IN many respects Denmark is a lot more conservative than America.  Our welfare is pretty much the same as yours (the difference I suspect is in the rhetoric).  Our abortion laws are much more liberal however, and of course so are our gun laws.

Your north sea oil fields make you a potential member of OPEC (thank you for not joining) , but America does have many sites for alternatives too.  Just not enough.  The sheer size the of the country makes some of the alternatives just not feasible.  And of course you have the hypocritical bunch who demand alternatives - just not in their backyard (NIMBY).

Thanks for posting.  A fresh outside look at ourselves is always educational.

Very interesting, thanks for the insight into your views+your country! As a 'UK conservative' quite a few things are similar, although I (personally) disagree to some extent on some of the points:

The economy - I agree that welfare is necessary, and should exist to ensure that people can survive, yet at the same time be tied to work, such that you will only get welfare if you are trying to work but are unable to (e.g. if unemployed you get benefits for several months I think, but once you've rejected 3 job offers from the unemployment agency you lose your benefits). In the UK we have the problem though of benefits creating a welfare trap where you can end up earning barely any more (not technically a pure trap where you earn less, but still close) from working as you can on benefits, which is certainly not a desirable situation. On more general issues I feel that the government is too large and am against the 'tax and spend' philosophy of our current government, prefering a lower tax economy. Compared to the US we have a much higher tax burden, with higher personal tax and higher corporate tax levels. We do however have a better welfare system in return, with the NHS providing most healthcare for free (albeit not to a great standard).

The war on terror - personally I think we were wrong to invade Iraq, but now that we're there we should only leave when it's relatively stable (i.e. isn't going to collapse like a house of cards the moment we've left). Wrt afghanistan I think we were right to invade+should do all we can to support the government against the Taleban. As for the UK itself the policy has generally been in strong support of the US's in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The main opposition (who had supported the war) attacked the government over how it mislead both parliament and the public over the case for war, but the only (main) party that has strongly opposed the war is the smallest of the three, typically getting about 17% in polls, and with our electoral system translating into a much smaller voting power percentage (at a guess 5% or so, I can't be bothered to go and look it up ). As for the public they've generally been strongly opposed to the war, although it's not a political issue here anywhere near like it is in the US - all three parties agree on keeping troops in Iraq for the time being, with the disagreements then being on how quickly to bring them out (the party that opposed the war wants a strict timetable, while the others aren't so bothered, and more support a phased withdrawal assuming conditions on the ground are appropriate).

Abortion - in the UK we have one of the most barbaric (IMO) abortion policies in the world, worse than both the US and Denmark - I think you can get an abortion up to 24 weeks, so basically you can abort a child even when it can survive outside of the mother. Attempts to reduce this limit to 20 or even 22 weeks were defeated, and parliament is now looking at possibly even making abortions easier to obtain. Personally I think abortion shouldn't be available except for where the mothers health is at risk (i.e. risk of death or severe injury), or rape. At the very least the limit should be much lower than it currently is.

Gun control - here we are both the same, in that you aren't allowed to own a gun (except if licenced, I'm not too sure what the criteria is for that but it's fairly strict I think), and any shootings resulting in injury or death tend to make the national news. I also agree that this is the best policy, since although if you legalise gun control for the general population it allows citizens to protect themselves better, it also greatly increases the likelihood of shootings taking place - both accidental, as you mentioned, criminal (easier to obtain a gun, and also a greater temptation to resort to crime+use a gun if you own one), and the violence of crimes themselves (to give an extreme example, if robbing a place, if you know the owner is highly likely to own a gun and he wakes up you're going to be much more likely to shoot him than if you know the owner is highly unlikely to own a gun. True, if you think they have a gun you'd be less likely to rob in the first place, so you likely end up with a tradeoff between more violent crimes and fewer 'less-violent' ones). One thing I'm puzzled about though - is opposing gun control conservative or liberal? Technically being in favour of people owning guns is liberal (giving more rights to people), but it's deemed a right wing (i.e. conservative/republican) view to be in favour of allowing people to own guns.

Renewable energy - you put us to shame here. We're trying to get some renewable energy, and have hefty taxes on oil, but we could be doing better. Compared to the US we are several steps ahead though, with both the aforementioned measures (e.g. high taxes on oil, some subsidies for renewable energy) and that all the main political parties are unaminous in recognition of global warming, and the need to take measures to stop it.

We have a similar situation in the US, demonstrating the problem with setting the benefits level so close to entry level earnings, but the point that one must go off the dole after a defined time when work is available blunts the impact of that.  For too long here, the incentives were all weighted to staying on the dole - why work if you can get paid more to do nothing than for an entry level job?

Asmodean -

Thanks for the information.  We are closer in our positions (as conservatives) than you think.

The right to bear arms here is a reflection of our differing histories, more than anything else.  The size of Denmark and it's ability to more closely monitor weapons traffic are probably two reasons fewer criminals have/use guns (you'll have to tell me whether that is a fair statement).  I also think you probably have fewer criminals in Denmark, fewer immigrants from Central American gangs, etc.  And ordinary law-abiding gun owners in the US rarely commit crimes with them.  I can also see how a gun going off, in a country not supposed to have any, would be 'national' news.

Again, thanks for posting.

The only twisting of the second amendment are from those that want to turn my country into yours.  Guns are a weapon that has always been ment to kill people.  The hunting reason is the farce, earily Americans TRAPPED or raised their meat, hunting was sport even then.

When it comes down to it an armed people are more free then their unarmed counter parts. 

Really?  Hmm,  I guess we have to rewrite the history of Jamestown.

Jamestown didnt have much wildlife in the near area, neither hunting nor trapping was good there. They had to trade with indians to get much of their food.  Sure there was hunting but they did it out of desperation. 

A lot of the very early colonists would have tried hunting first, cause they did it as sport in their homeland and didnt think about the cost of hunting.

Go back and learn history 101.  And dont confuse the pilgrims with Jamestown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033000786.html

"The lush forests held abundant game"

Just one of thousands of hits at google.

Isn't that because in U.S. politics the term liberal has diverted from it's original meaning? The traditional meaning of the word liberal is as you say less government control of people's rights and actions, but it seems to me that in the U.S is has come to mean "someone of left wing oppinions".

Morten

You are correct.  The american political system cannot be compared to European ones on a name basis.  It will cause a lot of confusion.