4

Basically, I’ve just lately been thinking about how it appears to be extremely common to hear people fault U.S. society in various ways, like income inequality, lack of universal healthcare and other welfare benefits, gerrymandering and different kinds of voting obstruction, high incarceration rates, and many other things; but actually, that the U.S. is actually an extremely successful and prosperous country, and, seen from a different angle, it actually performs excellently in many of the sectors it’s often faulted in. For example, even if healthcare is expensive, it doesn’t necessarily mean that people don’t have access to good healthcare; it may just be a societal difference that people spend more money when they go to the doctor, but maybe it comes out roughly the same as for example a Scandinavian country, because they’re still paying for healthcare, just through higher taxes.

I recently came back to the U.S. from Northern Europe and I was surprised by how fast and easy it was to sign up for Medicaid and Medicare and get benefits like food stamps. I feel like it’s not that common to hear people say, “In America, the government gives you free money for food,” but usually something more like, “there’s no social safety net in American society,” or the like.

Is it possible that there is something kind of related to a Streisand effect, maybe there’s a name for it in psychology, where it becomes more socially prevalent to find fault in something that is already understood by default to be extremely well-regarded in some way? Some sort of psychological “reactance” where people are subliminally more motivated to criticize and condemn possibly the most prosperous, developed and scientifically, technologically, and militaristically advanced and culturally influential country in the world; sort of like how people are more inclined to hate rich people and stoop to praise “the little guy”, someone they perceive as an underdog?

6
  • 2
    I'm not sure what you meant to refer to, but you aren't describing the Streisand effect ,which is the concept that suing for defamation can give rise to more reputational backlash than benefit to their reputation, for the person suing, effectively amplifying the allegedly false statement made about the person suing, and similar negative PR driving attempts to restrain speech. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jan 4 at 7:04
  • 1
    Anecdotally, there seems to be a type of selection bias where complainers tend to be far more vocal than satisfied people, thus creating a false perception of the average person being "more critical" than in reality.
    – dan04
    Commented Jan 4 at 7:23
  • 3
    If you're from the US, then you'll have had a lifetime of hearing complaints about the US (from the media/family/friends/acquaintances/coworkers/teachers). If you lived in Northern Europe for only some years, then you probably haven't had as much time to hear as many complaints from locals about their country. (Not being a native speaker of the local language would mean you've heard even fewer complaints from locals about their country.)
    – user103496
    Commented Jan 4 at 8:11
  • 4
    How do you measure/quantify the level of criticism? If there's no way, this is purely opinion-based.
    – Greendrake
    Commented Jan 4 at 8:29
  • 1
    @Greendrake: Opinion polls in which people in many countries (including the USA) are asked how good/bad their own country is.
    – dan04
    Commented Jan 4 at 16:13

2 Answers 2

7

Are Americans more critical of their own country as compared to other countries with similar levels of development?

it appears to be extremely common to hear people fault U.S. society in various ways, like income inequality, lack of universal healthcare and other welfare benefits, gerrymandering and different kinds of voting obstruction, high incarceration rates, and many other things; but actually, that the U.S. is actually an extremely successful and prosperous country, and, seen from a different angle, it actually performs excellently in many of the sectors it’s often faulted in.

Not really.

It is true that people complaining about the U.S. are complaining about the things that other countries do better than the U.S.

The U.S. really does has more income inequality that other developed countries.

The U.S. really does lack universal healthcare, pays more in the aggregate for healthcare than other countries, and gets worse results than other countries despite spending more. The U.S. is bad at most aspects of national epidemiology and public health and dealing with opioid overdoses and abuse and prenatal and infant health, although it has done an outstanding job of reducing tobacco use by international standards. And, there are particularly cutting edge medical procedures, like the care provided at its level one trauma centers and DNA therapies, that the U.S. is near the top in providing.

The U.S. really does have a weaker social safety net and is much more expensive to get a higher education in.

The U.S. really does have gerrymandering problems that are found in only a handful of other countries and fails to adhere to many basic principles of democratic electoral systems found in other countries (e.g., no other country has election administration handled predominantly by partisan elected officials). No other democratic country has such extreme deviations from the principle of one man, one vote, as the United States Senate does, and no other democratic country has a national political system so prone to gridlock and government shutdowns.

The U.S. really does have an extremely high incarceration rate compared to anyplace else in the world and has very harsh jail and prison conditions compared to most other developed countries and longer sentences for many comparable crimes. The U.S. also has very high murder rates compared to most other countries (developed and undeveloped alike) that are not actively involved in major wars, although a few countries in Latin American have higher murder rates driven mostly by drug cartels serving U.S. demand for illicit drugs made possible with U.S. sourced firearms.

It is true that critics of the U.S. compared to other developed countries often fail to note that other countries have their own different problems, in areas where the U.S. may be superior to other countries, although this is almost never in the same sectors it is often faulted in, and what constitutes "superior" is often a matter of opinion.

For example, the total tax collections of the U.S., particularly in the areas of corporate taxation, and the taxes paid by upper middle class and high income taxpayers in the U.S., and particularly in states with low state and local taxes, is quite low by international standards, which makes the U.S. an attractive place for a very economically productive person who can earn a high income to live in that respect.

Gasoline and diesel fuel prices, and the cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle generally, in the U.S. is much lower than in most other developed countries.

The U.S. has fairly high rates of home ownership, and particularly high rates of single family home ownership compared to other developed countries.

The U.S. has more robust protections for the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion than many other developed countries. The U.S. also has a high level of religious and cultural diversity compared to most other developed countries. And, while it doesn't have the highest levels of immigration, it welcomes a very large number of immigrants every year and compared to other countries has one of the higher percentages of foreign born people.

For better or for worse, U.S. data privacy regulations are much weaker than in the E.U., resulting in slighter burdens on businesses but less privacy protections. Business ownership information, however, is more private in the U.S. than in all but a handful of tax and asset protection havens.

While the U.S. has had some back sliding in the past few years, parts of the U.S. have easier access to abortion than many other developed countries, and the U.S. is still a leader in LGBT+ rights despite some setbacks in some U.S. states in the last few years.

The U.S. has a high per capita GDP by international standards, even though its national wealth isn't very equally distributed.

While undergraduate higher education in the U.S. is much more expensive than in most developed countries, and while the rigor of its high school level educational programs is lower, on average, the U.S. has very high rates of high school completion and has some of the most rigorous higher educational programs in the world. The U.S. is particularly exceptional in the area of graduate education in the sciences and engineering, where it educates an outsized share of all people in the world with graduate educations of this kind. On the other hand, the U.S. is one of the worst countries in the developed world when it comes to foreign language instruction through its schools and universities.

The U.S. has the most powerful and technologically advanced nuclear arsenal, Air Force, and Navy in the world, and the most advanced satellite intelligence and electronic and signals intelligence resources in the world, albeit at the cost of having the largest annual military and intelligence expenditures in the world by a long shot. Whether this power has been used wisely by the U.S. or not is a matter of opinion.

For better or for worse, the U.S. has a very weak labor movement compared to most European countries, and has historically been far less prone to "street politics" such as general strikes, mass demonstrations, and the like. An individual non-union employee in the U.S. likewise has some of the weakest pro-employee laws in the world, particularly with regard to vacations, sick leave, retirement benefits, and wrongful termination of employment, although U.S. workplace safety is at least par for the course by international standards.

The U.S., by virtue of its sheer size and by the amount of economic regulation that is either done at the national level or is standardized through similar state legal regimes or private sector standardization, has a massive free travel and free trade zone with a common language and currency, and the regulatory burdens of operating an interstate business in the U.S. are far less than those of operating a multinational business in the E.U.

U.S. treatment of racial and ethnic minorities is, rightly, criticized a great deal, but some of the reason that this issue is more visible in the U.S. is not because Americans are more prejudiced that people in other developed countries, but because its society is far less homogeneous than many other developed countries.

There are also domains where the U.S. is neither exceptionally good, nor exceptionally poor.

For example, the U.S. is neither the least corrupt, nor the most corrupt developed country. The U.S. does not have the strongest manufacturing sector, but it also doesn't have the worst. The U.S. is in the middle of the pack when it comes to being environmentally friendly and safe from accidents. The U.S. criminal justice system is neither particularly accurate, nor particularly prone to wrongful convictions compared to other developed countries (although it is much worse when it comes to correcting its mistakes and wrongfully executes more people than any other developed country). The U.S. is neither particularly high, nor particularly low, in the rate at which children are born to non-married parents, by international developed country standards.

In sum, every country has some things that it is better at and some things that it is worse at. Americans making international comparisons that are critical of their own country aren't wrong. And, it is perfectly natural to focus on what is wrong in your own country as you try to fix its flaws. But critics of things that the U.S. does poorly by international standards do indeed often have much less awareness of the things that the U.S does better than other countries, which are easy to take for granted.

I recently came back to the U.S. from Northern Europe and I was surprised by how fast and easy it was to sign up for Medicaid and Medicare and get benefits like food stamps. I feel like it’s not that common to hear people say, “In America, the government gives you free money for food,” but usually something more like, “there’s no social safety net in American society,” or the like.

In the U.S., a significant proportion of the population does not have any health insurance or government provided healthcare (about 27 million people as of 2022 according the U.S. Census Bureau via the 2024 World Almanac hard copy), and those who do have private health insurance often pay very high prices for their health insurance (often their single largest monthly bill) and also have to pay large sums of money after insurance for that care. Medicaid is income and asset tested, and Medicare is limited to the elderly, certain disabled people, and a few other small categories of people. No other developed country (and few undeveloped countries) have so many economic barriers to receiving health care for such a large share of its people, and the health care outcomes are still poor. Yet, the U.S. spends 18.8% of its GDP on healthcare ($11,702 per person), while runners up Germany and Canada (among the 50 countries with the largest populations) spend less than $6,000 USD per capita and less than 13% of GDP on healthcare (per the WHO via the same hard copy source). The U.S. also has a falling life expectancy.

Food stamps and other means based aid is also stringier in amount and availability in the U.S. than in most developed countries. And, in areas like unemployment insurance and government housing assistance, the U.S. is much weaker. Social security in the U.S. is also less generous to elderly Americans than most developed country retirement systems.

A decent personal anecdotal experience doesn't negative overall systemwide problems.

11
  • 4
    @dan04 This isn't what I said. What I said was that "No other democratic country has such extreme deviations from the principle of one man, one vote" as is found in the U.S. Senate (where, e.g., Wyoming and California have an equal say, but a 68:1 population ratio (ignoring the zero representation of D.C., Puerto Rico, that it has etc.). Other countries that aren't strictly one-man, one-vote have less disparate degrees of deviation from that principle and fewer adults with no vote in the national government at all.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jan 4 at 7:37
  • 3
    There is indeed a significant proportion of Americans who engage in national criticism, whether warranted or not, for the reasons noted above. But it should also be noted that there is also a big chunk of the American public that is, quite, the opposite, and that will not envision any circumstances in which the US is less than a shining city on the hill. Whether or not they are stronger proportionally than in other countries - national pride or vainglory is hardly a US exclusivity - is a matter of opinion. Commented Jan 4 at 18:34
  • 2
    @ohwilleke The US Senate is not supposed to represent the people in the states (but the state itself). This comparison makes no sense. Do people complain that countries get equal veto power in the EU despite differing population or equal votes in the UN despite differing population? The US Senate has, frankly, nothing to do with representing the individuals in those states. There is another house of congress whose job is to do so and is not equally represented but instead the numbers vary based on the population of the state.
    – uberhaxed
    Commented Jan 5 at 16:33
  • 2
    @ohwilleke It only appears to be "anti-democratic" if you, for some reason, believe that the senate is supposed to represent people (instead of something else, like a state or a country). The parliaments and lowers houses of governments don't have representation for the birds that live in their country, but everyone understands that those organs represent something specific (humans). Moreover, comparing countries with different governments makes little sense. Many countries (but not the US) are extremely centralized, to the point where all the schools have the same lessons on the same days.
    – uberhaxed
    Commented Jan 5 at 17:20
  • 2
    @uberhaxed Analyzing the question at the level of the U.S. Senate alone ignores the point. The issue is that the U.S. federal government as a whole is less democratic than almost any other modern Western democracy, which is why the U.S. Constitution is disparaged as the "Microsoft of Democracy". The U.S.. Senate is an important reason that this is true. And the whole point of the question is to compare different governments and countries. When it comes to the democratic process, the U.S. is grossly inferior.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jan 5 at 17:24
2

I've heard plenty Italians complaining about their beautiful and nice country. Russians are often too critical of their country which is only revealed when they try to actually live abroad. Don't get me started on how Balkan people feel about what is stunning, affordable and tasty experience to everybody else.

So, it looks like an universal phenomenon. Moreover, never treat immigration like tourism - it is a given that you will see more rough edges as a resident (or worse, as an immigrant) than you would when spending your leisure time with full wallet.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .