We are the most American.
I remember when I first came to Finland as a business English trainer, it was common to hear my clients say "Finland is the most American country in Europe" or similar. There was a certain amount of pride in it, as if it was a marker of how far Finland had advanced from the past and distanced itself from Russia all those many decades ago. It is something I found peculiar in many respects., one being that I don't think that Finns are very American at all, quite the opposite. But I later learned that many countries in Europe had similar sentiments, each claiming to be the most American.
Have times changed?
Shy, quiet and trustworthy.
Finns are known to be trustworthy people in general, and it is one of the first things they will say to describe themselves as a culture. It would be something like Finns are "shy, quiet and trustworthy". According to a recent survey though, the "We are the most American" might have changed a bit, where only 4% of Finns trust the US. However, that puts it about on par with India, China and Russia -which is quite incredible.
And the survey was taken before the attack on Iran.
I was reading about this a few minutes ago, but in two different client sessions today the topic came up in respect to trade with the US, where the trust in anything that is agreed to is zero. One even said that while you can make a deal with Trump, it is meaningless, because he can just change his mind the next day.
Negotiate with a baby all you want, but if it wants to cry, it will cry.
And remember that this is trust in the country, not necessarily the people. For those of us who have enough experience and a wide enough circle of backgrounds, it is pretty easy to tell the difference between a person, and the country of which they are a citizen. However, with a narrow circle, it seems that people equate the two, conflating what the government does, with what kinds of people voted in the government. That is not a very good indicator, especially in a place like the US, where less than two-thirds of the eligible voting population votes. Looking at the total population of voting age, it is less than 60% in the last election. So in 2024, the choice wasn't "half of Americans", it was less than 32% of eligible voters.
I had an interesting discussion with a client today after I mentioned there should be no political parties at all, and instead there should just be a mass of candidates for specific roles. The roles would depend on the needs and wants of the country, where "voting" would be a weighted survey of something like 100 different points and how important it is to the person. That would take the temperature of what areas were needed to fill, and then selection would be made based on the role required, like for a job position in a company.
However, while he was sceptical at first, he got onboard the hypothetical train and said that the candidates could also be blind, meaning that no one is voting for anyone, with the face, gender etc all obscured. The candidates (even if in parties) would have to put together their resume and plans and the ones with the best fit get the job, regardless of what party they are from.
It all needs some work to formulate'
But it is possible to change the way all the current governing systems work and replace them with something better that returns the role back to one of administration, instead of personality. Having blinded systems would mean that campaigning would have to be done on topics alone, so if a party wanted to forward their agenda, they would have to convince enough people that their agenda is worth progressing to the point that it will affect the results of the survey - without any faces involved. If they are successful, their candidates are more likely, but also not guaranteed to get in, as another candidate might be considered better for the role.
Whatever it is, the role of government should be to support the wellbeing of the people of the country and as I was saying to my client today, no one party has all the answers. If we assume there is a best decision to make, the best is a singular, meaning that there can be only one. Having party systems where one or even a few parties choose what is best, means that the best decision might reside outside of the in-power government. That is silly. Parties shouldn't be adversarial, they should be working together for what is actually best for the country.
The best team should play, not the members who think alike.
We have got it wrong. Same thinking might get consensus, but it is a bad way to solve a complex problem. Diversity of thought and skill is required to solve complex problems, because they generally need multiple disciplines to solve the issues. The thing that is also required is the ability to cooperate for the best result, even if the solution requires compromise or the elevation of another's idea of one's own. This is where "thinking alike" helps, because same think means more agreement, but it also means narrow thinking and support for what might be a hare-brained idea.
The governance system is broken.
It is very broken and becoming even more so, as more influencing factors are coming in to sway opinion, and people are becoming less capable of making solid decisions as understanding and direct experience lessens across the board. While many think that the people should have the vote, we are approaching a point where "the people" are unable to make a good decision, because we are so compromised. But, we still have a general sense of what is important to us and I believe that if we were to all fill out a hundred point survey of topics, there would be some very clear overlap between a handful of areas. These "basics" should be at the core and other policies built upon them, with improve wellbeing the underlying rule beneath it all.
Fuck politics and profits - improve people.
Trust me.... it isn't going to happen.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
The problem is just because you promise something, that doesn't mean you are going to follow through on it. The follow through is where the real accountability needs to be applied. We already have enough trouble with people saying what they think people want to hear to get elected.
Absolutely. So the roles have to be defined and planned, milestones made and tracking in place. At the moment, what do the roles actually mean and what is the definition of success? Reelection?
I think the term limits are way too long, but I understand you need to be able to give stuff time to work out. I have a feeling we have seen the last of back to back terms in the US. At least with the president.
And the planning time frame way too short. China has their 100-year plan, their, 25-year plan, 10-year....
Slightly related question... have you learned Finnish? , or like the rest of the Nordics, do they seem to prefer you speak English and, if you try their language, will reflex to English to save your embarrassment :-)
With a bit of luck, I'll get to Helsinki in April. I look after the "Nordics", but we don't have an office in Finland, only a dealer. I think it's time I popped over to get to know them in person.
My embarrassment is I don't speak well enough, considering my time here. It is far too easy to get away with English for most things, but my wife's family doesn't speak much English - even though they could. They are embarrassed.
For sure. It is a bit different here to Sweden - less stylish, more down to earth :)
Down to earth suits me better, I grew up in rural Ireland, style and swank are not my thing at all.
Rural Ireland might be similar to Helsinki ;)
I have a random memory of Eldest being a fresh little baby and his head would turn bright red moments before his face would scrunch up and then the bawling would start. One day I saw the telltale bright red happening and blurted out "Oh no don't turn bright red" and the colour immediately faded and he did not start howling.
I think that was also the only time it "worked" XD
:D The baby whisperer...
I have heard that shaking them hard enough stops them crying.
I've heard that too but then also read somewhere that it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Governance will always be broken, because the idea that society requires a centrally-planned coeecive monopoly is broken.
America was once broadly admirable in spite of its government and social shortcomings, but our 2-party system has become too overtly corrupt and violent to be restrained. There is no electoral solution.
I fear we may suffer a revolution 250 years after we declared independence from Britain. Those who most want a civil war now against Trump are those who least intend to fight it themselves. They are the domestic revolutionary version of chicken hawks. And I don't want then to rule me any more than I want the MAGA Mafia.
Governance and central government are different :)
The US system is severely broken. It doesn't even hide it, but celebrates all the shortcomings.
Perhaps at some point, they snap even further to the level they will fight. There have been some extreme left violence too, right?
There has been considerable violence in the name of leftist causes, but those who agitate for it now are not the ones who will suffer. Like the right-wing war hawks, they want others to bleed instead of themselves.
It is absurd to have basically the same level of trust towards USA as Russia or China...
I agree that the governance system is broken in USA, it failed spectacularly in 2024. But I also agree that:
Is not going to happen, at least not in our lifetime :)
Depends. A lot of business here has been affected by the US government. Would you trust them?
Still Russia and China is on another level... Russia is basically a full blown Mafia state...
Wish we could find a way to apply such a system without facing massive resistance from entrenched interests.
Yeah, it would be nice if people worked for better, rather than accept more of the same.
trust me.. or else risk me throwing yet another tantrum!!
Your suggestion of a system based on merit and role-fitting, rather than partisan affiliation or personality, offers an intriguing alternative to the current model. It highlights a desire for governance that prioritizes collective well-being and objective problem-solving over ideological battles and the pursuit of power for its own sake. The challenge, of course, lies in transitioning from a deeply entrenched system to one that truly reflects the diverse needs and aspirations of all citizens, rather than just a powerful minority.
Although I would argue that both major political parties in the United States, despite their rhetorical differences, basically serve the interests of the affluent and corporate donors who fund their campaigns. This perspective suggests that the political system, rather than being a pure representation of the populace, is heavily influenced by economic power, making politics inherently class-driven.
Before I answer, am I answering to you or AI text? It sniffs of Gen-AI.
Hi @tarazkp that's a fair point. Answer is it's a mix. For certain comments it helps to get my point across more succintly and how I want it to sound. You are definitely answering to me.
Not a big fan of that, as there is very little personality in it. It might feel better for you, but it comes across as a report.
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 2050000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP