Pangi

In my view, the most significant differences stem from two key factors: a) the length of our shared history, and b) the nature of that history itself.

While the former is important, it is the latter—the unique events, struggles, and triumphs—that truly matter for the collective identity. This historical depth serves not only as a source of national pride but also as a powerful legitimization of one’s country’s resilience and enduring spirit.

People look at the history of their nation and try to continue it; they emulate what worked in the past and steer away from what brought disaster. From what history would the USA learn such lessons? It is evident that, in many ways, its elite lacks this grounding—whether in their approach to social media, AI, or broader policy. Too often, they act on trial and error, testing ideas to see what sticks, with little societal pause or reflection. This, to me, is the crux of the matter: it is why we have more regulations to protect people, why we may seem “slower” to adapt. But this deliberation is not a flaw; it is a necessity. We must consider our legacy, and it is right that we do so.

The U.S. has little history of real strife, so it neither understands nor values its own success—and now, the world’s most powerful nation willingly surrendered its leadership by vote.

one difference is that Europe has a history?