Cold Case: Originally posted on 2/18/2008
Interesting piece in NYT.
An intersection of a youth bulge, lack of opportunity to make basic advances in life that preclude the traditional transition to adulthood, and searching for something to fill the void.
E writes:
At the risk of making unsubstantiated/unsubstantiable arguments, I would make the following observations:
- This cannot be the first time the mainstream press (i.e. papers of large metropolitan areas, cable news networks, and syndicated radio programs w/national audiences) has noticed this phenemenon in the Islamic world. The demographic trends are not subtle.
- I think this is where the President's arguments for engagement in the Middle East make the most sense. The exercise of America's "soft power", as Joseph Nye terms it, can bring the U.S. into every living room, every coffee house in the Muslim world. Why doesn't every dollar of the roughly 2 billion we send to Egypt each year make a statement about America's benevolent intentions? Why don't the billions we spend on Saudi oil buy us any influence? Or the billions we have spent in Iraq? (I am certain this is where the train will go off the rails for my more progressive friends in the audience and yes, I used the word "progressive" again, despite accusations the word is devoid of content).
As I recall the (apocryphal?) story, Patton solved unrest in the community surrounding an Army base in Texas before WWII but paying his soldiers in scrip so that the townfolk would know precisely where their money came from. Wouldn't such a scheme work equally effectively today?
American involvement in the Islamic world done properly (and I simply cannot begin to define the scope and magnitude of such an undertaking) is a viable alternative to radical Islam because it must be. For the American experiment to have any validity, it must be derived from ground truth.
To really send everyone into a frenzy, I would argue that American values - representative government, a strong and independent judiciary, property rights, limited government, and a free press (to name a few) - have value for everyone everywhere. Why is this not clearer to the world - to the Islamic world? Do we need another Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan to see what an abject failure radical Islam is as a governing power?
I will be in my foxhole, waiting for the return fire.
Salil parries:
To really send everyone into a frenzy, I would argue that American values - representative government, a strong and independent judiciary, property rights, limited government, and a free press (to name a few) - have value for everyone everywhere. Why is this not clearer to the world - to the Islamic world? Do we need another Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan to see what an abject failure radical Islam is as a governing power?
Elliot, just a few questions (y'all knew it was going to be me, didn't you?)
1. Since when are the values you mentioned above...American values? Are those copyrighted somewhere? And also, if they're so damn American, why don't we have them more often here in America?
2. If those values are so unbelievably awesome that they'd justify our military involvement all through the Middle East (hahahahaha!), why do we always have to force them down the throats of people at gunpoint?
Didn't you forget one thing in your list of "American" values? Namely, the individual's right to choose? Within the scope of certain societal boundaries, America is about freedom of choice. Don't like your car? Sell it. Buy a new one. Design a new one, sell that (okay, that's a lot harder nowadays, but still, it's done). Don't like your job? Your house? Your wife? Your fetal child? (some of these get a little problematic) Your sexual orientation?
Well, you can choose different ones here!
Ironically, the one thing that Americans are drowning in (to the point of neurotic paralysis, frequently) is the one thing they usually want to deny the rest of the world. It's not choice if you force other people to do it, and it's especially not freedom if you make them do it just like you would.
Bizarrely, this sort of arrogance is also an American value lately (though not uniquely, since pretty much every other imperialistic / hegemonizing power throughout time has thought and felt pretty much the same way, to wit: "We're so awesome and unique. You should dress like we do and do what we do for fun. Also, give us money and all your stuff, but you barbarians can't move here. Don't you love us? WE ROCK!"), and it's definitely not something we're shy about sharing with the world.
The rest of the world, and I think this definitely includes Islam...and also now South America, most of East Asia, and even large chunks of NATO...isn't so happy with that.
But since you so idealistically believe that Americans bring happiness and sunshine and rainbows and unicorny fun everywhere we go:
1. Why did we not bring it to Rwanda, the Sudan, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Burundi, Guinea, and a hundred other places around the world where some might argue they need it more urgently than they did in Iraq? Come on, be honest here.
2. As you so innocently-but-totally-inaccurately almost put it, why would anyone not want the unique wholesome chocolatey goodness that is American military interference / oil companies / corporate malfeasance in their living room? I mean, didn't we just do a bang-up job with Saudi Arabia? Iran? Iraq (the first few go-rounds)? Israel? We've been all over the Middle East for decades now! Point to a single goddamn country there where American involvement has made everyone--or even some people (other than SUV-driving Americans)--happy.
We can't even do that in our hemisphere. Why would it work somewhere where we don't take the time to understand the first damn thing about the people, their culture, or what they want?
What you're looking at is not the adamant refusal of stupid foreigners who refuse "American Values" (as proof, I offer that thousands of those same idiot foreigners come here to America and do quite well--frequently much better than their conservative countrymen who absolutely hate it when they take all the jobs). No.
Oh, and you make it possible. Thanks for buying into that! Be sure to nominate Huckabee so we can look back fondly at the Dubya years as a Golden Time.
E ripostes:
Salil -
I appreciate your thoughtful response. My response is less than perfectly organized so I apologize in advance...
Just as you salivated (metaphorically) to see my rant from the right, I confess myself equally energized by your attack on American exceptionalism.
Your position reminds me of the sort of views held by academics, the sort of views that Allan Bloom (yes, student of Leo Strauss and mentor to Paul Wolfowitz) decried in The Closing of the American Mind some twenty plus years ago. It is suggested - precisely as you have done so aptly below - that:
1) The ideals I have cited are not ideals at all but simply tools for the manipulation of the masses here and abroad.
2) They have little real value either here or elsewhere and that our attempts to foster their growth are hubris made manifest.
Before addressing each of your points, I feel compelled to note that your arguments do not play in the so called "fly over" states or what we might more generously term, "Middle America". Indeed, many more conservative commentators take this as their red meat - suggesting that such views are anti-American, that holders of such views hate America. Of course, this is not the case but I am sure you are well aware that this would NOT be a good starting point for a political platform. Democrats do well to distance themselves from the more radical elements of the Left that most strongly identify with these views.
As Lars would (rightly) point at, however, the truth of any position does not depend on the nature of its defenders or their numbers so...
1. These values are uniquely American in precisely the way that the Jews understand themselves to be the "Chosen". Jews do not claim to possess some sort of moral superiority or rank by virtue of selection by G-d to receive His laws. They do, however, feel bound by them, "chosen" to live by them in obedience to Him so that they may know Him and contribute to a greater good than their own self interest. In the same way, our forefathers took what they understood to be the most enlightened precepts from civilizations and political philosophers through the ages and crafted a document to embody what truths they (and we) hold to be self evident - that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights - and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I apologize for the didactic tone and what must seem like a patronizing lecture but I do have a point and it is this -
Just as the Jews of biblical times strayed and did so quite often, that did not diminish the truth to which their G-d sought to bind them. If we, as Americans, have been less than perfect in our understanding or implementation of the Constitution and its truths, that does not - can not -detract from their power and universal application.
Thus my reference to these ideals as American derives from this document - so uniquely American and so often copied by fledgling democracies elsewhere. This document - the oldest constitution still in effect in the entire world.
2. I might concede that we have not always demonstrated fidelity to American values - slavery, militarism, colonial imperialism and capitalistic imperialism are the examples most often advanced against the notion that these are truths or that we truly adhere to them. However, where we have succeeded, we have often done so in such a way that it is a beacon, a model for the rest of the world.
To wit -
- the fight against fascism in the twentieth century - the single most defining event of the century. That we did not fight for terroritorial expansion, or to create a market for American goods but to restore freedom to people around the globe, is a testament to American exceptionalism. That we subsequently created and now provide a home to an institution meant to harness American ideals - the United Nations - is further evidence of our tremendous desire and capacity for good. (That the UN is far from perfect does not diminish the validity of its founding principles either).
- the fight against communism. I don't need to tell you that your positions were favored by many after WWII. Fellow traveler or communist sympathizer, many on the Left saw Communism as possessed of an equally valid world view. Many abroad agreed. I would point most directly at the Arab nations - Egypt and Syria most specifically - as ready clients of the Soviet Union. Radical Islam today is the next political philosophy for countries who have already discarded communism and arab nationalism as governing paradigms.
How interesting then is the success of Israel - a functioning (thriving?) democracy in the heart of Muslim lands? How does Israel's phenomenal growth and vibrancy continue - especially in the face of overt hostility from some two hunded million people? Could I humbly suggest that democratic ideals - even American ones (*gasp*) are at play?
I would contest your portrayal of current American involvement around the globe as the heavy handed manipulation for the benefit of American conglomerates.
With respect to failures to use military force, I have not suggested that the application of military force is the sole means - or even the proper means - of spreading American influence. Indeed, I believe that my argument was precisely the opposite; that American soft power may work where traditional military intervention alone may not. General Petraeus understands this; that is why the current U.S. strategy focuses less on brute force (though the iron fist is very much still in evidence) and more on 'winning the hearts and minds'.
I disagree profoundly with your assertion that America is about choice - at least as far as your characterize it. Choice, insofar as the founders sought to guarantee individual liberties, is for professions of faith, political preference, homesteading, privacy, etc, etc - see the Bill of Rights for further reference.
What you describe is a materialistic society obssessed with instant gratification. This is hardly a uniquely democratic phenomenon. See, e,g. Saudi Arabia where thousands of princelings sport about in fancy cars and spend prodigiously. It is most certainly not the sort of choice a democracy is uniquely able to provide its citizens. See again, Saudi Arabia.
3. You insist that the rest of the world is profoundly unhappy with us. As Lars would once again say, that is not an indication of the justness of our position but, that objection aside, I must respectfully disagree.
People want desperately what we have. That some have chosen to reject it - Russia, Venezuela, etc - is no indictment of American values. In each instance, crushing poverty and the failure of the government to provide for the rule of law made the population susceptible to demogoguery. It really isn't all that complicated or difficult to understand.
What is the most convincing evidence of the superiority of American values? It isn't the exportation of our popular culture or the omnipresence of corporate monoliths. Its that in every instance where people have witnessed the horrors of totalitarian regimes - fascist, communist, or the modern variant - Islamic 'republics' - they have made clear their desire to be free. That they cannot give voice to the details isn't really the point. I don't expect an impoverished Egyptian youth living in a slum outside of Cairo to give a proper defense of the importance of property rights.
What I do expect is for his government to lay the blame for his problems - and the problems of 50 million others like him - squarely on the Americans. They did this to you - even if that makes no sense whatsoever. Anything to distract attention from their own failings. Does Chavez in Venezuela, for example, really believe America to be the Great Satan? Or can he simply not sustain his 'Bolivarean Revolution' without a bogeyman? Each place you point to where anti-American sentiment runs high - Latin America, the Middle East - the government deflects attention away, manipulating public opinion for its own purposes.
European resentment has nothing to do with American style democracy and everything to do with their perceptions of Americans in general. We are - to their eyes - loud, arrogant, and overly pious - hardly qualities extolled by the Founding Fathers and certainly not embodied in our founding documents. Ask instead about values like rule of law, representative democracy, etc and the French will proudly claim (with some justification) that we copied from them (see Rousseau, Voltaire, etc).
As for your reference to Mike Huckabee, I don't personally support Governor Huckabee for President. One guess as to which Republican candidate gets my vote :)
Salil again:
I don't think we're ever going to disagree on the relative merits of the US Constitution. As you and I both point out, it's only a good document insofar as we Americans hold it up as an ideal and actually pay attention to what it says, understand the intent behind the wording, and keep it in mind when determining what constitutes good legislation and policy.
But you're wrong on one thing: freedom of choice is enshrined in the Constitution. It's right there in the "pursuit of happiness" bit. Humans are creatures that love choice, and America is obsessed with choice. Speaking generally, choice is great! But I won't argue that too much of it can be a bad thing, or that Americans are getting pretty obsessed with choice, gratification, etc.
On to the bones of the argument...
American "exceptionalism" is not a big thorn in my side. I'm not attacking it. I'm attacking the arrogant assumptions that frequently come with it: namely, that it has always been thus, and it will always be thus, and that America (and Americans) are therefore special.
And I don't think you can argue that those "American Values" really are tools for the manipulation of minds. Most of those minds being manipulated are here in the US, not overseas. This kind of thing really doesn't play well abroad, because it's designed for the "fly-over" states. In fact, those citizens, isolated in the "heartland" (I hate that term), furthest from the day-to-day dealings with foreigners, immigrants (we'll get back to that part in a minute), and the necessarily pluralistic nature of East or West Coast American cities society, tend to be the most prone to succumb to the xenophobic rantings that always seem to go hand-in-hand with jingoistic espousal of American "values."
In fact, you say it yourself. You just say it as if it doesn't also apply to America:
People want desperately what we have. That some have chosen to reject it - Russia, Venezuela, etc - is no indictment of American values. In each instance, crushing poverty and the failure of the government to provide for the rule of law made the population susceptible to demogoguery. It really isn't all that complicated or difficult to understand.
Exactly. I get that just fine. I take issue with the "some have chosen to reject it" part (as if the governments of the world, or even America, really do simply represent the collective will of the people, as opposed to very imperfect and crude proto-conscious organizations mostly concerned with their own well-being and survival). But I get it. I also think that applies here in America, specifically with the whole "American Values" argument, which works in much the same way. You make people (in the "fly-over" states?) stupid with fear, then you wave a flag in their face, then you appeal to these notions that they hold most dear, then you go around and do whatever you want wherever you want. Whenever anyone objects, just repeat the whole process. It's the same process here as in any other country.
What else is this but demagoguery?
Your position that "American values" are "American" in just the way that "Jews" are "chosen" is bizarre to me. That's just another way of saying, "they believe it, so it's true." Jews aren't chosen by God any more than anyone else is, even if the choice is theirs and implies a burden rather than a higher rank, or whatever.
(By the way, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone make an analogy that American values are to Americans as Jews are to God's Chosen people. I'm guessing quite a few of the people in those "fly-over" states would object to that analogy, too. But neither of us is trying for elected office so far as I know, so that's not really relevant).
So okay, sure, we have a Constitution, and it's a great document. That you can remember the preamble to it puts you far ahead of the vast majority of this country who do not understand it, remember it, or care about it. Far fewer people can tell you what's in the first 10 Articles, or about any amendments, or the actual process by which you amend the document itself, than at any point previously in the nation's history.
In short, you're holding up the Constitution in much the same way most people hold up the flag: as a symbol, and not much more, e.g. "It's the best!" (And if you turn it over, Jerry Bruckheimer says there's a map to find hidden treasure on the back!)
But that's so reductionist. It detracts from the Constitution's real meaning (and what diffrentiates it from the flag, which really only serves as a symbol) to people who respect its history and were taught that it's a living document, with inherent and explicit meaning. It's been worked over quite a bit. That doesn't make it less worthwhile--quite the contrary.
So it's only as good as the attention people pay to it. After all, if you take all the Americans away, it's just a moldy old piece of paper in a case.
In the cases of "anti-American" sentiment you listed, there are plenty of people who make the same point that you do, and hold that what the world outside America thinks somehow doesn't matter, which seems fairly absurd, especially if you accept the notion that the world is also full of terrorists ready to blow America into tiny little bits. Shouldn't the motivations of foreign nations matter a bit more to America? Or is it the underlying message that all foreigners are impossible to understand, and should simply be feared, despised, and possibly exterminated when they disagree with American "foreign policy?"
I don't advocate a blind and slavish devotion to the political stances of foreign powers. I do advocate a reasoned understanding of their policies and decisions, and a formulation of American foreign policy based at least in part on understanding those motivations, taken in conjunction with our own foreign policy aims to find areas of common ground, compromise, and mutual benefit. I think that's a moderate stance, but it's heretical in Washington these days. Anything that promotes "understanding" or "diplomacy" is perceived as weak. The only good response is a military one, or at least the threat of one.
There's no grand plan to address the failings of what's going wrong right now. There's just this idea that we're America, and America is great, so other people should be like America. Viewed through this particular red-white-and-blue filter, then everything successful that the rest of the world does is actually American, just as you suggest below, e.g. Israel is really an American democracy, and not the byproduct of mostly British occupation, and the whole "British Mandate" in the League of Nations.
Americans didn't invent democracy, and we're not even the best example of it on the planet. Every successful democracy is not "American." That's just arrogant, insulting, and condescending as hell. It's insulting to me personally, since my ancestry hails from just such a "successful" democracy (what, is India an "American" democracy now? What's the catch if it's not? We're brown?).
It's time for us to acknowledge that frequently countries become unhappy with America and American foreign policy because of how we conduct our business and affairs abroad. We ARE heavy-handed, and too often the "soft" approach of dollars and business is conducted hand-in-hand with the threat of military might right behind it. And that "soft" approach that you hold up as an ideal is rarely so soft: it can and does destroy communities, natural resources, and even whole national governments, for the purported good of the American consumer. Even in the case you mention, Venezuela, there's quite a bit of evidence that America supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002. Nevermind that he took power in a coup himself! When the military marched on Miraflores, I'm sure the American involvement stuck in his craw. As Lars would no doubt point out, the relative rightness of American actions has nothing to do with how bad Chavez may be as a ruler or how he came to power.**
When we go abroad to conduct business now, it's absolutely nothing like the relative benevolence of the Marshall Plan or MacArthur in post-WWII Japan. It's not about building roads, infrastructure, educational institutions, knowledge sharing in the sciences, etc (or those interests are very secondary, like in Iraq and Afghanistan). It's largely about very specific corporate interests, and it's crazy to think that the government is not partly (and sometimes completely) beholden to those very interests. More and more frequently, that business is about oil. Secondarily it's about goods, and the processes of extraction, production, and distribution in the manufacturing of those goods for American consumption. And it's always about externalizing the costs. It's Wal-Mart in action.
Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 of them are corporations (and most of those are purportedly "American" corporations, though I maintain that they are part of a new breed of multinational corporations that will eventually become greater powers than all but the biggest national governments, and are therefore beholden to no one). Corporations are proud of this fact. I, as an American, am fearful of it (and I've gone on the record at my personal blog about this very thing at http://angryvoiceofreason.blogspot.com). I do not think that a single right afforded to me as an individual in the Constitution should be trumped by the rights of companies to make money when and where they choose, and ESPECIALLY not when they make their money by sucking oil out of the ground and selling it back to the people who live on that same ground (or some other patch of it) for huge profits.
Corporate interests shape government policy (poorly!) ALL THE TIME. They go into developing nations and tell women that breast milk is bad, but baby formula is good. They test drugs and vaccines (sometimes in association with local Departments of Health!) on people in those nations without fully informing them of the effects. They sink economies, and then take advantage of the destitution to use local populaces as sources of cheap labor. They sell guns to both sides (including governments) in conflict zones. In many places (and in America!) corporations contribute more to local political campaigns than unions or individuals combined. It's rain-forests being replaced by soy and palm plantations, diamond and gold mines crushing worker rights and leaving behind heavy metal tailings, you name it...literally every industry has a major say in the policies of the countries where they do business.*** More frequently than not, the results of those interests--that "soft peddling" that you espouse--are hugely negative for the people directly affected.
And fairly frequently, those results also contribute greatly to the perception of America by the local populations and their governments. Or do you think that they're all just jealous of us? Like, the less-cute-girl-countries are just hating on America-the-cheerleader-prom-queen because she's so awesome and popular?
I think the biggest problem I have with what you lay out below, Elliot, is that so much of it can be construed as "laurel resting." It's a whole lot of "look what we did," and not much of "look what we're doing." And I really do think it's time to own what we're doing as individuals and then also what our government is doing in our name. That means less sloppy wet kisses for companies where I'm concerned. I don't know any of my friends or family getting rich because Verizon got immunity in the FISA deal, after all, and I sincerely doubt you do, either...and if you do, well, shit. Make them give it back and try and help them figure out where they lost their conscience along the way.
*As opposed to "endangered.". Americans aren't endangered; there are more of them than ever, and they all want to drive SUVs and live in big houses and consume. But the people who make the exceptionalism possible are very close to extinction lately. "Opposition" is no longer considered a good thing in America, and the very concept of "loyal opposition" seems endangered. Neither party should strive for absolute rule; our system of government really only works when there's a natural ebb and flow arising from the root sentiments of the general electorate. And let's not even start in on the MSM in all this.
**Can we leave Lars alone now? Lars, I'm totally ready to print up a batch of "WWLD?" t-shirts, provided you approve, of course.
***They don't just do this abroad, by the way. It happens here in America, right in front of us. From the early Bush years' lifting restrictions on mercury emissions and ground water quality to the totally fuckwit crazy current corn-based ethanol alternative fuel trend, there's simply no limit on corporate involvement in the crafting of stupid government policy. Simply put, any government policy enshrined in law, rule-making, or regulation that works in the best interests of a corporation's profit motive must necessarily work against some other interest, and all too frequently those are individual rights and interests. You know those, right? You quoted them earlier: "Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc..." Remind me which part of the Constitution enshrines the corporations' rights? Or how those rights must trump individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
No comments:
Post a Comment