Political controversies are often framed as disputes over facts: who did what, when, and with what measurable consequences. Yet many of the deepest disagreements—especially across borders—persist even when the facts themselves are broadly agreed. What differs is not information, but interpretation. Beneath that interpretation lie what social scientists describe as moral economies: shared, largely implicit assumptions about fairness, legitimacy, and the proper relationship between power and wealth.

Few recent developments have exposed these differences as clearly as the reactions to the visible enrichment of Donald Trump, his family, and associated political and economic allies. What many Americans regard as normal, acceptable, or at least unsurprising has struck many Europeans as institutionally troubling. Both reactions are sincere. Both are internally coherent. And neither represents a global default.

To understand why the same facts produce such divergent judgments, it helps to step back from personalities and policies and examine the moral economies at work.

This article was produced with help of ChatGPT

Two Reference Points: U.S. and European Moral Economies

The United States and Europe are not merely separated by policy preferences or partisan alignments. They rest on different logics of legitimacy.

In the U.S. moral economy, legitimacy is closely associated with autonomy, winning, and resilience. The central question tends to be whether choices were made freely and within the law. Electoral consent carries exceptional weight. If voters knew who they were electing, if rules were followed as written, and if outcomes were achieved openly, those outcomes are widely accepted—even when they are unequal or controversial. Fairness is understood primarily as procedural: the integrity of the process matters more than proportionality of results.

In much of Europe, moral economies emphasize balance, proportionality, and role ethics. Elections matter, but they are not sufficient on their own. Legitimacy depends on constraint—on whether institutions prevent the accumulation and compounding of advantage, particularly where public authority is involved. Visible overlap between political power and private enrichment is widely perceived as a failure of institutional design, regardless of voter consent. Fairness here is relational and role-based: public office is expected to limit opportunity, not expand it.

Each system experiences itself as normal. Each tends to see the other as missing something essential.

Why This Difference Has Come Sharply Into Focus

These differences are not new. What is new is their scale and visibility.

The enrichment associated with Trump and his family occurred in full public view and alongside active political power. In the United States, many reactions emphasized legality, transparency, and voter awareness. In Europe, reactions focused on conflicts of interest, role violation, and institutional failure. The disagreement was not primarily about numbers; it was about norms.

Crucially, the Trump case is not treated here as an anomaly. It functions as a system-revealing extreme. It shows how far tolerance for overlap between power and private benefit can extend in the U.S. system without triggering a collapse of legitimacy—something that would occur much earlier in most European systems.

From a Binary to a Spectrum: A Two-Dimensional View

At first glance, the contrast between the United States and Europe may look like a clean binary. That framing is useful—but it breaks down once we look more widely. Most countries combine elements of both approaches, often uneasily..

To move beyond a binary, it helps to adopt a two-dimensional view. The purpose is not to rank countries, but to clarify the dominant instincts shaping public judgment when power and wealth intersect.

Dimension One: Where Does Legitimacy Come From?

The first dimension asks a foundational question: In what ways will people accept authority as legitimate?

At one end lies consent and autonomy. Legitimacy flows primarily from elections, formal legality, and individual choice. If people voted freely, knew what they were voting for, and rules were respected, outcomes are broadly accepted. Public debate focuses on whether procedures were followed.

This logic is strongly recognisable in the United States, but it also appears elsewhere in societies that prioritise individual responsibility and electoral mandate over institutional restraint.

At the other end lies constraint and role ethics. Here, legitimacy depends not only on consent but on whether power is exercised within clearly defined boundaries. Elections matter, but authority is considered legitimate only if institutions prevent conflicts of interest and excessive concentration of advantage. Public debate focuses on whether institutions performed their constraining role.

Most countries sit somewhere between these poles, balancing consent with varying degrees of restraint.

Dimension Two: How Should Power and Wealth Relate?

The second dimension addresses a different question: What level of overlap between political power and private wealth benefits do people consider acceptable?

At one end lies expected separation. Public office is meant to limit private economic opportunity. Even the appearance of overlap—ownership, enrichment, privileged access—can trigger controversy. Separation is not merely technical; it is moral, signalling impartiality and trustworthiness.

At the other end lies tolerated or expected fusion. Political authority and economic success are not seen as inherently incompatible. Leaders may be wealthy; wealth may benefit from elected political power, and this is not automatically disqualifying. In some systems, such overlap is even interpreted as evidence of effectiveness or status.

Between these extremes lie systems that tolerate overlap conditionally—if it is disclosed, legal, or electorally sanctioned.

Where Fairness Fits In

Underlying both dimensions is a third, less visible force: fairness intuition.

Some societies primarily understand fairness as procedural fairness (“the rules were known and followed”).
Others emphasise relational fairness (“roles were respected and norms maintained”).
Still others stress outcomes or loyalty fairness (“stability delivered, group protected”).

These intuitions help explain why some societies demand strict separation between power and wealth, while others accept or expect overlap. Fairness does not replace the two dimensions; it explains why societies locate themselves where they do.

A Countries Overview

Placed roughly along these two axes, we can place some well-known countries:

This placement (ChatGPT) is not a ranking and not a judgment of governance quality. It is a conceptual map of dominant public intuitions about legitimacy and acceptable overlap between power and wealth.

Quadrant Analysis

Quadrant I: Consent + Separation

(Procedural fairness dominant)

The United States and Australia anchor this space.

Legitimacy flows from elections and consent. Separation between office and private interest is valued, but not absolute. Overlap is tolerated if lawful and disclosed. Fairness debates focus on process rather than proportional outcomes.

Quadrant II: Constraint + Separation

(Relational and role-based fairness dominant)

Core EU states within the European Union, alongside Japan and Canada, exemplify this quadrant.

Legitimacy depends on institutional restraint. Public office is expected to limit private opportunity. Visible fusion of power and wealth rapidly undermines trust, even when elections are free and laws technically observed.

Quadrant III: Consent + Tolerated Fusion

(Mixed fairness intuitions)

Countries such as Brazil, Mexico, India, and Turkey occupy hybrid positions.

Electoral consent remains central, but personal leadership and economic overlap are more readily accepted. Fairness debates oscillate between procedural arguments and outcome-based expectations.

Quadrant IV: Authority / Performance + Fusion

(Outcome- and stability-based fairness dominant)

In Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China, legitimacy is anchored primarily in authority, endurance, or performance.

Fusion of power and wealth is expected rather than contested. Fairness is understood in collective or relational terms—stability delivered, loyalty rewarded—rather than proportional restraint.

Why Clusters Matter

Countries with similar moral economies tend to cooperate more easily. They share assumptions about legitimacy, trust each other’s institutional signals, and experience fewer misunderstandings. Friction often arises not from clashing interests, but from mismatched moral starting points.
Understanding where systems sit on these dimensions helps explain why the same events can strengthen legitimacy in one context and weaken it in another.

Conclusion: Different Normals, Shared Reality

The United States and Europe are not arguing over facts; they are arguing over meanings. Each applies a coherent moral logic shaped by history and institutions. Neither logic is universal. Both are partial.

The Trump case made these differences unusually visible, revealing not just political disagreement but structural divergence in what societies tolerate from power.

Understanding these moral economies does not resolve disagreement. But it clarifies why disagreement feels so fundamental—and why, when societies disagree on what fairness looks like, facts alone are rarely enough.

Search This Blog

EUROPE-IS-US

Different Normals: Power and Money, and Why the Same Facts are judged differently in the world