone can live the American Dream, you are six times (count 'em) more likely to move upwards socioeconomically in Sweden than in the US. It is clear that the direction and color of our politics will continue to matter greatly.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Negative campaigning and American influence
The hottest debate the last week in Sweden regarded what is almost exclusively considered an American phenomena. Negative campaigning and smear-tactics have entered Sweden's election race, and as commonly done it is blamed and depicted as an example of Americanization of our society. Surely, not all view it as something despicable, but rather as something that can spice up the political debate, create clearer political alternatives; things which in the end will increase peoples' interest and participation, even furthering democracy.
To be sure, negative campaigning and foul play are a present part of American elections from state to presidential. The latest run between Barack Obama and John McCain had it's very low moments, such as when McCain and Sarah Palin tried to align Obama with former members of Weather Underground, trying to make him seem to side with terrorists, hence being un-American and unfit for presidency. However, Swedes tend to overestimate the spread and impact of these tactics, giving the image that that is what American elections are all about. The Swedish mainstream media can in large part be blamed for this. Their reports of American elections consist in large part of the negative side of the campaigns and debates. It raises a lot of attention and draws viewers and readers to the media-outlets, hence raising profits. People want drama and conflict in politics (and at the same time they are tired of political squabbling...) which negative campaigning sometimes draws to its outer limits.
So far Swedish political life has been minimally influenced by American conditions, in part because American realities can not easily be translated to the Swedish as the political history and system of the two nations are quite different. However much people might like more conflicts and attention-raising debates, the larger part of Swedish society will continue to resist American influence and dub it as negative.
To be sure, negative campaigning and foul play are a present part of American elections from state to presidential. The latest run between Barack Obama and John McCain had it's very low moments, such as when McCain and Sarah Palin tried to align Obama with former members of Weather Underground, trying to make him seem to side with terrorists, hence being un-American and unfit for presidency. However, Swedes tend to overestimate the spread and impact of these tactics, giving the image that that is what American elections are all about. The Swedish mainstream media can in large part be blamed for this. Their reports of American elections consist in large part of the negative side of the campaigns and debates. It raises a lot of attention and draws viewers and readers to the media-outlets, hence raising profits. People want drama and conflict in politics (and at the same time they are tired of political squabbling...) which negative campaigning sometimes draws to its outer limits.
So far Swedish political life has been minimally influenced by American conditions, in part because American realities can not easily be translated to the Swedish as the political history and system of the two nations are quite different. However much people might like more conflicts and attention-raising debates, the larger part of Swedish society will continue to resist American influence and dub it as negative.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
What's It All About?
Why write yet another blog about the United States? It's been done, we've heard it, we've read it. No, you haven't.
There are special reasons for writing the story of American influences and presence in Sweden, and Sweden's existence and impact on America, as well as the special relationship between the two countries.
In relative terms, Sweden had the third highest immigration rate to the United States from the middle of the 19th century up until World War II, only surpassed by Ireland and Norway. The gives Sweden a special place in the creation of American life and society, and it puts America close in the "mental map" of many Swedes as personal and biological ties are created between the two countries by immigration. I would argue that the US are closer to Swedes than are many European countries. American influences are also heavily present in Swedish society and everyday life, perhaps mostly in the form of popular culture such as TV-series, movies, music, and clothing.
On the other hand Sweden and the United States are in many characteristics very different nations; our history of political and societal ideas vary vastly in certain aspects. Today it is perhaps most visible in the differentiated views on religion, welfare and taxes, and our relationship with the rest of the world.
The US and what goes on "over there" interests us and attracts significant media attention, not only in the field of politics but also sports, culture, media, religion, and "everyday life". These days Swedish mainstream media are occupied with the oil disaster that might come to threaten wildlife and nature on the Southeast coast of the US.
All these subjects and more will be explored and analyzed on this site. So stay tuned.
There are special reasons for writing the story of American influences and presence in Sweden, and Sweden's existence and impact on America, as well as the special relationship between the two countries.
In relative terms, Sweden had the third highest immigration rate to the United States from the middle of the 19th century up until World War II, only surpassed by Ireland and Norway. The gives Sweden a special place in the creation of American life and society, and it puts America close in the "mental map" of many Swedes as personal and biological ties are created between the two countries by immigration. I would argue that the US are closer to Swedes than are many European countries. American influences are also heavily present in Swedish society and everyday life, perhaps mostly in the form of popular culture such as TV-series, movies, music, and clothing.
On the other hand Sweden and the United States are in many characteristics very different nations; our history of political and societal ideas vary vastly in certain aspects. Today it is perhaps most visible in the differentiated views on religion, welfare and taxes, and our relationship with the rest of the world.
The US and what goes on "over there" interests us and attracts significant media attention, not only in the field of politics but also sports, culture, media, religion, and "everyday life". These days Swedish mainstream media are occupied with the oil disaster that might come to threaten wildlife and nature on the Southeast coast of the US.
All these subjects and more will be explored and analyzed on this site. So stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
