Compromise

[Furunculus]

I think he is saying that by arguing that identity politics create division, you're basically ignoring the division that already exists and spawned identity politics in the first place.

and yes, i accept the latter part of that sentence, but i don't accept that it is any kind of good solution to the problem.

a bit like the EU, my answer is that we need more EU to solve the problem (liberalism - in this case).

[Husar]

and yes, i accept the latter part of that sentence, but i don't accept that it is any kind of good solution to the problem.

I would agree with that to some extent, there is a chance however, that more preferable approaches have failed for years and led to identity politics as an approach where people finally see results. I might have been too young then to comment on previous approaches though.

a bit like the EU, my answer is that we need more EU to solve the problem (liberalism - in this case).

Wait, you think we need more EU and liberalism in the EU is a problem? Weren't you in favor of Brexit? Did I finally convince you?

[Montmorency]

I would agree with that to some extent, there is a chance however, that more preferable approaches have failed for years and led to identity politics as an approach where people finally see results. I might have been too young then to comment on previous approaches though.



Wait, you think we need more EU and liberalism in the EU is a problem? Weren't you in favor of Brexit? Did I finally convince you?

He's talking about this:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.

[Husar]

He's talking about this:

Oh, but that is terribly wrong and old-fashioned.

That model works when everybody carves their own cave or 12 people live in a wooden hut in the Canadian forest.
In a highly specialized society that is built on specialization and trade, people cannot be expected to solve their own problems because their entire environment is built around the idea that every specific problem is solved by a specific expert in return for money. Obviously having no money constitutes a problem in that society and the government takes the role of an insurer in the sense that it insures people have a certain minimum income while the people usually also pay into that insurance when they have their own income. This was created to ensure a civilized society, minimize unrest and criminality. Because when I have to solve my problems on my own and noone gives a shit about me, i might not give a shit about everyone else and adopt a criminal model to solve my money problems.

This is why you're far more likely to get robbed in countries that have no safety nets and a "small government". In Colombia (and many other countries like that), every home is a fortress and there were decades of civil war because people weren't happy with being poor and helpless.
Or in other words "self-help" may lead someone else to conclude that putting a bullet into your head might help him the most...

[rory_20_uk]

Columbia had a civil war in no small part due to the Cold War followed by the Narco trade. There was very little uprising by the poor and disposessed - it was heavily armed gangs.

And more broadly, I think you are missing the point.

In your cave there are bonds of trust and comradeship. If societies where this scales up the bonds remain and there's a "we're all in this together" attitude. The ultimate is probably Iceland which remains extremely homogeneous and where people genuinely seem to care about each other.

When you have lost all the shared bonds things go wrong - people might be happy to give to those they have some sort of bond to (even if this is more indirect than in the cave) but when they perceive it is to a different "community" then the bonds have been lost, and then each retreats mentally and physically to "their" group - in homogeneous societies if taxes are low, often charity is much higher since people are much more likely to feel the common bond. This is hardly helped when people on both sides spend all their energy pointing out differences referred to as "communities" with spokespersons for each group and thus dividing rather than facilitating integration.

A country with low taxes and low crime? Georgia is one. Malta and Gibraltar are two others. Three small enclaves either literally islands or close and all with bigger more powerful neighbours who probably provide a strong "the other".

The other approach is that the Law is pretty effective (in terms of finding someone to blame, not finding what is ethically fair) and pretty brutal. Enter countries such as Qatar and the UAE where the underclass is ruled with an iron rod. Or a lot of Africa where the "leadership" doesn't really have to care about the starving slaves.

[Husar]

Columbia had a civil war in no small part due to the Cold War followed by the Narco trade. There was very little uprising by the poor and disposessed - it was heavily armed gangs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolu...es_of_Colombia

The FARC-EP was formed during the Cold War period as a Marxist–Leninist peasant force promoting a political line of agrarianism and anti-imperialism.

At best you have just agreed that when the peasants rise and aren't put down before they can build up their own economy, they do indeed get the funding to buy stuff and are financially better off than they were under "the system".

And more broadly, I think you are missing the point.

In your cave there are bonds of trust and comradeship. If societies where this scales up the bonds remain and there's a "we're all in this together" attitude. The ultimate is probably Iceland which remains extremely homogeneous and where people genuinely seem to care about each other.

When you have lost all the shared bonds things go wrong - people might be happy to give to those they have some sort of bond to (even if this is more indirect than in the cave) but when they perceive it is to a different "community" then the bonds have been lost, and then each retreats mentally and physically to "their" group - in homogeneous societies if taxes are low, often charity is much higher since people are much more likely to feel the common bond. This is hardly helped when people on both sides spend all their energy pointing out differences referred to as "communities" with spokespersons for each group and thus dividing rather than facilitating integration.

Iceland is also incredibly small in terms of population and benefits from heavily capitalist schemes that depend on other countries with larger populations to finance a social safety net without which the inhabitants don't feel so warm and fuzzy anymore:
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2...eland-s-crisis

Homelessness is as rare as ever here, slums nonexistent, and crime remains low. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and their savings, but Iceland’s well-developed social safety net is catching them long before they hit the ground.

Iceland is more a proof of my point than yours. You obviously don't need to tax your small population if you get enough money from business dealings financed from abroad. But that scheme does not work for India for example, or perhaps only if it ruined every other country's banking sector in the process. India has a caste system by the way, lovely way to treat "your people". And charity isn't saving India either.

A country with low taxes and low crime? Georgia is one. Malta and Gibraltar are two others. Three small enclaves either literally islands or close and all with bigger more powerful neighbours who probably provide a strong "the other".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate
Georgia has about three times the intentional homicide rate of Germany, Malta is a tax haven (again, don't need to tax population with so much outside business coming in -> niche model) with an ongoing corruption scandal involving the use of a car bomb. Hardly a good example for the world.
Gibraltar is an even smaller tax haven...

Show me a large country with low taxes, no social safety net from the government and low crime rates. Tiny countries that finance themselves through the niche tactic of siphoning off taxes from larger countries cannot be a model for every country because the model requires larger countries to siphon the money from...

The other approach is that the Law is pretty effective (in terms of finding someone to blame, not finding what is ethically fair) and pretty brutal. Enter countries such as Qatar and the UAE where the underclass is ruled with an iron rod. Or a lot of Africa where the "leadership" doesn't really have to care about the starving slaves.

Or Norway and Denmark, where taxes are high, social safety is given and crime is low. Germany, Austria (Australia?) and Canada, which are somewhere in between.

[rory_20_uk]

A large country that has a homogeneous populace - one of the requirements I specified... I never said there was - my point was that the bigger and more diverse states end up getting the less the people care for each other. Just adding more countries and expecting it all to just work is madness. Any large supra-state organisations come to mind here? Perhaps where desire to be part appears to be hand in hand with massive handouts?

To play your game, Germany is a net exporter - so their system exists by charging other countries for their wares, and relies therefore on others to pay. Norway is a small country with a tiny population practically floating on oil with a massive wealth fund as well as being not very diverse. Denmark is another small country with a net positive balance of trade. Easy to be nice to their own people when money is flooding in from abroad. Different niches all - but in essence having a net influx of money underpinning it all.

India is a massive gestalt that was cobbled together by (mainly) the (eeeeevil) British who defeated all the local (and therefore lovely), erm, autocrats. And yes, and religions which mean there are both Hindu / Islam unrest as well as a Caste system which is designed to oppress. They're not getting a social security net since they really don't like each other.

[Husar]

Yes, I'm well aware of the whole export surplus thing. Unfortunately I'm not the Kaiser who can change that.

I just don't see though, how big and diverse is proven to mean people care less about eachother. The UK has a much bigger and more diverse population than Denmark or Norway and still claims to have some kind of coherence, enough to go for a Brexit and be super nationalist.
Most of the grievances about foreigners also stem from economic inequality. You rarely see rich people complaining about how the foreigners are ruining the country. Meanwhile the poor "foreigners" tend to complain more about racism than the rich ones. Somehow it's almost as though poverty breeds or facilitates this resentment.

[Furunculus]

Husar, you built a straw man and then knocked it down.

Thatchers words did not herald the arrival of a low tax state with no social safety net, and nothing in those words would suggest that it would or should. Britain remained a state that taxed nearly forty percent of gdp and retained a significant and we'll funded social safety net.

It was simply less than was expected on the continent - resulting from our greater emphasis of liberty over equality - but nothing out of the ordinary in the Anglo sphere countries. Large specialised and successful countries, than somehow manage without a pronounced collectivist bent.

It is a choice, not a necessity, and one I'm free not to choose.

[Husar]

Husar, you built a straw man and then knocked it down.

Thatchers words did not herald the arrival of a low tax state with no social safety net, and nothing in those words would suggest that it would or should. Britain remained a state that taxed nearly forty percent of gdp and retained a significant and we'll funded social safety net.

It was simply less than was expected on the continent - resulting from our greater emphasis of liberty over equality - but nothing out of the ordinary in the Anglo sphere countries. Large specialised and successful countries, than somehow manage without a pronounced collectivist bent.

It is a choice, not a necessity, and one I'm free not to choose.

You're probably right somewhere and I'll shamefully retire and let you guys resolve this problem.

[Montmorency]

It is a choice, not a necessity, and one I'm free not to choose.

"I choose what I choose!" Wasn't that from Sex and the City?


As to national cohesion, I believe there is a common aphorism derived from history:

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of fellow-feeling must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of undesirables.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, I'm well aware of the whole export surplus thing. Unfortunately I'm not the Kaiser who can change that.

I just don't see though, how big and diverse is proven to mean people care less about each other. The UK has a much bigger and more diverse population than Denmark or Norway and still claims to have some kind of coherence, enough to go for a Brexit and be super nationalist.
Most of the grievances about foreigners also stem from economic inequality. You rarely see rich people complaining about how the foreigners are ruining the country. Meanwhile the poor "foreigners" tend to complain more about racism than the rich ones. Somehow it's almost as though poverty breeds or facilitates this resentment.

Coherence in the UK? WTF??!? Apart from Scotland hating England (to the point of supporting whoever England is playing), Northern Ireland continues to be a weeping sore and even parts of what is England continue to try to leave - such as Cornwall. This leaves aside the North / South divide and of course London vs everyone else. And we have not even got onto the multitude of different "communities" which are increasingly encouraged to live alongside each other rather than together.

"Brexit" might have seemed to offer some coherence, but only if one believes the pathetically simplistic messages that both sides were spouting - given the ridiculously over-simplistic vote that was given. In or out with no ability to state what either might mean. So my vote might appear to be exactly the same as some BNP xenophobe skin-head but personally I'd even query we are in the same species let alone any other alignment as both being "British" or "English".

Not exactly poverty - both the Caste system and the Feudal system (followed by the class system) were there to make people be happy with their place in the world.

And at one level this is a Good Thing: it is better for everyone - and me - if I can be happy with my little life in my little life with my little family in my little house. Merely by being in the UK I am in the top 1% of the world. And I am doing pretty nicely even in the UK population. So I should just be happy, and dare I say it be thankful with what I have. No, I will never win the lottery. I will not be paid millions of pounds for some dodgy deal nor be worth billions in no time at all because people are prepared to pay the money for my vapid family and I to be on TV. I will live an insignificant life that has no import on humanity - even if I were to focus on doing bad rather than good (since it is often easier) no one would care after a few years, tops. Rather than focus on the unfairness, be happy

There is evidence to support this. Many communities around coal mining still look back with nostalgia where all able bodied males would go down into an extremely dangerous environment to do a job which shortens their life by years with almost no hope their children would do anything but follow them down t'pit; their daughters marrying the bloke down the road and having 3 kids by 22. Community. An acceptance of their place in the world. Familiarity. Things that are of course anathema now since all of us should strive to be amazingly successful really quickly with no effort. And the often self imposed pressure to do this and the anxiety and depression when life just isn't like this is making many people a lot less happier.

Apparently, the mental health of black Americans is better than white Americans... even though almost every facet of the deck continues to be stacked against them. Whether this is the continuing role religion plays in their lives or whether it is not what one has rather the direction of travel - to be less poor than yesterday is better than being less rich than yesterday.

Hell, look in WW1 - on all sides the disenfranchised, poor masses enthusiastically signed up to kill each other for reasons they'd not been told beyond some gruff statements about Empire and Fatherland. If poverty was a driver they'd have had the Revolution as occurred in Russia.

[Montmorency]

Coal miners were some of the most restive and militant laborers in modern history; why do you assume they were happy, or that the old serfs were happy? Without even defining happiness of course, a challenge worthy of a separate thread.

The first thing to remember is that there was not, in the past, really anything better to go to or conceive of. So why would you leave? When people thought otherwise, mass migrations occurred. Or when there was overpopulation, young people went off on colonial projects. In ancient times, any kind of violent or ecological shock could induce a whole village to pack up and leave. Presumably it was a fairly lethal endeavour, and it could only occur with the collapse of agriculture, the loss of homes, or the encroachment of invaders. In these eras people may even have been relatively prepared to abandon it all in desperate times, pack up everything not nailed down and break up what was for kindling, down to the very doors and floors. Increasingly in the past millennium however, in Europe at least, migration was obviated. Most of the peasants and burghers were pigeonholed by their lords, right? And other European land was divvied up among recognizable authorities even if there was some fantastic rumored destination out there.

But I think what you're indicating is pride, the same kind of pride in place, community, and heritage that leaves contemporary Trumpland (née Rust Belt) residents unable to dissolve their derelict departments and scatter to the winds.

Having a shitty job in the family is a kind of heritage too, even when only a handful of thousands work it in the modern day. When every public school teacher and worker in West Virginia went on extended strike a few months ago, they wore the red ribbon of the centuried striking coal miner. Job retraining for middle-aged rural manual laborers is a sunk proposition from the go, but more than that the extended networks of such people rejected Hillary Clinton because they didn't want to try retraining. They want(ed) re-jobbing.

People get attached to place, even if it leads to other forms of self-harm or bone-curdling sentiment. And it's understandable. I don't want to live as an itinerant, riding the coattails of the economy here and there, a "free economic agent" pursuing my optimal financial interest. Dwelling in a megalopolis I don't have to worry about it in the same way though, ours worry for the pricing out of meta-gentrification and speculatory property management.


Mental health of African Americans is something to be sourced here for scrutiny; they have less access and usage to services for one, and this could either be down to location/income, or to self-suppressive cultural norms of the kind that only in recent years are being seriously confronted before the general population.

[rory_20_uk]

Pride has a part to play. But in the UK until very recently people were very protective of the "Class" that they had along with a pride in their class and what they did. They believed there wasn't something better, with each class looking down at the others for different reasons.

Now, everyone is constantly informed about what is "better" and "winners never quit" / "never compromise" / "there is no plan B" / "if you're not happy, quit". If you're life is not perfect every minute of every day then you are a failure. Any problem you have with your job / partner / family means you should immediately remove them from your life. Oh, and you should probably sue someone for something.

And yes, they wanted re-jobbing. To continue doing what they'd always done. Not to strive and to change. To stay in the rut they are in surrounded by what they know. What is that? Contentedness? Stability? Happiness? Whatever semantics you frame it - they want what they've got to continue. People would prefer to earn less and earn it constantly than earn more and have no stability. And i can relate to that when I was a Locum GP a few years ago I hated it and was so much... happier when I got a new steady job where I earned a lower salary.

Modern society is forcing people to tread unknown roads with no security nor any guarantee it will even work - at least the Journeyman expected to settle down at some point and have a role. Now whatever you do might be outsourced, moved offshore, replaced with AI or who knows what?

A Brave New World had of course the Class system taken to its extreme as a horrific dystopia with everyone mindlessly happy with their place in the world - the only outsider eventually killing himself. Thankfully we have avoided that with people free to live in utter despair without purpose and increasingly turning to narcotics to block out reality. Much better!

[Greyblades]

What's so great about compromise, and why isn't it considered a last resort in the exhaustion of other options? Why is the mere presence of compromise, rather than the content or subject, valorized?

Because too often those that refuse compromise plunge the parties into bloodshed.

Wars tend to teach a people the value of compromise through the mess fanatics make while culling themselves.

[Montmorency]

And yes, they wanted re-jobbing. To continue doing what they'd always done. Not to strive and to change. To stay in the rut they are in surrounded by what they know. What is that? Contentedness? Stability? Happiness? Whatever semantics you frame it - they want what they've got to continue. People would prefer to earn less and earn it constantly than earn more and have no stability. And i can relate to that when I was a Locum GP a few years ago I hated it and was so much... happier when I got a new steady job where I earned a lower salary.

One of the sad things, what the modern world does to one's mindset, is how you will frequently see upper-middle class liberals and leftists echoing conservative rhetoric and mocking the stranded inland folk for their refusal to uproot their lives and find a new way in the world. This has to come from our valuing and emphasizing the theory of social mobility* as an ideal class-relationship. Refusal to engage on those terms becomes a character flaw.

[To be a bit sophistic there was plenty of social mobility in premodern times; you just had to kill the right people.[/SPOIL]

I mean, not that there's an intrinsic nobility (savage or otherwise) to inland folk, they're frequently attested to be awful and shortsighted people, but "get a job and pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is always a cruel and counterproductive thing to tell someone without boots, or without a longing for the (rather metaphorical) road.

And i can relate to that when I was a Locum GP a few years ago I hated it and was so much... happier when I got a new steady job where I earned a lower salary.

We've had threads here about nurse crews being understaffed by policy in the NHS, leading to burnout, among other things.

Medical schools are highly competitive, expensive, and residencies demanding to the point of abuse. Correct me if I'm being silly, but wouldn't significantly increasing the capacity, admittance, and output of academies, and positions for graduates to fill in practice, be positive for both professionals' work-life balance and patient care/engagement? They would be paid less, of course... Same question for nurses.

[Strike For The South]

People get attached to place, even if it leads to other forms of self-harm or bone-curdling sentiment. And it's understandable. I don't want to live as an itinerant, riding the coattails of the economy here and there, a "free economic agent" pursuing my optimal financial interest. Dwelling in a megalopolis I don't have to worry about it in the same way though, ours worry for the pricing out of meta-gentrification and speculatory property management.

That video was a straight up white nationalist primer. Gross.

[Greyblades]

"The london that in 15 years a white person will be a minority. [...] Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe? [...] My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is we were told, not asked."

This is white nationalism? I though white nationalism was supposed to be the removal or extermination of non whites, Nazis! Ubermenchen! Rivers of Blood!

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

[AE Bravo]

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

On another note, Britain has been (to put it mildly) quite adept in neocolonialism. The co-option and exploitation of underdeveloped countries has yielded these very same results that are being complained about. I vaguely remember you advocating for this intrusion concerning Hong Kong and some African states I don't recall. This comparison is only similar in that it serves the economy at the cost of some sort of social (racial) comfort. We can only conclude that Britain has seen the benefits of this "alienation" firsthand and seeks to replicate it for its benefit again.

[Pannonian]

"The london that in 15 years a white person will be a minority. [...] Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe? [...] My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is we were told, not asked."

This is white nationalism? I though white nationalism was supposed to be the removal or extermination of non whites, Nazis! Ubermenchen! Rivers of Blood!

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

Parts of the east end are majority non-white because the whites have moved out to the suburbs that were built post-war. The exodus was entirely voluntary, and pre-dated the influx of non-whites. If you want to point fingers, point at the Blitz and the subsequent decision to build a better Britain, away from the Victorians' slums.

[Pannonian]

On another note, Britain has been (to put it mildly) quite adept in neocolonialism. The co-option and exploitation of underdeveloped countries has yielded these very same results that are being complained about. I vaguely remember you advocating for this intrusion concerning Hong Kong and some African states I don't recall. This comparison is only similar in that it serves the economy at the cost of some sort of social (racial) comfort. We can only conclude that Britain has seen the benefits of this "alienation" firsthand and seeks to replicate it for its benefit again.

TBF, China are the biggest proponents of neocolonialism. Some Pakistanis are doubtful about the projects that are taking place in their country. And that's the most militarily powerful Muslim country in the world. Other, smaller countries don't have the leverage that Pakistan does, and they'll be less able to resist whatever those Pakistanis see coming.

[Gilrandir]

TBF, China are the biggest proponents of neocolonialism. Some Pakistanis are doubtful about the projects that are taking place in their country. And that's the most militarily powerful Muslim country in the world.

What about Turkey?

[Pannonian]

What about Turkey?

Isn't that just migration, without drawing resources back to the mother country? Romania has quite a few nationals in other countries too, but no-one's accusing them of neocolonialism. The Chinese form has the hallmarks of old school colonialism, which is why some Pakistanis are protesting about the advisability of Chinese investment.

[Gilrandir]

Isn't that just migration, without drawing resources back to the mother country? Romania has quite a few nationals in other countries too, but no-one's accusing them of neocolonialism. The Chinese form has the hallmarks of old school colonialism, which is why some Pakistanis are protesting about the advisability of Chinese investment.

I meant your statement of Pakistan as a Muslim military power #1. Is it rather Turkey?

[Pannonian]

I meant your statement of Pakistan as a Muslim military power #1. Is it rather Turkey?

Pakistan has nukes.

[Gilrandir]

Pakistan has nukes.

No country has used nukes against another since 1945. So Pakistan isn't likely to use them either. Taking them out of calculations, I believe it is on par with Turkey.

[Husar]

"The london that in 15 years a white person will be a minority. [...] Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe? [...] My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is we were told, not asked."

This is white nationalism? I though white nationalism was supposed to be the removal or extermination of non whites, Nazis! Ubermenchen! Rivers of Blood!

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

I thought the great part about the UK was that it's such a sturdy, bloodless democracy with Queenish checks and balances and a house of noblemen and a free congress that it's the best democracy in the world. And now I have to read that people feel like it's a dictatorship? Shocking!

Perhaps it appears racist because these dictatorship accusations only come up in reference to immigration and contradict everything people say about the government regarding other political topics?

[rory_20_uk]

I thought the great part about the UK was that it's such a sturdy, bloodless democracy with Queenish checks and balances and a house of noblemen and a free congress that it's the best democracy in the world. And now I have to read that people feel like it's a dictatorship? Shocking!

Perhaps it appears racist because these dictatorship accusations only come up in reference to immigration and contradict everything people say about the government regarding other political topics?

Technically the UK is a Theocracy. The Head of State is appointed by God. It is clearly not a dictatorship, but it is one where although the number of voters is large, the number of people with Real Power is very small.

In the UK, people are not asked in entering wars, the alteration to the NHS / the school system / the pension system and on it goes. Our "representatives" do whatever they feel like and at the next election really promise to not lie so much next time.

Don't you dare disabuse me of my view that Germany is the bastion of Democracy with a sensible system of devolved responsibilities and a PR system that enables the country to slowly shift position as the coalition alters... You have a leader who seems to have the ability to understand what she's doing and focuses on doing it rather than the latest PR campaign. If I wasn't so utterly useless at languages I'd have considered relocating over there.

[Husar]

Don't you dare disabuse me of my view that Germany is the bastion of Democracy with a sensible system of devolved responsibilities and a PR system that enables the country to slowly shift position as the coalition alters... You have a leader who seems to have the ability to understand what she's doing and focuses on doing it rather than the latest PR campaign. If I wasn't so utterly useless at languages I'd have considered relocating over there.

Merkel is really difficult to judge. Internationally she appears to look great, domestically she seems less great. She promises broadband internet for everyone every election but hasn't delivered yet. This year, the goal was for everyone to have at least 50MBit/s, but we are nowhere near that outside of larger cities. And then her ministers go rogue (or soft) in favor of big business, we still export weapons to Turkey and SA and not much is done about rising housing prices and the wealth gap, etc. Most of the "good" things she does weren't her idea in the first place. She's certainly okay in an international comparison, but there is quite a bit of room for improvement and internationally she only looks good because other countries lowered their standards...but maybe that's the best one can get in a crazy world?

[Montmorency]

Merkel is really difficult to judge. Internationally she appears to look great, domestically she seems less great. She promises broadband internet for everyone every election but hasn't delivered yet. This year, the goal was for everyone to have at least 50MBit/s, but we are nowhere near that outside of larger cities. And then her ministers go rogue (or soft) in favor of big business, we still export weapons to Turkey and SA and not much is done about rising housing prices and the wealth gap, etc. Most of the "good" things she does weren't her idea in the first place. She's certainly okay in an international comparison, but there is quite a bit of room for improvement and internationally she only looks good because other countries lowered their standards...but maybe that's the best one can get in a crazy world?

Well, she is a conservative (center-right) leader in the end.

If you were an American, you would learn to be satisfied with moderately expensive 20 Mb.