My family and I are in Holland on a visit
Last night we ate dinner at a local Indian restaurant. A Dutchman and his wife sat at the next table. Small talk ensued and, once it was determined that we were Americans, he asked us the question seemingly on every European's mind these days: "What do you think of Trump?" When my family, in unison, said that he was a blight on everything the USA stands for, he applauded and added that everyone he knows wonders how we blundered into a Trump presidency.
In a nutshell, I explained that, unlike the Dutch, some Americans wish to interpret our Constitution as enabling individual freedoms and liberties, but not societal freedoms and liberties. Whereas the Dutch may have realized long ago that "united we stand, divided we fall", Americans are resistant to that ideal. It's a pity, because the deprivation of a safety net (due to cost) leads to far higher costs to society. The Dutchman pointed out that no one in Holland needs to fear the "bottom falling out", because programs exist to guarantee health care, housing, food, and basically all the essentials of life.
Why can't we look out for each other in the USA? Why do the so-called "patriots" insist that America is an "every man and woman for themselves" society when a compassionate government leads to happiness, pride and inclusion?
= new reply since forum marked as read
want to get free everything but they don't want to give a hand to those who make an honest living.
I'm so happy for the Dutch.. and very glad you and your Family are able to enjoy their country and hospitality, Mr. Ected
"..when a compassionate government leads to happiness, pride and inclusion?"
We would have had that again with Hillary and they couldn't let that happen.
I have traveled quite a bit myself, but now that I am paying off a hefty student loan I don't really have the money anymore so I have to live vicariously. So I appreciate stories like yours! Enjoy the rest of your stay and have a safe trip back! 
The U.S. has never been one big "extended family" like the Euro countries were (before migration became common). From the beginning the U.S. has instead been largely about groups and individuals living within the same borders but pitted against and exploiting each other: slavery, Indian wars, groups of immigrants like the Irish, now Muslims, etc. Some politicians have exploited the differences to gain and hold power by continuing to pit groups and individuals against each other and exploiting people's fear, hatred, and superiority complexes rather than embracing the rich diversity; divide and conquer for profit and power. Liberté, égalité, fraternité? Forget it.
(Must be nice to be in Holland! 
)
keeps screwing up bigtime and doing stupid, dangerous stuff, and people around the world see what those policies actually do, we won't have so many right wing ideologues.
But then, I've been called a unicorn...
?v=1474031444
Holland is anything BUT "united we stand, divided we fall." Every government there has to scramble for votes to form a coalition with several partner small parties because no party EVER gets a majority. It's the reason post-war Germany put a 5% hurdle for a party to gain representation in any local or national parliament. The insane fractiousness of the Weimarer Republik paved the way for the NSDAP ("Nazi"
party to claim power in 1933, and the Germans figured once was enough of that.
The anarchist, Prince Peter Kropotkin, in 1903 studied the animal kingdom inter- and intra-species (including humans) cooperation vs competition, essentially building on Darwin. He came up with Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (available for free online).
His conclusion was that societies that cooperated tended to survive over societies that competed.
Wiki:
in the animal kingdom and human societies both past and present. It is an argument against the competition-centred theories of so-called social Darwinism, as well as the romantic depictions of cooperation presented by writers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued it was motivated by universal love rather than self-interest. Mutual Aid is considered a fundamental text in anarchist communism, presenting a scientific basis for communism alternative to the historical materialism of the Marxists. Many biologists also consider it an important catalyst in the scientific study of cooperation.
Daniel P. Todes, in his account of Russian naturalism in the 19th century, concludes that Kropotkin’s work "cannot be dismissed as the idiosyncratic product of an anarchist dabbling in biology" and that his views "were but one expression of a broad current in Russian evolutionary thought that pre-dated, indeed encouraged, his work on the subject and was by no means confined to leftist thinkers."[1]
Kropotkin pointed out the distinction between the direct struggle among individuals for limited resources (generally called competition) and the more metaphorical struggle between organisms and the environment (tending to be cooperative). He therefore did not deny the competitive form of struggle, but argued that the cooperative counterpart has been underemphasized: "There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense...Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle."[2]
As a description of biology, Kropotkin's work has been confirmed by recent research. Stephen Jay Gould admired Kropotkin's observations, noting that cooperation, if it increases individual survival, is not ruled out by natural selection, and is in fact encouraged.[3] Modern biology confirms Kropotkin's observations in two ways. When different species appear to aid each other, it is a case of mutualism. When individuals within a species aid each other, it is a case of altruism in animals, including kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Douglas H. Boucher places Kropotkin's book as a precursor to the development of mutualism as a theory.[4]
It's a fascinating read, and should be shared as much as possible.
The society is nothing without the individual, however, the individual is nothing without society.
It's this sort of interconnectedness between the individual and society that makes up the whole. You cannot damage one part without damaging the other.
This is what the reactionaries do not get. They can't think outside of their immediate body or tribe. Reactionary thinking is incapable of thinking of the whole except as a tool for fascism. It doesn't matter if you are a Buckley uber-capitalist or a Leninist Bolshevik. Both reactionary foundations limit the perception of the whole to the individuals (make no mistake, the Leninists see the same individualist few who would be masters of the economy, just as the Buckley capitalists, who would use society for their fascist ends). In both, you have the managerial class that would govern on behalf of the masses (mixing political authority with economic authority). One is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the other, a dictatorship of the capitalists. Words mean nothing here, because guess who owned and dictated? The same people! Just refer to Right-Wing Authoritarianism for more information. The term is not a political term here as it explains the American Libertarians just as much as it explains the Communist Party Apparatchiks - subservience to authority.
Much editing due to making this post on my phone, apologies for any errors or incoherence.
Response to Mr. Ected (Original post)
