Talk:United States/Culture

This is a topical archive of discussion posted to Talk:United States

Culture

The section on Culture seems to be focused on exported popular culture, rather than on American culture as experienced within the country. And, it mentions Seattle several times: I like Seattle a lot, but it has not had much influence on American culture. Whereas, for example, Californian culture (and I'm not writing this as a fan) has had a huge influence and it is not really mentioned. brassrat

I agree with user:brassrat. The culture section is focused on exported culture in TV and movies. The US is a diverse place and there should be a section titled Regional Culture. Please user:Golbez stop vandalizing and deleting the Regional Culture section. Can we get a sys admin to stop Golbez?

Hey, 67.123.172.188, sorry if I called your additions "useless," but Golbez didn't vandalize anything: your additions weren't even really about "culture," you basically just mentioned different church denominations and said that Northerners are called Yankees. I agree with Brassrat too, but your stuff didn't really cover that. --Jleon 01:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

lol wtf --Golbez 04:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

That said, the anon's edits may well have a place, since it has been pointed out, accurately so, that the Culture section focuses too much perhaps on the export of culture. Still, it was turning into somewhat of a checklist of the different cultures in America, without giving any time to the unifying culture most Americans have. The different bits may have a use, but this is the article for the country, not for the states or the regions. --Golbez 04:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not rename "Culture" section, "Entertainment Industry" and move it to the "Economy" section. You can read the "Culture" section and think the USA is all about "Sex and the City". The culture section has nothing about cultural traditions, traditional clothing, traditional attitudes, or traditional holidays. And yes, my input is more like a starting point for others to add on to. I have not lived in the North, so I could not add much about it's culture, but had hoped someone would add on. As far as deletion of newly entered is concerned, it is forbidden in all the guidelines I have read. Stubs are encouraged as a starting point. If somebody goes along deleting contributions, pretty soon people will stop contributing. -anon

Culture

Apologies if it's already discussed in some sub-article I haven't read, but isn't it noteworthy that the US is unique (or nearly so) among Western nations in allowing personal firearms? It certainly ties in closely to the inversion of the attitudes towards (public/media depictions of) sexuality and violence relative to, say, European culture. It seems to me that this deserves some sort of mention under "culture" or so. --Tardis 16:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to start by looking at Gun politics, but I think a brief mention here with a link would not be out of place. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we could but then you're opening the door to a bunch of other things we could mention about American culture. The U.S. has the death penalty whereas European countries do not.

The religion section provides statistics but doesn't mention the sharp divide between religion and secularism. Europe, in contrast, is much more secular and much less religious (except for the Muslims).

We should also mention the power of religion on public policy (e.g. the debates on abortion and same-sex marriages).

All of this discussion to be done with NPOV, of course.

Richard 17:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that all that you mention belongs in the article (and I'm American), but I agree that it will be difficult to write it well, and could be edit-war prone. Seems worth doing, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out the culture section. It's a mish-mash but at least I got it started. Now let's see what other people think it should say. BTW, I'm an American too.

Richard 17:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the culture section as very badly researched, and seems to be the kind of political 'common knowledge' edit we should be trying to resist here, presenting a very limited and POV version of political influences in the United States.

Primalchaos

Primalchaos deleted the entire "Culture" section that I had created on grounds that it was "unscholarly and highly inaccurate". Of course, I was miffed since it was my idea and I had invested some effort into it. However, since I don't like edit wars and I have to admit he has a point, I would like to suggest a different approach.

I hadn't had time to write a full section so I figured that I would write a stub and let people add to it. Primalchaos obviously didn't like that approach. An alternative approach is for us to work on it "off-line" and then put it back in when there is a consensus that it is ready for prime time.

To this end, I have created a sub page "Talk:United States/Culture". Please make any proposed edits there but let's talk about it here. I'm open to changing the name of the section and rearranging the structure of the sections in addition to changing the text.

The sub page "Talk:United States/Culture" no longer exists because it got hijacked (and I use that word without any resentment or bitterness) by Bruce Hallman who wanted it to be about conservatism.

It has therefor been moved to Talk:United States/Conservatism

Richard 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think there are important points to be made about the American culture including things like the evangelical Christians, gun culture, distrust of big government, the tax revolution, a penchant for free enterprise and deep-rooted emotional support for rural agrarian lifestyle (even if most of us don't live it). All of these things need to be explained in order for someone to understand what the American ethos is all about.

If we want this discussion to move away from being a description of conservatism, we could also add labor unionism, feminism, affirmative action, illegal immigration.

I know this sounds like a list of political issues but there are cultural undercurrents which drive the political debate. It is the cultural themes that I want to focus on.

Richard 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

*** NOTE *** I'm not saying that all of the above points describe the same group of people although I'm sure there is a group of people that support all of the above. I'm saying each one of those is an important "meme" in American culture and needs to be understood if you are to make sense of what goes on in American politics and newspapers. I don't want to express support or opposition to any of the above points, at least not in this Wikipedia article.

It's a big task and maybe it's like making sausage. Better not to let the end reader see how we make it. Let's just work on it and then put the finished product in the main article when we're comfortable with it.

I recognize that this will be highly controversial and that NPOV will be difficult to achieve. Let us take up the challenge and try anyway.

Richard 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Except everything you cited there is aspects of a part of a specific subculture or set of subcultures of America (distrust of big government, gun ownership, etc.), whose values differ greatly from other subcultures of equal size and scope in America. There is no monolithic culture in America, and it continues to fracture more and more. That is where all this inaccuracy really lies. If you want to start a list linking to prominent subcultures in America and their respective articles, I would support that, but you are trying to label all Americans in very limited terms that the statistics frankly don't play out. If there was an accurate title for the section you are proposing, it would not be Culture, but Stereotypes or Image.

I accept that some of these themes are taken as Stereotypes but that's a different issue. I'm not trying to say something about all Americans. I am saying that on many of these issues, many Americans identify themselves on one side or another. Well, duh, you say, that's how it works in politics. Yes, but what is the cultural underpinning that drives the debate?

Why do some people cherish gun rights? Some of it goes back to the history of and myth of the American frontier. That's culture.

Why do some people distrust big government? That goes back to Jefersonianism, Jacksonianism and the populism of the 1800's. That's culture.

Empathy for the rural, agrarian lifestyle. Think "American Gothic" and Norman Rockwell as icons of American life. That's culture.

Maybe you think it's a world long left behind or wish it were. Some people don't at least not in their hearts and dreams.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying it is there.

Richard 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In more general terms, the articles on the Second Amendment and gun control handle the issues you want the article on the country of the United States to feature more extensively and more appropriately, which this article links to. Same with religious freedoms/religiousity.--Primalchaos 18:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe but you have to know to look over there. What I want is to provide a "lay of the land" that gives someone an idea of what the highlights of the cultural landscape are. I was actually displeased to see Bruce Hallman go into more detail about gun control. I wouldn't want an explanation of the justification for gun ownership or of gun control. I would just want the reader to understand that the gun control debate is probably more heated in the U.S. than in other countries and the reason is because of the historical truths and myths of the American frontier. Then, if the reader was interested, there would be a link to the gun control article.

Richard 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am fine talking about subcultures on both sides of an issue and the fact that there are trends moving from one side of an issue to another. Please believe me, I do not have a political ax to grind here. See my comments below...

Richard

Last night, after I had shut down my computer, it came to me how to express what I'm trying to do with the "culture" section. I'm open to renaming it to something other than "culture" but I do not want it to be about conservatism.

When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, there was a widespread cultural phenomenon among people who had lived through the Great Depression. These people tended to be more careful about how they spent money, not buying things that they didn't need and avoiding debt. This was because they grew up in times of great privation. This phenomenon was often pointed out to explain how this subgroup viewed the world and to explain why they acted and voted the way they did. Most of the people who thought this way have either passed on or are among the very elderly so this mentality has largely passed from our culture. It was part of American culture 30-40 years ago. It isn't anymore but, if you wanted to understand how people behaved in the 50s and 60s, you had to understand that.

You also had to understand World War II and the Cold War to understand why people acted the way they did int the 50s, 60s and 7y0s. It wasn't just about foreign policy but it also drove domestic debate about wiretapping, the FBI and civil liberties.

Watergate has had a smaller impact on the American psyche but it did affect it for at least a decade. To this day, we measure constitutional questions like "domestic wiretapping without warrant" against Watergate.

The Vietnam war has had an influence over foreign policy and the use of military power over the last 30 years although that influence has faded quite a bit. There is still a political current of "No More Vietnams".

In contrast, Iran/Contra and Monica Lewinsky seem to have had relatively little impact on our culture and national psyche. Those events happened and we moved on. Not much lasting effect as far as I can tell.

It's too early to tell how much 9/11 will affect our national psyche. I think it drives current political debate quite a bit but 5-10 years from now, we may find that it isn't as big an influence as it is now.

America also became increasingly a member of the international community after WWII. We broke out of our isolationism and became familiar with the cultures of Europe and Japan first and eventually of other countries as well.

Your thoughts and feedback are solicited and welcomed.

Richard 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting ideas, but based on WP:NOR, I am not sure they have a place in the article unless you can cite verifiable reliable source(s). BruceHallman 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am confident that verifiable, reliable sources can be found for all of what I've written. Do I have them at my fingertips? No. Much of this stuff is basic knowledge in Political Science and History at the high school and college level. If you're an American, you should have been taught a lot of this in high school and college. If you weren't, it's more evidence for the sorry state of American education.

In the words of Santayana, "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." And then there's Murphy's variant of Santayana's aphorism: "Those who don't sutdy history are doomed to repeat it in the worst possible way."

I don't think the fact that I don't have sources for it makes it original research per se although anything that is not adequately sourced is immediately vulnerable to the charge of being "OR". There's lots of stuff in Wikipedia that is inadequately sourced.

If you challenge my assertions, I will go and find the sources but it will take some time as each statement is a research effort unto itself. There is probably no single source that says all of what I have asserted above. I'm just explaining that I haven't made this up out of thin air. It's not original research.

Assuming that I can find these sources, the real question is: do these ideas belong in this article? If not, where would they belong? That's what I'd like to discuss for now while I'm digging up the sources.

Richard 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I certainly didn't mean to offend you. If '==Culture==' is not the right title, what is? Does this subculture to which you refer have a sympol/spokesman/mouthpiece? Sorry, I just don't follow your idea or get your point. BruceHallman 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is "No, because I'm not talking about a single subculture." That's where you and I differ. You and primalchaos assumed I was talking about about conservatism because the person who got me started on this first mentioned our attitude about guns. It took me a while to move away from the issues that concern conservatives and more into a general discussion of culture.

It's primalchaos who sees American culture as an increasingly fragmented set of subcultures. And maybe he's correct. But I don't see it that way. I see certain common themes in American culture.

If you go back 20,30, 40 years, there was certainly a more monolithic culture in which we believed the same things: democracy, freedom, individualism, civil liberties, small business over big business, rural agrarian over urban, etc. That this could be considered "conservatism" rather than simply "themes in American culture" baffles and perturbs me. I think labeling those values as "conservatism" is very POV.

I think we do still believe similar things even if those things have changed over the last few decades.

Some of the points I made earlier might be more conservative than liberal, but many of them have broad bipartisan support.

I'm looking for ways to answer questions like the following:

From a Briton, what is it with this gun culture thing you Yanks have? Why don't you just make it illegal to own one or use one?

From a Frenchman, why don't you just have the government bureaucrats in charge of everything?

From a German, why don't you Americans follow the laws and regulations? It's simple. We make a law. People follow it. What's so difficult about that?

From Europeans in general, what's with this entrepreneurship thing you Americans do so much of? We're not much into that over here.

From Europeans in general, what's with this religion thing anyway? We don't take God seriously here in Europe.

From Europeans in general, you guys work too hard. Why don't you take it easy and enjoy life?

From Europeans and Japanese, what's this love affair you Americans have with the internal combustion engine? Isn't it far more cost-effective and less polluting to use mass transit? Get a real train system in place, for crying out loud.

From the world at large, why do you Americans always play the cowboy? What makes you think you have to run around the world, doing good, offing the bad guys and saving the oppressed?

All of this is culture. It's not art or music or literature. It's about the way people think and how that affects the way they live.

Yes, I know this rant uses stereotypes for different countries. Please don't string me up on that. I'm just trying to give you an idea of what I think is worth talking about.

How could you talk about Italy without talking about the influence of the Catholic church?

How could you talk about Russia without talking about the effect of Communism?

How could you talk about France without talking about the way they view government? BTW, did you know that burning cars is a form of protest there? Hell, if people burned cars in America, the governor would call out the National Guard to put down the riot. You wouldn't be watching this night after night on TV.

Or about Germans without talking about the way they view laws and regulations?

How would you talk about Singapore without talking about their no-nonsense attitutde towards law enforcement? Did you know that importation, sale and possession of chewing gum is a crime there? Drug dealers get executed. Spray painting cars can get you caned.

All of that is culture. They got theirs. We got ours. How do we communicate to someone outside our culture the things that are unique about our culture?

I'm not saying all of the above features of our culture are good or that all are bad. They're just there. It's part of who we are. Not everyone of us has all of the above traits. But most of us have some collection of them.

Enough of that, I'm probably starting to repeat myself. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.

Richard 21:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Culture (Gun Control)

"The United States is unique (or nearly so) among Western nations in generally allowing firearms."

Highly inaccurate. Other Western nations with just as liberal or even more so gun control policies include Switzerland, Norway, Israel and South Africa.

also Canada and Australia, regardless, these countries are a minority of the total number of Western nations BruceHallman 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Second Amendment of the United States declares the importance of militia and protects against infringement of the right to bear arms."

Best dealt with in elsewhere in the article.

Could you then have moved it instead of deleting it? BruceHallman 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already dealt with under articles about United States government and the Constitution, which this article links to with appropriate prominence.--Primalchaos 18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"There is a long history and tradition behind the collective and personal ownership of firearms and these are deeply-cherished rights for some Americans."

Heavy POV, no citation.

I disagree about the POV, a 'gun culture' exists, perhaps the most famous recent example was Dick Cheney, etc.. The wording of the sentence you deleted was a NPOV description of a real POV. There was indeed a citation, that was Gun_politics_in_the_United_States. Indeed, those gun politics is a major thing in modern USA. BruceHallman 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I further disagree about the POV (well, OK, I would think so since I wrote it).

But still my point was to say that there are many Americans who staunchly defend these rights. They might be in the minority and we could say that if we can find polls to support the statement. Nonetheless, they wield a lot of political power. What I'm looking for is an NPOV way to say the following:

1) America has a relatively liberal legal policy about gun ownership (liberal meaning not very restrictive)

2) there is a vigorous political debate over whether that legal policy should be made more restrictive

3) many Americans staunchly defend their individual and collective gun ownership rights

4) whether those Americans are in the majority or minority (based on credible polling data)

5) regardless of whether the pro-gun lobby represents a majority or minority, it wields a lot of clout politically

All this can be said without favoring pro-gun or pro-gun control if you word things carefully.

All I was trying to do was make a point about culture. The political debate probably doesn't belong in this section. The above points don't all belong in culture but rather in some other section like "current political issues".

Richard 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard wrote: "1) America has a relatively liberal legal policy about gun ownership (liberal meaning not very restrictive)".

Well, that is not uniformly true. (In my California based observation at least.) Since 1939, with US v Miller, local jurisdictions have been allowed to restrict gun ownership almost without limit. Some States have chosen to not regulate, some States (and Cities) have regulated a lot. There is a popular myth that the Second Amendment prohibits gun regulation, but the reality of case law is quite different. BruceHallman 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe a few cities like NYC and DC require registration of all guns, but everywhere an adult with no criminal record is allowed to own guns. There can of course be lots of background checks and waiting periods and whatever annoyances you need to follow to, for example, sell your gun to your friend. In California (where I also live) they are rather pesky about handguns, but I don't think registration is required on anything except assault weapons that were banned. 69.105.138.104 07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion

This section is (a) dealt with elsewhere in the article and does not deserve such outward prominence, and (b) suggests that this phenomenon is unique in the United States.

Also, polling suggest less than 25% of American voters consider moral issues prominent. Environmentalist issues, which have the same percentage, don't get similar treatment. --Primalchaos 13:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The sense that I have is that Europe is largely secular with big empty churches and the United States has this difficult to explain thing called "evangelical Christianity". The old mainstream denominations (e.g. Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran) are losing members and the evangelical churches are growing fast. More importantly, the evangelicals have hijacked the conservative movement. (Yes, that's POV and I wouldn't word it that way in the Wikipedia article.)

Why does religion wield political power in the United States when it doesn't wield the same power in Europe? Well, I wouldn't necessarily want to discuss the answer in the United States article but this article should at least mention the power of religion in the U.S. and contrast it to the almost absence of religion in the European political landscape. Then, once again, we could link to more detailed articles on the pheomenon and the reasons for it.

Richard 06:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Richard. As I stated yesterday, in the "Conservatism" section below, I think the topics and questions you bring up are well worth inclusion in Wikipedia—and I especially like that you seem to be thinking in terms of using Wikipedia articles to explain things to people who wonder about those things—because gaining knowledge and explanations is the point of looking in an encyclopedia. I also said yesterday that I have strong doubts about how to fit those things into this United States article. Also, I see in one of your posts above that you concede that the possible questions you presented (from a Briton, a German, &c.) involve stereotypes of those cultures; I'm glad that you see this, and your seeing it makes me feel much less like bothering to point it out.

But, in regard to your point that appears in the two paragraphs right above the one you're reading now, I see a view of Europe that strikes me as too simplistic. Yesterday, I wrote just a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what could be written about religious culture in other Western countries; I quickly replaced it with a much shorter posting, though. But I am now getting a stronger idea that, if you haven't read it already, you might indeed benefit from reading it. It's the very long posting from me that appears in this section of the history of this discussion page and begins with "Hello. Prepare yourself for my ridiculously long posting." Religion is still very important in Europe—but not in exactly the same set of ways as it is in the U.S. It may seem more subtle, may not come across so easily in the international news that we tend to get in the U.S., may not include so many politicians going on about 'God this, God that' either because they really believe it or because they think it will get them votes, and may not include a bunch of evangelizing Christians. But religion is still important in Europe, and still affects politics and government and legal matters in myriad ways. Just not always the same ways as in the U.S. What I wrote yesterday was a tiny example of it; but one can come up with highly interesting studies for all the 'other' Western countries, too, showing related things—in the sentiments of the general populaces, in the views of the politicians, and in the laws on the books (including the ones regularly enforced).

I'm getting really into stereotypes and opinion here, but I posit that part (and maybe only a very small part) of the reason for which the evangelicals are growing in the U.S. but not exploding so much in Europe, and why politicians here seem to say "God" a lot more than European ones, may be that, in many jurisdictions in Europe, they've already achieved part of what they want. Yes, the average European may bring up God, religion, faith, sprituality, &c., less in describing what drives him or her than the average American might; and, yes, Europe may be the birthplace of atheism. But Europe has had influential Christian populations far longer than the Americas have. Europe, as you point out, is full of big old empty churches. The churches may be relatively empty—but the culture and even the laws (and laws are the result of culture and politics) are full of things handed down from the ones who built those churches. Perhaps some evangelicals here are so vocal because they want something that they don't have yet. Poll many Europeans, and you may well find that many populations (some national or local populations more than others) already have more-quietly held sentiments to match those voiced by louder persons in the U.S. I mean such things as views on gay marriage, views on Muslims, views on Jews, (views on anyone who isn't nominally Christian, really), views on Catholics (though of course this depends on whether one is in a predominantly Catholic country in Europe or not), views on immigrants, views on people who don't want to be just like the majority, &c. Things are just voiced in different ways, done in different ways—and some of the things are already done. Let's hypothetically consider divorce. Say you don't like divorce. Say you want to ban it. In the U.S., you might be shouting your head off about it—because, in what has become the U.S., it has, in one way or another, pretty much been allowed since non-Catholics started showing up on this land (and it existed in pre-Columbian American cultures too). But, in Italy before the 1970s, you'd've been quite content—because divorce was illegal.

Anyway, my tangent about what may be too simple a view of the world outside the U.S. is that: a tangent. Your basic desire, to explain things to those who want explanations, is valid.

One last thing I would suggest, though, is that we actually think not just in terms of what a stereotypical person from a certain other Western country might be wondering about—but also in terms of what someone from any point on the globe might be wondering about. The explanation that may be offered to a Belgian about issue x might highlight aspects quite different from those that would come up in explaining the same issue to a Mongolian or a Zimbabwean. I think we should expand the imaginary audience when trying to explain things to others. President Lethe 00:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought I was longwinded. I will try to read your long posting although tonight is probably not the night for it as we are getting ready to go on vacation. I will comment briefly on your last point. I wasn't really meaning to target any particular audience although I mentioned French, Germans, etc. What I meant is that people from other cultures could come to America and scratch their heads wondering what kind of stuff was in the water that we drank because we're do things so differently from the way they do back home.

Here's one last installment for tonight. How do Americans treat getting in line? Answer: Most Americans are quite conscious of who's next in line. If you're not sure, it's courteous to ask "Am I next or were you before me?".

Now, I know this is an isolated case but I had a curious experience in Germany while I was waiting in line to buy a train ticket. While I was waiting, I was trying to read the signage (which was in German, of course, and my command of German is very weak). Well, an available booth was open and it was my turn but, since I was still looking at the signage, someone walked right in front of me and took his turn ahead of me. I was a bit miffed and made sure to be eagle-eyed for the next available ticket seller. It was later explained to me, "Well, obviously, he thought that you were unsure of what you wanted and he knew what he wanted so he jumped right ahead." To this day, I still think that most Americans would have said "There's someone available, are you waiting?" and only gone ahead if I had said "No, go ahead."

I read an article some time ago that tells me that something as simple as lining up to be served is thought of differently in different cultures.

That's enough for now. I'll be gone for a few days. When I get back, I'll try to organize all the stuff that I've written in this talk page into some kind of outline for a section to be placed somewhere in the Wikipedia.

Good night and happy Wiking.

Richard 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism

Moving some discussion here that was posted on Talk:United States/Culture. Let's keep all the discussion in one place so as to make it easier to read.

I understand the point of this section, that is: to capture the cultural/political shift that started with Barry Goldwater=>Ronald Reagan=>'Contract with America'=>Conservative Talk Radio=>Bush#43. To call this simply '==Culture==' is vastly imprecise! Regardless, it is a real phenomenon deserving attention in Wikipedia. BruceHallman 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it may seem that I'm talking about the cultural/political shift but I'm not interested in talking about the above topics from that perspective. I'm interested in documenting what American culture is about today and maybe sketch out briefly how we got here although that discussion arguably belongs in History of United States.

I don't see firearms as being part of a "Goldwater shift". There was a time when many young boys grew up learning to shoot a rifle and hunt. It's part of our tradition. Maybe it isn't any more for most of us but that's what motivates people who still care about stuff like that.

Christianity is also part of our culture. Maybe not for a everyone of us but it's there and has been there for 400 years. It has driven a large part of what we have done in our history and still affects how we do things today. Not everybody may agree with the extent to which it still influences politics and attitudes but the disagreement is what I want to document.

A nostalgia for the farmer lifestyle has been there for 300 years (cf. Thomas Jefferson) even though Americans have been leaving farms for the last 100 years.

A distaste for big government has been around for 250 years (cf. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson). It ebbs and flows but that's part of what drives American politics. Presidential candidates often run on the basis of being someone from outside the Beltway. That's one reason why Governors do better than Senators and Congressmen in the race for the nomination.

An empathy for the "little guy" has been around for the same time. That's why we have the Small Business Administration and anti-trust laws.

This stuff is part of our history. If you don't understand it, you don't understand America. You don't have to like it but you can't make it go away by ignoring it. Is the list complete? Probably not. So, add to the list. I don't agree that the list is already adequately covered by having it mentioned here and there throughout the article.

Maybe this stuff should be an article unto itself. Maybe it should be in an article called "United States politics" or "United States political culture". I really don't want it to be POV. I want it to be as NPOV as possible with as many credible sources as possible. Imagine a college-level course with one of the above titles. Would these topics be covered in such a course? Great, then let's put it into Wikipedia somewhere.

Richard 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This text replaces my very long posting here. If you want to read it, just check the history. The points were (1) that we really should know about the other places we're comparing the U.S. to before we make comparisons, and (2) that, to be useful, these comparisons have to be so detailed that they might better be kept in other, separate articles. President Lethe 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are pushing for a very political viewpoint about 'United States conservatism' being part of a cultural paradigm shift that no real scholar has commented upon, only political pundits. This is a viewpoint a small political group is pushing to justify its policies currently, but is not a point of scholarly record. Until you produce verifiable data, other than common knowledge, with fully cited and neutral sources, it has no place here. I suggest you take this to the Politics in the United States articles, where it belongs.

This section simply should not exist in an overview of the government system, geography and overview of the United States. The Goldwater shift finds no more place here than the New Deal and the FDR administration, which is mentioned in passing with a link to the appropriate article for people who want to know more, and is far more established as considerable and influential amongst historians. I will be very vigilant about editing political spins, either way, in regards to this, unless extremely strong scholarly records of this so called paradigm shift are cited.--Primalchaos 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)