Willem de Vlaming (April 2025)
In the United States, a significant part of the political and social landscape is driven by efforts to dismantle publicly financed collective systems—social, financial, medical, and otherwise—in favor of a model where individuals are expected to shoulder all risks and responsibilities on their own. At the same time, many of the protections that once limited extreme wealth extraction and concentration are being weakened or removed, allowing a small group of multimillionaires and billionaires to accumulate an increasingly disproportionate share of resources. These shifts are often supported by large segments of the population, who view great wealth as evidence of hard work or exceptional ability, while interpreting financial hardship or poverty as a personal failure—insufficient effort, poor choices, or laziness.
Compounding this dynamic is the celebrated practice among the powerful of using their economic and political influence to force favorable outcomes—sometimes through forms of leverage that closely resemble coercion or extortion, such as aggressive lawfare, punitive tariffs, or other pressure-based “deal-making” tactics. Rather than being condemned, these strategies are frequently admired as signs of strength, savvy, or effective leadership.
Viewed from a Rhinelandic perspective—where social solidarity, cooperative economic structures, and a regulated balance between capital and labour are foundational principles—these developments appear almost unbelievable. The idea that broad segments of a society would support the erosion of collective safeguards, admire extreme concentrations of wealth, and praise coercive power tactics runs counter to the Rhinelandic tradition of mutual responsibility, stakeholder governance, and the belief that economic success should serve the common good. The contrast highlights how deeply cultural frameworks shape political preferences and how different societies define fairness, responsibility, and the role of power in public life.
To better understand aspects of the 21st-century American mindset, exploring it through the lens of “homesteading mindset” can me useful.
The Homesteading myth has shaped American ideals, especially the belief that ‘freedom means the absence of government interference’, and that ‘success is a solitary, competitive pursuit’. It portrays the homesteader as a rugged individualist, thriving through grit and self-reliance, with minimal reliance on institutions or others. The frontier was mythologized as a brutal meritocracy—only the strong survived. This romanticized: competition and conflict as natural; solidarity and mutual aid as weakness; empathy as a threat to meritocratic outcomes.
Though historically inaccurate, this image remains culturally potent. The ‘Homestead Act of 1862’, which granted land to settlers willing to “improve” it, reinforced a vision of autonomy based on ‘property ownership’, ‘self-sufficiency’, and ‘limited government’. From this emerged some ideological key concepts: 1) Libertarianism: freedom is maximized when the government steps back. 2) Anti-regulation: rules are obstacles to enterprise. 3) Individualism over collectivism: problems are for individuals to solve, not systems.
In this worldview, empathy becomes entitlement, solidarity becomes socialism, and equality efforts are seen as penalizing the "deserving." This supports a moral individualism hostile to redistribution, public welfare, and shared responsibility.
From the 'Homesteaders’ perspective — with its emphasis on individualism, minimal government, and competition — the ‘Rhineland model’ of business and society can seem alien, even threatening. The Rhineland model, common in European countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and parts of Scandinavia, is rooted in: coordinated capitalism, strong social safety nets, and stakeholder-oriented governance. The Rhineland model reflects a worldview where: freedom includes security, markets are social constructs, and economic life is embedded in the common good. These are not just policy differences — they are fundamentally different ethical and cultural assumptions about society.
With a ‘homesteading mindset’, looking at the Rhineland model triggers:
Suspicion because of the Rhineland model’s collective structures. Worker representation on company boards (codetermination). Strong unions and sectoral bargaining. Robust public welfare and health systems. From the American rugged individualist viewpoint, these mechanisms might be seen as: interference in private enterprise; a drag on competition and merit; a breeding ground for entitlement and dependency. There’s a deep-rooted skepticism toward the idea that workers and society should have a say in corporate governance. Business, in the American mythos, is the domain of risk-takers and owners — not a collaborative social institution.
Disbelief that fairness is prioritized over efficiency. The Rhineland approach, which balances profit with social cohesion and equity, is often perceived as: overly cautious, risk-averse, bureaucratically burdened — potentially sacrificing innovation and competitiveness for fairness.
‘Allergic reactions’ seeing the role of government. The Rhineland model sees the government as a partner and stabilizer — setting rules, redistributing wealth, and investing in public goods. Americans influenced by the homesteading myth often view government as: a nanny that smothers initiative, an inefficient or corrupt force best kept at bay, a redistributor of success from the “deserving” to the “undeserving”. As a result, policies that emphasize long-term stability and social responsibility are often rejected in favor of short-term gains and market-driven solutions.
The Rhineland view on the hoemesteaders mindset
From the Rhineland perspective the ‘Homestead’ mindset appears as a romanticized but dangerously individualistic / antisocial worldview — prioritizing personal freedom over social responsibility, and competition over cohesion. It is seen as: 1) unstable, focussing on short-term gains at the cost of long-term societal resilience; 2) socially corrosive: rhe rejection of social responsibility and solidarity undermines trust, equality, and collective well-being; 3) myth-driven: it ignores the structural supports (e.g., government subsidies, cooperation) that made homesteading possible in the first place.
In Rhineland thinking, individual freedom without social responsibility and uquity, is not freedom, but fragmentation. A healthy society (and business) requires regulated markets,, socio-economical equity, shared risk, citizen participation, and inclusive decision-making.