Contrasting Political Association in Europe and the United States

Key Insight

The right of association is viewed fundamentally differently in Europe and the United States. In Europe, associations are often conceived as 'weapons of war,' formed for immediate combat rather than persuasion; discussions serve to mobilize members for impending action, with legal means considered only one path to success. Conversely, in America, associations are primarily peaceful and legal, used by minorities to gauge their numerical strength, challenge the majority's moral authority, and promote ideas aimed at winning over the majority to eventually become the ruling party.

Several factors explain these divergent approaches. In Europe, parties distinct from the majority often aim to fight rather than convince, lacking hope of winning majority support. In contrast, American political opinions are often separated by 'shades of difference,' making it plausible for any party to eventually gain majority support. Furthermore, Europeans' relative lack of experience with freedom often leads to violence as an initial response, while Americans, with longer experience, prioritize persuasion.

Universal suffrage is a powerful moderating force in the US; because the majority is never in doubt, associations acknowledge they represent a minority, thus enhancing the government's moral authority while diminishing their own. European associations, however, often claim or believe they represent the majority, which justifies confrontational actions. Operationally, European associations adopt military structures, centralizing power and demanding passive obedience, sometimes creating internal tyrannies. American associations, in contrast, operate with a 'civilian government' model, preserving individual independence and reason, where members lend their will to a common enterprise without sacrificing their judgment.