And the United States hasn't exactly been a sterling exemplar on these fronts, either. My sense is that few other nations have ever held themselves in as high regard as that of the US; this long-standing notion of "American exceptionalism" is not only mostly fiction, but also as big of an hypocrisy as that which you accuse Europeans of.
The US also subscribed to the racist social theory which gave rise to and supported ideologies like the White Man's Burden. While Europe was scrambling for Africa, we had our eyes on other targets in the 19th century, in the name of the "Manifest Destiny" (which was an implicitly racist ideology; by claiming hat it was the divine mission of the US and its people to expand over the whole of the North American continent, it either failed to acknowledge that there were already millions of human beings living in those "empty" spaces on the map, or else completely disregarded them as having no value whatever. In either case, it treated non-whites as non-concerns, as inferior beings). While the Belgians, Germans, French, and British were raping Africa, we were engaged in such wonderful pursuits as the ethnic cleansing of Native American tribes (resulting in millions of deaths over the course of the century), the theft of half of Mexico based on a phony, contrived, and provoked war, the de facto annexation of Cuba at the century's turn, and the de jure annexation of the Philipines, in which over 200,000 Filipinos were slaughtered by the US military. We also insisted that Britain not be the only ones to profit from their "opening" of China, arguing that an open door policy be adopted, so that we too could enjoy the spoils. And then there was the "opening" of Japan, which was indirectly responsible for so much human suffering in East Asia. All the while, many in the US proclaimed the need to educate and civilize all these backward folks, especially people like the Native Americans, the Filipinos, etc. It was the pervasive Western discourse of the time: everything came down to "civilization" (i.e. the West) versus "barbarism" (i.e. everybody else). One might also note that we profited from the slave trade and from slavery just as much, if not more, as our European counterparts. I believe only Brazil and Cuba carried on the official, legal practice of Black slavery longer than the US. We are hardly in a position to criticize the Europeans for their sins. They are our sins, too. We are probably seen (and rightly so) as being just as hypocritical as we accuse other states (like France and Germany) of being. We get nowhere by disregarding the human rights arguments of others merely because they have a checkered history on the matter; we also have a checkered history on the matter, so by that logic, everything we say on the matter of human rights should be disregarded as well.
As for the economic model of Europe, it appears to have hit some trouble spots, but we'll see how it turns out. The model has generated some wonderful growth in the past, as in the economic miracles of the 1950s. I would also note that not all EU members are having a rough time economically, even though all have far more of a social element to their economic model than we do. Ireland, for example is doing rather well, in terms of growth. Other countries have managed to institute some form of social democracy that has worked very well (like Japan). The model probably needs to be tweaked a bit, but I wouldn't call it "failing"; time will tell. The point is that one has to find the right balance between having a social safety net and letting the free market work its magic. In the meantime, one thing I think would help to alleviate the economic trouble vis-à-vis the social safety net in many European countries would be the encouragement of legal immigration (with appropriate security and background checks, of course), so that they could get more workers paying in to the system. The biggest difficulty they have right now is that their populations are aging and shrinking in many countries; legal immigration could serve as a palliative to this problem. But fundamentally, these are strong economies, with a well-educated, highly-trained population that enjos a high standard of living. I don't consider that a sign of "failure" at all.
EDIT: Okay, maybe laying the suffering of East Asia at the feet of the US from the "opening" of Japan is too much. But it was the match that hit off the Meiji Restoration (or as I call it, the Revolution) which gave rise to the ultra-right wing ideology that supported Japanese expansionism and exceptionalism. But I think it's also fair to say that Japan merely learned the imperialist lessons that Western countries (including but not limited to the US) taught them, leading them to become a perpetrator, rather than a victim, of imperialism. I'm a little undecided on this, though.