That’s a clever aphorism, but it’s overly simplistic and misunderstands both contexts. America’s foundational ethos - individualism, market primacy, and suspicion of state power - is deeply libertarian, not liberal in the European sense. Meanwhile, much of Europe has embedded egalitarianism and social solidarity into its institutions - not superficial liberalism, but deeply held post-war consensus. The “deep conservatism” in Europe is often just a reflection of cultural continuity, not ideological rigidity. It’s more accurate to say both continents contain layers of contradiction, but projecting neat labels misses the complexities of their political DNA.

As a European that has spent a significant amount of time over the last 5 years in America this has been a cultural learning for me.

I would add that the original submission also brushes aside the very real problem that the US has what is effectively a widespread cult of fascists whose leader is the sitting President. We’re talking about a not insignificant number of people who either enjoy the cult or are too {stupid,uneducated,naïve,gullible,sucked in} to see the leopard that is staring at their face and drooling for a bite.

That cult is real, but I also must point out that Trump is one of the most unpopular presidents after his first 100 days in history.

He is not and has never been broadly popular beyond his cult of personality. He's just been pitted against an opposition party that is a moribund gerontocracy utterly unwilling or unable to field likable candidates, and the US electoral system is structurally a two-party oligopoly that makes it impossible for anyone else to disrupt this situation.

I don't tend to see Europe as egalitarian. I think it's more equal below a certain point, but there also seems to be a glass ceiling above which status tends to be inherited and class mobility is much harder than in the USA. It looks to me like an aristocratic society whose peasantry is held at something more like a developed middle class level rather than a subsistence level. It's a much more comfortable peasantry but it's still a peasantry in that a peasant will never become a member of the elite (or rather it's much harder for this to happen).

That's how it looks to me, but it's not necessarily reflected in the statistics:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/social-mo...

Canada is, for example, supposedly more mobile than the US, yet when I look at Canada I see a country with absolutely insane real estate prices (relative to median income) in most major cities (worse than most of the US outside SF and maybe NYC) and much lower salaries for professional jobs like engineering. I really wonder how that comes up as having better mobility. It might be harder to end up in the gutter in Canada, but it also seems like it's much harder to rise above working to middle class due to high housing costs, high taxes, and structurally low salaries.

Maybe someone from Canada or Europe can correct me -- if salaries are so much lower and costs are high, how can someone accumulate enough wealth to accomplish class mobility for themselves or their children?

Don't get me wrong -- I think some things are better in Europe. I think the parliamentary system is mostly better than our winner take all two-party duopoly tire fire, for example.

This is very true. No real American trusts authority, whether that is the government, or large companies, or other institutions like universities. This is why Uber could get away with breaking the law as long as they were still seen as a small startup.