Plus, this is a country made up of a little piece of every other country in the world. "American identity" is an ex post facto rationalization. Not to mention that politically we often operate like 50 small-to-medium sized countries. And there's less of a push to homogenize the country since one of our political parties fights against federalization.
All that adds up to a country with a whole lot of variation. Describing what Americans are like is pretty useless. We're like everything.
So, no, just the size itself doesn't seem like a complete explanation for this.
If anything, Russia and the U.S. are pretty similar in terms of regional and cultural tensions.
I think you're trying to point out actual points of cultural tension, which I'd argue are largely superficial and mostly political. But I think OP was trying to say that the US is culturally diverse based on geography. And I think OP is right, the culture of Atlanta is very different than the culture of NYC which is very different than the culture of San Francisco or LA.
Similarly the culture of Montana or Wyoming is very different than the culture of the rural south.
I grew up in what most people would consider the rural south (a small town in Kentucky), and even the difference between various regions in the south are pretty stark... Just take for example this article; Kentucky, know for their bourbon, and I grew up in a dry county (couldn't sell alcohol at all). Prohibition laws stuck around decades after federal prohibition ended for largely religious reasons.
Not really. I live in Moscow, and financially I have a very different life from someone in a small town. But in terms of the culture and people around, the difference is not that big.
Here's a random youtube vlog about a small russian town: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOwW5wdIt_w It's on the opposite edge of the country, and yet, I would only be able to tell it apart from Moscow's residential neighbourhoods by how tall the buildings, built from the same panels, in the same design series, are.
Whereas the U.S. has two heavily populated coasts and much of its land is arable, at temperate latitudes (at least with irrigation—setting aside water issues).
Yes, overall diversity is smaller, it's all white and mostly Russian population, skewed to West, but also some very different minorities (and climate). Russian North and Caucasus are very different.
And two typical provincial towns in Russia can have more difference than two typical provincial towns in US. Both in population, demography, education, urbanization level.
The social experiment seems to be about how extreme you can really make inequality before people starts to riot. Wages are so low in some places that people simply walk out of their work because they can't survive on it, while it's so high in other places that you barely have to do anything and still pull in enough to put you in the 1% of the world population when it comes to income.
Some of it is inequality, but some of it is willful diversity. There is a strong undercurrent that education is bad - a counterculture of ignorance. It is something that bewilders me, and that has only become clear to me in the past 5 years or so. It isn't that some people lack access to education that they want, but rather do not want access to that education because they believe that if you can figure things out without relying on the knowledge humanity has built up over the years. I see it in my own father, who one day told me, "I've been thinking about climate change recently, and I just don't think it's a problem." He didn't research on it, he didn't read on it, he didn't perform experimentations, he just thought about it and came to his ironclad conclusion.
Likewise I see it in plenty of people, even people that are friends that I consider intelligent. They do not understand something, want to understand it, yet will do nothing to actually understand it. I had a friend that didn't understand an aspect of general relativity (he loves physics), which is totally understandable, it is complex stuff. He complained and argued with me about it for years. Finally I literally did a 1 minute search on youtube, found the first video on that specific topic and made him watch it. Then he finally got it.
Ok, I'm on a weird tangent ;) Back to the topic.
These people want to know and yet, for some reason, don't find the motivation to learn using the vast ocean of resources we have now. With the subculture of people in the US that think learning is offensive, an insult to their intellect, an assault on their freedom and independence, you have a problem of a whole other category.
I don't know how prevalent it is in other countries, but I think it occurs in the US because of this new "independent thinker" attitude that is a warped version of the skeptic. They take great pride in believing something other than what they are told.
As a skeptic and someone that likes to work things out for myself and who generally likes to examine the nuance of situations, I find this greatly frustrating.
This is, of course, self-fulfilling. In a society where education is poor, people will extrapolate from their own experience to conclude that all education is equally poor.
Source: grew up in the rural South, attending public school, surrounded by people who (correctly) viewed their education as nearly useless.
> These people want to know and yet, for some reason, don't find the motivation to learn using the vast ocean of resources we have now. With the subculture of people in the US that think learning is offensive, an insult to their intellect, an assault on their freedom and independence, you have a problem of a whole other category.
While this may come off as a bit pedantic I think it's important to recognize that no one actually thinks "learning things" is offensive or insulting. While it's convenient to package the behaviors of people you don't understand into a single box I think it spawns an unproductive and even unhealthy attitude towards others.
Rather than packing it all into one root issue, I think it's better to try and match the set of symptoms with a set of (possible) causes. Here is my own personal take on the situation:
|== American Culture Has Failed To Adapt To The Internet's Style Of Trust & Reputation
1. Before television a person's world was often restricted to those in their local community, this meant that reputation was everything and as a consequence, people tended to be naturally very trusting, naive even (since betraying someones trust would hurt your local reputation). If your town's doctor or priest told you something, you would believe them.
2. After television become a household staple in the 50s, this perspective changed a bit. Sure you could always /read/ about people outside of town, or even listen to them on the radio, but with TV they were practically right there in front of you. As a consequence this culture of trusting people within the community naturally extended towards those on TV as well. In fact people started to trust people on TV even more than the people within their local community! If the TV said it it must be true! (it often wasn't but then again, how would they know?)
3. Then the internet happened. It was slow, it took a lot of time to saturate into the lives of most people, but I'd say around 2010, the vast majority of people considered it more reliable than TV. It had now taken the throne of truth from TV and as a consequence: three generations of people who were conditioned to believe EVERYTHING they heard on TV without questioning things suddenly got exposed to a platform that was completely unmoderated and without consensus.
4. It used to be that people would just pick favored news channel and believe everything it told them. They thought that being a "skeptic" was doubting the handful of news channels that other people watched, but obviously /their/ news channel got everything right. These beliefs carried over to the internet, especially in the older generations (but not exclusively by any means). To them the only thing that changed is instead of there being 100 or 1000 channels, there are now infinite. But unfortunately they often fail to realize that their culture of trust is incompatible with a platform where that "local" reputation is near meaningless.
|== The Incompetence Of Mainstream Authorities, After Generations Of Public Trust, Has Lost It's Footing
* It's becoming increasingly obvious how incompetent and outright deceitful some of the most trusted news organizations have become without shame. They have of course almost always been this way but atleast local newspapers at a certain degree of accountability. By over optimizing for the web's engagement driven monetization strategies, news orgs drunk on the trust television provided them, have stopped doing their due diligence and pretty much everyone can see this now thanks to (ironically) the web.
* Coastal Elites over-estimating their intelligence and under-estimating the rest keep getting caught trying to play mind games with the public. This applies to many domains but the best example, while repeated ad nauseam at this point, would be health officials saying masks weren't effective against the virus at first so they could avoid a shortage. This created a very large gaping wound in public trust that will take a very long time to heal. While maybe in the days of television this would have been swept under the rug before long, that's not how things work anymore.
* Recent years have simply had too many cases where the mainstream opinion, paraded as absolute, turned out to be naked from the start. Trump was elected (2016), Brexit happened, and the Corona Virus is not just the flu (the was a conspiracy theory back in January 2020). Honestly even a bunch of little things on the side like CNBC saying the hedgefunds closed their position on those GME shorts have also added to this.
|= People Don't Actually Know How To Do Research
* Regardless of generation or exposure to television, people at large straight up do not even know how to do the most basic of research. A shocking amount of people think typing something into google and looking at the first result is something to be proud of. It's not as you suggest where they are proud not to go any deeper, its that the dunning kruger effect has caused many of the populace to believe that there isn't anything deeper to be looked at.
* People fail to understand the value primary sources. Even most programmers which one might assume trend a bit higher on the bell curve, fail to even look at the original documentation or specification for things that they are trying to learn about. When trying to learn about HTTP for example, rather than just looking at Wikipedia to find the RFC numbers and reading the RFCs themselves. They will instead opt to only look at the summary Wikipedia provides, or worse, rely on a bunch of SEO "optimized" tutorial sites that often get things wrong.
My experience has been with people who don't think that education is bad, but modern universities. I know many people who are smart, self-driven, industrious people who like learning things - who aren't interested in going to a public university. (they're more than happy to avail themselves of YouTube videos, Coursera courses, GitHub projects, work on things with friends, and so on)
Given the state of modern universities, with so many of them pushing the murderous ideology that is neo-Marxism, I can't blame them. A few more generations of this and we'll have our own Cultural Revolution, except with even more than the tens of millions of deaths that China did with theirs.
People walking out of their jobs because wages are so low is obvious bullshit.
The people I know in this situation are the hardest working people I have ever met and it is insulting to them to say such things.
It's related to strong senses of personal responsibility and pride in reliability and dependability, in my experience.
The underlying problem is that wages are so low in some places that it’s not possible to survive without:
- multiple incomes in the household
- multiple jobs
- going into debt
- living in a dangerous place
Etc.
These conditions leave the person without much choice but to leave.
I was trying to explain some of the common attitudes that might be related to the OP's response.
I disagree with your conclusion though “choose freedom”. In an unequal society, those that have will have control over those that have not. Meaning the freedom you speak of is only available to those that are lucky in their earlier transaction (or more realistically those that inherit the most).
The assumption here that perfect fairness is a perfect information meritocracy is an intellectual leap, and even if true belies the fact that what constitutes merit is defined by those who have power.
Is this perfect fairness outcome or opportunity based? Is the equality measured purely in terms of economic outcome or in terms of individual value maximization?
There's too much swept under the rug to generalize a model about the direction of society.
Well, the answer to that is obvious: people have long since started to riot, just about almost anything except economic inequality and exploitation.
What starts revolutions is disappointed elites - like if you promise your children good jobs and then they don't get them. Another kind is "revolution of rising expectations" where they do start getting good jobs and it causes them to expect even better ones faster than they get them.
One of the things we can be actually proud here in Europe (mainly western part though), a rather strong middle class and tons of help to the poor (maybe too much according to some).
I know its nice to find cheap poor folks desperate to work for peanuts, and you can pat yourself in the back how the environment gives everybody a chance to thrive, but that's not an American reality, just a self-perpetuating pipe dream.
US is great for the ultra-rich, good for the rich, not-so-good for middle class and outright shit for the poor. But good luck trying to get this accepted in the US where folks are spoon-fed from the childhood how US is best in everything, rather than some healthy amount of critical thinking.
Generally everybody, but in my humble experience Americans (and French) especially, profit greatly when (have been) living abroad for some time. Then we can have actual conversations what is great here and there and what outright sucks.
>No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth.
-Thomas Jefferson, 1804
Yes, it was said during a time when slavery was the norm. But the “experiment” also included allowing systems that challenged that notion rather than maintaining the status quo. That’s the point.
I don't think the idea is that experimentation is de facto bad. It's the use of experimentation as a tool to avoid implementation following experimentation that's being decried.
If someone is acting in bad faith, the fault is not in the experimental process but rather their faculty in interpreting the results. We wouldn’t throw out experimentation in science just because a researcher was biased in their result. The OP seems to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Elite universities are supposed to advance elite science - stuff like math, physics, technology, sociology, history. They also train people for work that requires such training.
But, they dont create public education policy nor should they. They are not subject of public elections nor are they responsible for budget.
I think institutions of higher ed should serve humanity; knowledge is beneficial to all people for the sake of knowledge itself.
I am saddened that many take their intellect and direct their energy solely towards making as much money as possible.
Think of all we could do if our best and brightest weren't so damn distracted with status and money
Working at university does not bring you much money nor all that much status. And who is the best depends on your definition of the "best".
In any case "serving humanity" and "being in charge of public education, social system and economy" are massively different tasks. And the latter is currently settled through political system and activism, not through science or universities.
I did stuff like that a few times back in the day (this century) when I was working those kinds of jobs.
We do give away a lot of welfare to people who are doing poorly. It might be more effective to stop giving people money and use it instead to create programs to provide better jobs and skill training.
For a simple reason - because we know, empirically, through decades of studies(some of which were done by the very US of A!), that it produces better results for the entire society. I've learnt long ago that it doesn't matter how I feel about benefits system personally - yeah I hate that some people get money for doing nothing. But it's literally irrelevant - we know through hard data that it works and produces good results. So the whole question of "how much effort has someone put in" is amusing to debate online, but it should be worth exactly zero when deciding policy.
>>The freedom to excel comes with the freedom to do poorly at the game.
Is it freedom though? How many of Americans can't get into these best education programs because they can't afford it? Yes, I am aware that there are grants and funds available if you really are poor - but you still have to apply. What if the chances were really equal - all higher education completely free to attend like it is in some other countries? Both the best university in the country and the worst both have the exact same cost of admission = zero. Isn't that what freedom is?
Not to be pedantic but there's really no such thing as free is there? Someone is paying for that college. Personally I don't want to subsidize these quote unquote elite universities but if people choose to use their money to go there that's great.
To your final point, no that is emphatically not what freedom is. I once heard that freedom is the ability to choose wrongly but at the core it's really freedom to choose. If everything is the same then there's really no choice.
That is pedantic - literally no one with an ounce of intelligence would think that money for those services comes from the moon. Of course it comes from out taxes. I'm happy to pay my taxes to make sure everyone has the same opportunities.
>>Personally I don't want to subsidize these quote unquote elite universities but if people choose to use their money to go there that's great.
That's an incredibly individualistic approach that I don't agree with.
>>I once heard that freedom is the ability to choose wrongly but at the core it's really freedom to choose. If everything is the same then there's really no choice.
But that's exactly what other countries do! I said this in another comment - want to be a doctor? Go ahead, no debt. Want to be a lawyer? No debt. But also want to be a map historian? No debt. Art PhD? No debt. Marketing and Business studies? No debt.
That's exactly what freedom is. You are free to chose what you want to learn. If you choose poorly and there is no job waiting for you on the other end, well you just wasted 3 years of your life. But we as a society made it possible for you to take that leap and have a choice.
How is that "everything is the same"???
I'm not denying there is free education out there. My point is in other countries you have freedom to chose and don't incur debt for your choices. Want to be an IT professional with a 4 year collage degree? No debt. Want to be a doctor with 8 years of education? No debt. Want to be a stylist? No debt. Study ancient history? No debt.
Yes, there is free education available in the US - but it's what other people have decided is "worth it", not what you want. That's where I see freedom.
Is that why America's per capita GDP is higher than that of the EU? Why the US, not the EU, is the world's center of innovation and the strongest magnet for talent?
I don't think that trying to make everyone the same is good for society or conducive to high levels of human accomplishment. Striving for excellence will inevitably produce winners and losers, but if you don't do it, you just end up with mediocrity stew. I'm not going to cut off the right side of the distribution of human accomplishment on the say-so of people who have some weird ideological commitment to human sameness.
No, but it's exactly why US is far behind EU in healthcare, education, equality, social mobility and a number of other social metrics that matter to you know - normal people on the street, not traders on wall street. GDP doesn't tell the whole story.
>>Why the US, not the EU, is the world's center of innovation and the strongest magnet for talent
Because US is home to companies that pay ridiculous salaries which make it worth moving to the US for, despite all the other downsides. You're going to get just as good education at many world class universities around the world, but if your goal is extreme salary then US education system gives you a leg up at the start - that's why. Not because there's anything unique or super special about US.
>>I don't think that trying to make everyone the same is good for society or conducive to high levels of human accomplishment.
That's absolutely not the idea, I think you misunderstood me. The point is to give everyone the same chances. In many other countries it doesn't matter if you're from a rich family or a poor one - it doesn't give you any extra leverage when applying to universities. There is no educational debt to deal with. A medical condition will not put you in any debt whatsoever.
Look at it as a gift to the society, to every child and every adult in the country - if they do nothing with it, that is their choice. But if they take these opportunities they can achieve incredible things, exactly that pinnacle of human accomplishment that you're talking about. That's freedom, not the American freedom that's tied to worship of money.
Really? When your mother has to hold down two jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table? Or when your mother doesn't need to work because she inherited millions from her parents? Which mother will have a child who goes on to a good university?
The income share of the poorest ten percent of the population is 1.8% in the US, in Norway it is almost 3.5%. In Norway university education is also free. In which one do you think a child from a low income household would have the best chance of having a better income than their parents?
See https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$bubble$encod...
And yes, not making sure that everyone has equal opportunities(not equal outcomes!!!!) is a failing of the system.
For some, at the expense of others.
It's like having a race where some people start 100m behind others and saying "well if they try hard enough, they can still win! The race itself is fair after all!"
>>Success is hard work with a measure of luck.
Of course ,but the American system is 1) ignoring that some people started at a much worse position in life and expecting them to "just work harder" 2) assuming that any problem you might encounter in your life is of your own doing, after all if you get into an accident and end up in lifetime medical debt.....well you shouldn't have gotten into an accident, right? Or again - just work hard to pay it back and you're fine?
After all it is possible. Yes, and winning lottery is technically possible but I don't think buying Lotto tickets is a valid way of living your life either.
Everybody can do this. That is equal opportunity.
There is no promise in the rights granted to you that you will have 18 houses, a private jet, a yacht, and maybe an island or two. You are promised the ability to do as you wish to try to achieve your goals in life.
Yes, we should fix economic issues so people do not get destroyed by an accident. That is a separate issue and has no bearing on equality of opportunity.
But hey. As long as we tell each other that with enough willpower they could just work extra hard and achieve all of those things that some other people get for free? It's all good.
And I'm not even against personal wealth. I'm not even against inheritance. I'm advocating for making sure everyone has equal opportunity through education, through safety in healthcare, through social policies that don't put you in crippling poverty if you fall on bad times. I don't believe in this whole "just work harder" adage, because I know sometimes working hard is not enough, especially not when facing institutionalised discrimination and lack of opportunities through no fault of your own.
>>Yes, we should fix economic issues so people do not get destroyed by an accident. That is a separate issue and has no bearing on equality of opportunity.
That's a social policy, not economic issue. And of course it affects your opportunities, if you get into medical debt due to an accident you don't have a whole bunch of opportunities that people without debt have, at no fault of your own. That is not a problem of economics to fix, it's a problem of the society to decide that maybe medical debt just shouldn't be a thing at all, which will put all citizens on an equal footing straight away. Or we can pretend everyone is 100% responsible for what happens to them and carry on as normal.
You are arguing that all these things are in the way of equal opportunity. I am arguing that they are issues on their own. Equal opportunity already exists.
High medical cost is an economic issue that is exacerbated by social policy. Insurance requirements and hidden medical care price both played into climbing medical care cost. Insurance companies and medical providers do not care about the high cost as both benefit from higher cost. There is no market feedback from the actual receivers of services.
I really dont think the difference is just in "effort". If I inherit money I did not put in effort, but I am getting super ahead. The luck plays role too. Plus, how much additional advantage I can get from being already little bit ahead is what creates a lot of inequality.
America is not known for a lot of welfare either. It is not country where it is comfortable or easy to be poor.
I grew up in Massachusetts, one of the most educated states, but I grew up around a lot of the kids in my town and surrounding towns who were "on the wrong side of the tracks" and I had many conversations with peers around middle school where they clearly indicated they had already decided it was not going to be worth it to work hard in high school and that there was little point in going to college. All of that was too much hard work and there was little point of it for them, their perception was that it was just too much easier to just go towards menial and low paying jobs just because it was easier today. Working hard in high school would just be too much of a detriment to enjoying a carefree teenage experience.
Now is that the fault of early education and/or parents for not making them understand the value of work today for a better outcome down the road? Who knows. But this is a prevalent mindset for a lot of people who grow up in the US.
This was such a pervasive thing my parents had to intervene and send me to a Catholic school. That mindset was completely absent at that school and it snapped me out of things just about instantaneously because the mindset there was 100% that hard work now is worth it.
To put it in context of the article a lot of that carefree teenage experience would have been going to parties and getting drunk.
Giving people money gives them better jobs by increasing their negotiating power. Also, it lets them be your customer, which is important if you want to sell things to them!
"Skill training" doesn't work, it was bad economics from the people who mismanaged the 2010 recession recovery. They just claimed people "didn't have skills" as the reason we didn't recover fast enough and unemployment was too high.
That's a false dichotomy. There's no actual lever for "provide better jobs and skill training."
In reality, it's either more money directed at the poors, or more directed towards the rich. And that's how people vote.
"Better jobs and skill training" means "give it to the rich so they can make the poors think they're doing something for them."
Honestly maybe a marketing campaign would be effective in letting people know that blue color work is honorable and needed and they can be productive and get a job that will support them and their family without having to go to Yale. I really like what Mike Rowe has to say about this issue.
Honorable? Maybe.
Able to support a family? Not without a secondary income from a spouse. And who's looking after the kids at that point? I hope you also have extended family that are willing and able to help, otherwise that's not much of a family.
> Able to support a family? Not without a secondary income from a spouse.
now i suspect that you simply don't know anyone who does blue collar work.
can all blue collar work support a family easily? no, but neither can all white collar work.
Incorrect.
HVAC, plumbing, elevator repair, landscaping, painting... These are all careers in my family. My dad was the only white collar of four brothers. Grandpa was AC/Refrigerator repairman.
He said in Japan, people are usually about the same. But in America, people are either really smart or really stupid.
That's especially true when doing it based on personal experience.
If you manage to do that five days a week for thirty years, you meet 1.4 million people, or 0.4% of the US population.
Obviously in most cases you'd have no idea about how smart most of these people are. You'd probably remember the ones who did especially dumb or especially smart things in the three minutes you interacted with them, which doesn't actually tell you much about how smart they are. It's even worse for that than a puzzle-trivia interview.
I think my point stands, even for a Hawaiian in tourism.
I think trying to generalize about populations on this scale from personal interactions is worse than pointless.
I have plenty of value for a reduced statement, one that acknowledges explicitly that the speaker can only legitimately talk about his experiences, not the US or Japanese populations as a whole.
Sounds like a lot of HN, TBH.
Journalists often just spin speculation based on carefully selected theories into a narrative, put it into long form, sprinkle it with some writing skills, and sell it as profound. And 'The Atlantic' is especially guilty of that (according to my experience). And they're guilty of it with this one once more (imo).
The Atlantic: Pseudo-profound nonsense targeted at elites.
^ also written somewhat tongue in cheek
If you have money, you're one of the chosen ones. The more money the better, without end. The losers who don't have money are not your problem. If they were as superior as you are they'd sort themselves out and have money too. But they don't, and of course that just proves how inferior they are.
It's absolutely an 18th century aristocracy with Internet.
I'm glad this isn't completely tongue in cheek, because I consider this a huge compliment.
I'm extremely critical of the USA, where I do live. The name of the game for the last ~100 years has been to allow wild cultural experimentation so long as cash is always king and big business gets bigger. Both aspects have had worldwide repercussions and especially given US foreign policy everyone is allowed a seat at the table to love+hate the US.
The US is a social experiment and it's had some incredible fruit. It just feels so precarious with such incredible social and economic divisions.
I mean Americans could list a similar number of stereotypes about the British (for example), but if you’ve ever visited there you’d realize they’re not that different than anyone else.
The only one I can think of is from watching BBC produced television series. It seems like the British response to any trouble, minor or large, is to put the kettle on.
People want giant alcohol super markets with every type, size and price point of alcohol imaginable and then people want to bitch that other people have drinking problems to make a point about their a priori political beliefs.
Very American.
"USA USA USA" chants, american flag on the lawn, big pickup trucks, the possession of firearms, monster trucks, american football, people who attend WWE events, "Trump voters" and MAGA hats (let's throw it in there, because it's tied into that), there's a certain stereotype there, and it's not exactly tied to those people being the cultural or intellectual elite of the country.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. That would also include not calling names or being snarky in comments here.
Doing elite sport in those competitive teams is not all that much healthy. It is tangential to your main point, but top level leagues are not in opposition to un-health. The healthy thing is moderate amount of sport, where you get yourself to improve performance, but don't push yourself to limit. Cheap casual sport that dont require gym membership but provides some social outlet would be better for average person health.
> How many weird diet fads start basically in the US? Self-help books, alternative gurus, etc.
None of that is healthy and a lot of that contributes to obesity issue. Fad diets lead to yoyo-ing and to weight gain in the long term. It also causes proper health issues on its own.
Yes, widespread obesity, but health obsessions also run deep in that country, gym memberships, elite universities with sports programs full of money. How many weird diet fads start basically in the US? Self-help books, alternative gurus, etc.
Bad education? Yes, pretty much. But also some of the best research institutions and universities in the world. Some companies with the highest R&D spending anywhere. Many of the foremost intellectuals end up living there once they enter the international stage.
Backwards, conservative, patriotic? Yes, but also extreme progressive bubbles and widespread leftist sentiments.
"American elitism"? Largely yes in many ways, but also very friendly, welcoming to strangers (even though they are just hyperbole with excitement in many contexts compared to us).
When I read the comment section here it seems like it fits my narrative. The US, country of the extremes. Drinkers, and puritans. Now fight! By the way: The article is so speculative, how can you discuss this in such earnestness? My problem with The Atlantic in general. Many articles are kind of "grand theories based on wild speculation, and creating a narrative out of that", which then has this "intellectual" appearance about it, but says very little. Not convincing at all.
The US is like a social experiment. Deal with your racism, alcohol, health, drug legalization, gender debates, sjw/pc culture, and all that, and please ship the solutions to us, not the movements and the fight (though sadly that doesn't always work out it seems). And before I get angry responses: It's written somewhat tongue in cheek, extend me the courtesy of not assuming the worst about my person.