Your description of the European intellectual climate is admittedly accurate if somewhat hyperbolic.
But I think your analysis of the root causes is lacking. European humans aren't different organisms than non-european humans. Culture does not form in a vacuum. It comes from base properties of the geography and experiences of humans in the region.
In my opinion, it's primarily down to 3 things:
1) Population density: Europe has 3X the population density (and subsequent urbanization) as the US. Urbanization leads to more collectivist attitudes. If you compare European attitudes to those in a high density American location like New York City, you'll be amazed how similar (in everything from religiosity to socialist economic leaning to political philosophy). It's the higher proportion of low population density areas of the US that lead to major differences in political philosophy.
2) Experience of downside risk: European risk aversion is quite easily explained by the fact they have experienced the most extreme version of downside risk imaginable in recent memory (WWII). The worst thing the US knows is a depression. Not total annihilation, fire bombing and markets going to 0.
3) Ethnocentrism: Europe's nationalist ethno-states are far less culturally diverse than the broader US. This leads to a higher capacity of empathy for strangers (because people in a mono-culture are more similar to you, you empathize with them more easily). Ironically though, this empathy is what leads to a higher percentage of GDP being driven by centralized government spending (50% in Europe vs. 30-35ish% in USA). The market is less empathetic, but ultimately more efficient and grows the overall pie faster...even accounting for the additional increase in inequality.
Growth compounds exponentially, so this gets more dramatic over time. People in podunk US Midwest States now have a higher disposable income per capita (on both mean and median measures) than people in London, a place you would traditionally think of as among the richest in the world.
But again, the US didn't get here because 'culture.' It got here due to design decisions made hundreds of years earlier. Being a multicultural society reveals base human racist leanings, which results in more individualist governance, which leads to a greater embrace of markets and private capital, which leads to faster growth.
Coudenhove-Kalergi writes about this dichotomy you mention between urban man and rural man right at the beginning of the book "Practical Idealism." I think you will find it highly relevant.
I'm not so sure your first point is correct. Would you consider the Nordic countries to be collectivist? Because they are among the most sparsely populated countries in Europe, more sparsely than the US, but they are the countries with the best government services. Also, Canada is more sparsely populated the US.
The north is different due to the weather. I mean, sure, Canadian tundra and the Nordic Arctic and Sub-Arctic is technically land, but I'm not sure you're getting a good comparison of population density by including it in calculations. That would be like calculating the oceans around the US in population density numbers since people live on boats technically.
Nordic countries have small populations due to the limitation of arable land to support humans at all. The US has no such limitation and could support vastly more population.
But I think your analysis of the root causes is lacking. European humans aren't different organisms than non-european humans. Culture does not form in a vacuum. It comes from base properties of the geography and experiences of humans in the region.
In my opinion, it's primarily down to 3 things:
1) Population density: Europe has 3X the population density (and subsequent urbanization) as the US. Urbanization leads to more collectivist attitudes. If you compare European attitudes to those in a high density American location like New York City, you'll be amazed how similar (in everything from religiosity to socialist economic leaning to political philosophy). It's the higher proportion of low population density areas of the US that lead to major differences in political philosophy.
2) Experience of downside risk: European risk aversion is quite easily explained by the fact they have experienced the most extreme version of downside risk imaginable in recent memory (WWII). The worst thing the US knows is a depression. Not total annihilation, fire bombing and markets going to 0.
3) Ethnocentrism: Europe's nationalist ethno-states are far less culturally diverse than the broader US. This leads to a higher capacity of empathy for strangers (because people in a mono-culture are more similar to you, you empathize with them more easily). Ironically though, this empathy is what leads to a higher percentage of GDP being driven by centralized government spending (50% in Europe vs. 30-35ish% in USA). The market is less empathetic, but ultimately more efficient and grows the overall pie faster...even accounting for the additional increase in inequality.
Growth compounds exponentially, so this gets more dramatic over time. People in podunk US Midwest States now have a higher disposable income per capita (on both mean and median measures) than people in London, a place you would traditionally think of as among the richest in the world.
But again, the US didn't get here because 'culture.' It got here due to design decisions made hundreds of years earlier. Being a multicultural society reveals base human racist leanings, which results in more individualist governance, which leads to a greater embrace of markets and private capital, which leads to faster growth.