As an example, the French nation feels really good about it's own "political maturity and collective good sense". And somewhat horrified at what they see going on "across the Atlantic pond".

You arent wrong.

There are several leaders around at the moment whose strong-man/nationalist appeal to local voters is a source of mockery outside and, to a lesser extent, inside their borders: Putin, Trump, Mugabe, Assad, Orban, Duterte, and May spring to mind.

I haven't heard from any of my French friends recently, but I think they should feel good about seeing off Le Pen.

France has the advantage of having about 1,000 years of history behind it, at least when it comes to maturity.

Come on, the US can't be expected to make a sensible electoral choice because you have only have only been "around" for 500 years? How long do you need?

Try 240 years actually... The us declared their independence and began setting up their government in 1776. Plus our 1st election wasnt held until 1789 so we have had 228 years of electoral experience.

Apples & poires. How long has France been a stable country? Arguably about the same period.

How long do you need until electing an idiot is inexcusable?

Stable was not the claim i made.

How and ever, when the French had their first revolution, setting up the first republic (within a generation of the US declaration of independence) they had centuries of history to remember.

And they've had several republics since then. Very different history to the US...

Is there any reason to think that the Europeans who settled in the US did not bring with them the lessons of the continent?

There's more than just mockery going on, in many of those examples ( not sure that I regard May in England as part of that group ) there's also genuine concern at the internal and external ramifications. With some there's also significant resistance, including "armed resistance"/ defacto or real civil war.

diplomat61 wrote "How long do you need until electing an idiot is inexcusable?"

The answer is that electing an idiot is never exusable. Any people gets the leadership they deserve. Apparently the people of the USA deserve Donald Trump.

The other real concern is that the divisiveness in the USA is preventing any real reforms. As an example Obama's mistake was thinking that he could achieve reform by negotiated cooperation across political divides.. But it seems politicians in the USA would rather fight partisan causes and ignore good policy outcomes, because that meant compromise.

@PeterLund: I agree with you. I asked the question because Orathaic implied that the election of Trump was somehow excusable because the US is "less mature" than France.

@MajorMitchell: Mayhem is getting plenty of mockery in certain areas.

"There are several leaders around at the moment whose strong-man/nationalist appeal to local voters is a source of mockery outside and, to a lesser extent, inside their borders"

Then all we need to do is install nationalist governments in every country, and there will be no one to mock us. Or we can just mock the globalist nations right back for failing to recognize that their path leads to their own demise.

Well look out gang, the Chinese are coming gangbusters... They are determined to have the world's largest economy and be the biggest global trading nation.

"Then all we need to do is install nationalist governments in every country, and there will be no one to mock us."

Except for all the voters rejecting nationalist governments country by country.

"Or we can just mock the globalist nations right back for failing to recognize that their path leads to their own demise."
It is the inevitable and unstoppable path. It destroyed Napoleon, and since has been growing alongside capitalism. If you think you can stop it worldwide, you will find it to break you. If you attempt to stop it within your country, your country will fail. There is no going back now. Rejoice or mourn, but that is truth.

The point of no return was the establishment of the Internet.

Nationalism has led to so many wars, death, and general waste, that anyone promoting it should be treated with extreme caution.

Globalisation raises average living standards (through the law of comparative advantage) and reduces the threat of war.

When in power nationalist leaders always seem to do quite well for themselves, their family, and friends. This is why they don't like globalisation.

What, Nationalist Socialist (german workers party)?

nah jk, but it is a real problem because they just do stupid stuff or things they feel that are justified, but are not really good for the general public whenever they feel (trump).

just if we could revert to communism...

A nation is the sum of its people. By replacing the populace of a successful nation with the populace of an unsuccessful nation, you turn the successful nation into an unsuccessful nation.

America's experiment in globalism has harmed it (and others) far more than it has benefited it. It has led to countless wars for oil, the obliteration of our manufacturing sector, and the replacement of our workers by those of foreign nations.

"America's experiment in globalism has harmed it (and others) far more than it has benefited it."

Utter tosh. Would a nationalist America stayed out of Iraq? hell, no! Would the American people have benefitted from cheap stuff in stores? no!

Let's not kid ourselves. America is irrelevant for globalism. Despite its size and power, it is merely an old-fashioned nation-state.

The European Union is the greatest experiment in globalism of all time. Its growth and its crises are the growth and crises of globalism, which will succeed or fail in Europe.

The future of the world is being decided on the Old Continent, as it always has been.

@"diplomat61
Is there any reason to think that the Europeans who settled in the US did not bring with them the lessons of the continent?"

No, they based their system off of the same history. But the people then promptly forgot it. I don't know how much they do teach you in American schools, but if i have to explain what a republic is to an American one more time...

@"@PeterLund: I agree with you. I asked the question because Orathaic implied that the election of Trump was somehow excusable because the US is "less mature" than..."



Not excusable, merely unsurprising. There is a difference.

@"America's experiment in globalism has harmed it (and others) far more than it has benefited it." - there at least is something i cam agree with. Though i don't quite agree on the terms.

America's globalism has been a neo-imperialism, and as with all Empires, it will see its end with a collapse of the imperial system.

@Zmaj, i think i agree, though i also don't like the neo-liberal approach taken by the EU. And the banking crisis has really shalen the project to its roots.

The EU nations make it the world's largest economic block (not sure after the UK leaves if it will remain so). The expansion makes it the most peaceful. The 'soft power' democratic values make it a wonderful example to others.

Nationalism in places like the UK will hurt them. But corporate globalism will still screw over the average working class smuck. The EU taking on corporate tax dodgers will be an interesting power struggle...

Irrelevant? That's risible.

Also i might add. We have four entities which have population in the multiple hundreds of millions. And we really don't have experience running/organising that many people. Only the EU, US, India and China really do approach it. And each has their own unique way of doing things (27/28 member nations of the EU, 50 states of the US, 50 states in India, and One Party China...)

It is not easy to infer how best to organise a global organisation based on previous examples or histories. Never mind the struggles of doing so on a mere 3-12 hundred million people. (With the US being the smallest of these by population). We need to learn from recent history, and figure out how to best organise ourselves.

Nobody is perfect. (And Americans who think their constitution is the perfect document should really look at their nation...)

@Jeff, if the US goes back to coal, bans importing workers from Mexico and Myslims, tries to ban jobs moving to China, it will essentially return to isolationism of the 20s and 30s.

And for globalism that does make them rather irrelevant.

Did i mention leaving NAFTA? Abandoning Obama era TTIP and TPP trade agreements?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy#/media/File%3A20_Largest_economies_pie_chart.pdf

Largest economy in the world, is still less than a quarter of the world economy.

Right. Trending the wrong way, but hardly irrelevant.