I do wonder, more broadly, whether it is possible for a country to have the benefits of the "European" approach (better social services) and of the "American" approach (more robust civil liberty) all in one, or if they are somehow mutually exclusive.
From the standpoint of security, I don't see much of a correlation between the level of surveillance/repression/etc and the level of terrorist activity. It seems to me the biggest determinants of whether a country will suffer terrorist attacks are: 1) immigration policy, 2) perceived level of "colonialist"/"globalist" behavior, and 3) wealth. It is very interesting to me that Poland has virtually no terrorist attacks whereas their neighbors, Germany, France, and UK, have them quite regularly, but I don't know the explanation. It is surely not that Poland regulates the internet more tightly.
It's obviously not a perfect world and certainly we do still have some problems with discrimination and wrongful use of powers, but perhaps we are culturally a little more pragmatic about these things than our friends across the pond. Whether that tolerance will one day come back to haunt those who supported stronger government powers if we elect our own Trump is a different question.
This must be why persecuted religions fled from UK to US :-D
They weren't persecuted, they left the UK so they themselves were free to persecute others, which they were not permitted to do in England.
The Puritans believed there was one true religion and wanted this 'fact' to be reflected in English law, government and society. They wanted a theocracy.
These people were only persecuted if you believe that the store owner that was told he couldn't refuse to sell cakes to a gay couple on religious grounds also amounted to persecution (hint: it doesn't).
Stopping somone from persecuting others does not mean that person is being persecuted. Something the so-called 'Christian' conservatives in the new world and now the US still fail to grasp after 300+ years.