How the US distorts its self-image It is astonishing how little Americans understand their own nation. Recently, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a man long on intellect and government experience, opined that the Iraq war has generated so much controversy because it is such an aberration: "The emphasis on promotion of democracy, the emphasis on regime change, the war of choice in Iraq - all of these are departures from the traditional approach." Many Europeans would certainly like to believe that Iraq was the product of aberrant "neo-conservative" ideas about foreign policy and that a traditional America lies just around the corner. Many Americans would like to believe this, too. We prefer to see ourselves as a peace-loving, introspective lot, a nation born in innocence and historically never choosing war but compelled to war by others. This self-image is at odds with reality, however. Americans have gone to war frequently in their history, rarely out of genuine necessity. Since the cold war, America has launched more military interventions than all other great powers combined. The interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo were wars of choice, waged for moral and humanitarian ends, not strategic or economic necessity, just as realist critics protested at the time. Even the first Gulf war in 1991 was a war of choice, fought not for oil but to defend the principles of a "new world order" in which aggression could not go unpunished. The US might have drawn the line at Saudi Arabia, as Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed. (...) Americans, in fact, have always defined their interests broadly to include the defence and promotion of the "universal" principles of liberalism and democracy enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. "The cause of America is the cause of all mankind," Benjamin Franklin declared at the time of the American revolution, and as William Appleman Williams once commented, Americans believe their nation "has meaning . . . only as it realises natural right and reason throughout the universe". This is the real "traditional approach": the conviction that American power and influence can and should serve the interests of humanity. It is what makes the US, in Bill Clinton's words, the "indispensable na tion", or as Dean Acheson colourfully put it six decades ago, "the locomotive at the head of mankind". Americans do pursue their selfish interests and ambitions, sometimes brutally, as other nations have throughout history. Nor are they innocent of hypocrisy, masking selfishness behind claims of virtue. But Americans have always had this unique spur to global involvement, an ideological righteousness that inclines them to meddle in the affairs of others, to seek change, to insist on imposing their avowed "universal principles" usually through peaceful pressures but sometimes through war. (...) The other constant, however, has been a self-image at odds with this reality. This distorted self-image has its own noble origins, reflecting a perhaps laudable liberal discomfort with power and a sense of guilt at being perceived as a bully, even in a good cause. When things go badly, as in Iraq, the cry goes up in the land for a change. There is a yearning, even among the self-proclaimed realists, for a return to an imagined past innocence, to the mythical "traditional approach", to a virtuous time that never existed, not even at the glorious birth of the republic. This is escapism, not realism. True realism would recognise America for what it is, an ambitious, ideological, revolutionary nation with a belief in its own world-transforming powers and a historical record of enough success to sustain that belief.
It is astonishing how little Americans understand their own nation. Recently, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a man long on intellect and government experience, opined that the Iraq war has generated so much controversy because it is such an aberration: "The emphasis on promotion of democracy, the emphasis on regime change, the war of choice in Iraq - all of these are departures from the traditional approach."
Many Europeans would certainly like to believe that Iraq was the product of aberrant "neo-conservative" ideas about foreign policy and that a traditional America lies just around the corner. Many Americans would like to believe this, too. We prefer to see ourselves as a peace-loving, introspective lot, a nation born in innocence and historically never choosing war but compelled to war by others.
This self-image is at odds with reality, however. Americans have gone to war frequently in their history, rarely out of genuine necessity. Since the cold war, America has launched more military interventions than all other great powers combined. The interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo were wars of choice, waged for moral and humanitarian ends, not strategic or economic necessity, just as realist critics protested at the time. Even the first Gulf war in 1991 was a war of choice, fought not for oil but to defend the principles of a "new world order" in which aggression could not go unpunished. The US might have drawn the line at Saudi Arabia, as Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed.
(...)
Americans, in fact, have always defined their interests broadly to include the defence and promotion of the "universal" principles of liberalism and democracy enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. "The cause of America is the cause of all mankind," Benjamin Franklin declared at the time of the American revolution, and as William Appleman Williams once commented, Americans believe their nation "has meaning . . . only as it realises natural right and reason throughout the universe".
This is the real "traditional approach": the conviction that American power and influence can and should serve the interests of humanity. It is what makes the US, in Bill Clinton's words, the "indispensable na tion", or as Dean Acheson colourfully put it six decades ago, "the locomotive at the head of mankind". Americans do pursue their selfish interests and ambitions, sometimes brutally, as other nations have throughout history. Nor are they innocent of hypocrisy, masking selfishness behind claims of virtue. But Americans have always had this unique spur to global involvement, an ideological righteousness that inclines them to meddle in the affairs of others, to seek change, to insist on imposing their avowed "universal principles" usually through peaceful pressures but sometimes through war.
The other constant, however, has been a self-image at odds with this reality. This distorted self-image has its own noble origins, reflecting a perhaps laudable liberal discomfort with power and a sense of guilt at being perceived as a bully, even in a good cause. When things go badly, as in Iraq, the cry goes up in the land for a change. There is a yearning, even among the self-proclaimed realists, for a return to an imagined past innocence, to the mythical "traditional approach", to a virtuous time that never existed, not even at the glorious birth of the republic.
This is escapism, not realism. True realism would recognise America for what it is, an ambitious, ideological, revolutionary nation with a belief in its own world-transforming powers and a historical record of enough success to sustain that belief.
So Kagan (and I) would agree with your characterisation of the USA as an unacknowledged interventionist (I'd disagree that it's the only one: France is essentially the same, only smaller and, these days, less powerful).
I would disagree more with you on one specific point, which is the support for free trade on dKos - quite to the contrary, I have been surprised by the level of hostility there is to free trade on dK. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I also don't disagree with the premise that there is less and less knee-jerk support for "free trade" (as defined by the WTO) in America in general, and by extension, on kos. I would say though that the opposition it runs into is primarily of the more anti-foreign sort - American workers as victim. They need protection, those American workers, usually via stop-gap policy prescriptions. Very little (if any) attention is paid to the root causes of the problem, which are fundamentally systemic and economic in nature, and the reason for this is that by paying such attention, one need avoid uncomfortable grappling with some of the nastier elements of the neo-liberalism which is basically the credo of most all Americans.
The class-interest angle of this approach (as opposed to a values approach) is most apparent in the fact that the biggest import-subsitution shitstorms get kicked up when talking about outsourcing professionals' jobs. Lip service is paid of course to manufacturing jobs lost first to Mexico then to China, but start talking about shipping off accounting or computer engineer jobs to India if you want to hear a real shitstorm start. Labor in the US, shorthand for working class people, on the other hand, is less and less nativist, more and more altermondialist as regards the issue, as evidenced by labor's participation in the Seattle protests of 1999. But this is not the sort of critique of globalism you'll hear from your average kossack, whose expression of wariness viz "free trade" is more along the nativist lines of Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan than the altermondialist lines of Attac or Naomi Klein. Fai de bčn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Hell, look what happened to FDR's minor initiatives. Fai de bčn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
you are the media you consume.
There is also the fact that people will only accept so much change at a time -- as the population changes, the courts change too.
Try a bill nationalizing banks or insurance companies and see how far we get with the present constitution, the ruling about AAA running in this sense. Not exactly sure how we can therefore term this document giving "enough leeway to do just about anything..."
And try amending the thing. With 50 states and fractional, regionalized power bases, it's pretty hard to imagine the thing significantly amended. This is of course assuming you can get 2/3 majorities in Congress, itself no small feat.
It's great for property rights. Which is a good thing, assuming you've a fair bit of it. Fai de bčn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
As far as nationalizing things, I'm not sure it couldn't get very far. States regularly have taken over power utilities for instance with nary a whisper. I.e. I don't think the constitution would outright ban it if there was a good reason to do it.
As for amending being difficult, I consider that a good thing: the crazies who periodically have power (e.g. religious right) can't permanently enshrine horribly bad things in the constitution.
But here, you run into problems of scale (esp. acute in things like the Great Depression). And in any event, if having a third of Americans malnourished, poorly housed and clothed were not such an event as you describe, then I'd argue that there are no such events. Fai de bčn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
First, it is a pretty solid document of the Enlightenment period. There are flaws, but the rights-of-man and the reason-versus-religion dimensions are good, and the overall structure of government is good (better than the parliamentary system by a long shot, in my opinion).
Second, it is a straightforward statement of values rather than a prescription of points of law. That simplicity is a big reason why it's been stable for so long.
Under the U.S. system you can have a conservative government or a liberal government, while retaining essential human rights in either case. There was plenty of pushback to FDR's proposals, and there is plenty of pushback to GWB's proposals. I think that the Constitution is one of the strong points of the U.S. system.
Now, maybe I'm a little myopic (because New York has a really pathetic constitution), but I can't think of any state constitution that is demonstrably better than the stodgy old Federal Constitution. Yes, I'd like to see some changes (in particular an amendment guaranteeing freedom from religion), but all things considered, i think it's mostly evolved into a sensible, workable system.
There was a lot about the dead-on-arrival EU constitution that I liked, mainly the parts about social and economic justice, but as a system of government it was, imho, far less democratic and progressive than what the U.S. has. And that, I'm afraid, is what would happen here as well; we'd trade a quirky but fairly workable system for a technocratic elite-dictated bureaucracy.
It seems quite clear that the modern French Republic didn't really get going until the 3rd Republic, which is when universal education was consciously used to form French citizens in the Republican values. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
It's true that Kossacks may not totally get this yet, but fortunately most up-and-coming Congressional Democrats do.
This just tells you who is blogging. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
This being said, when it was blue-collar jobs under siege, very few Americans on the "comfortable" left, in the Democratic party, got up in arms. After all, those were the days of Clintonomics, a cresting tide causing all boats to rise and all that. Never mind that labor and progressives outside of the Democratic party, in tandem, heroically de-railed the WTO at Seattle in 1999 - those voices were, and are, marginalized.
I would argue that it isn't until white, middle-class jobs start shipping off to India that the issue hits the mainstream in America, and of course, we're talking pretty xenophobic, limited analyses of the issue here. Still no place at the table for labor or altermondialist voices, despite the power both can and do wield (eg Cancun, with growing cooperation of key developing nations like China, India, Brazil).
Certainly there were some Democratic voices who have always been righteous on this issue, and understand it through and through (and aren't simply playing xenophobe cards), voices like Dennis Kucinich, who honestly we cannot say is in the Democratic mainstream.
But the critical mass of the Democratic party and, by unfortunate extension, those portions of the American left which have not been marginalized, is very much neo-liberal in outlook and still under the general weltenschauung described by that wealthy liberal par excellence, Tom Friedman, in his magnum piece-of-shit The World is Flat. Tweak around the edges if you like, they say, but the system is fundamentally sound. Never mind all these mass migrations north, and the increasing poverty south, not to mention accelerated environmental degradation.
Now, many working Americans are quite upset with the current course and policies. And it is heartening to see that some of the new Reps "get it," or at least part of it at any rate. But this does not change the fact that when the new Democratic caucus wants to talk trade, they get Rubin and no labor, and that you don't see any Democrats of any renown heading to the WSF. And I'm not holding my breath any will be heading to Atlanta for the US Social Forum next year.
After all, Davos is still much more to their taste. Fai de bčn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
I was a Kucinich voter in 2004, and I wasn't alone, if you want to be truely entertained look at the resuls of Democrats primaries after the March contents in which Kerry became the effective winner.
Indiana voted in May, year Kerry could only muster something like 70% of the Democratic vote. Many people voted expressively rather than instrumentally, that is they voted for as an expression rather than the actual expectation there candidate would win.
Being in California, you may not see this as much. But in many states of the Midwest, we have a history of getting frustrated with the system and voting for third parties. Like the great Hoosier socialist, Edward Debs, of the Wisconin progressive LaFollette. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Still, Minnesota is arguably trending far less social democratic as the Scandinvian culutral heritage is undermined by assimilation. In other areas of the Great Lakes states what I see most strongly is that with deindustrialization large parts of the working class have been taken up by the idea that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. And when debate is suppressed it only serves to validate that view. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Tweak around the edges if you like, they say, but the system is fundamentally sound.
I think you are quite right. The problem with much of working class America is that the two dominant political parties have managed to squeeze them ideologically between a rock and a hard place. Although I refer to my dear Southerners, what I say I believe also applies to working classes of other regions as well. The South, in particular, was solidly Democratic and pro labor until the civil rights (particularly busing and school desegregation) and anti-Vietnam war movements (seen as unpatriotic) (both strongly supported by liberal Democrats), alienated white Southerners and turned them into staunch Republicans. Blinded by their rage, they have been unable to see, or are unwilling to acknowledge, the damage inflicted by the core Republican Party's anti-labor, big business policies. Add to this the continuing high profile, simplistically presented conflicts over the place of religion, sexual preference, gun control, abortion/birth control, and other causes championed by liberal Democrats, and it's not too difficult to understand why they continue to vote for the very persons who are cutting their economic throats. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
But Americans have always had this unique spur to global involvement, an ideological righteousness that inclines them to meddle in the affairs of others, to seek change, to insist on imposing their avowed "universal principles" usually through peaceful pressures but sometimes through war.
this very clearly supports a reluctance to get into WWI on the part of the United States:
Firmly maintaining neutrality when World War I began in 1914, the United States entered the war against Germany only after Germany announced that its U-boats would conduct unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping and the U.S. discovered that the Germans had attempted to ask Mexico to go to war against the United States in case the United States went to war with Germany. Sympathies among many politically and industrially influential Americans had favored the British and French cause from the start of the war; however, a sizable number of citizens (which included many of Irish and German extraction) were staunchly opposed to U.S. involvement in the European conflict (at least on the British side), and the vote in Congress, on April 6, 1917, to declare war was far from unanimous.
Further evidence rebutting this comment
The great alarm felt by these senators was created by Article X of the Covenant which read as follows: "Article X. The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled." This article, it was claimed, "threw away" the sovereignty of the United States, violated Washington's last message to Congress to keep free from foreign entanglements, and would forever involve the US in foreign wars to protect the territories of other actions. These arguments aroused the Americans, and many began to wonder to what extent the League might keep the US involved in international disputes and wars. <snip>. ,,,,,consequently the resolution was lost by a vote of 57-37. In the general election of the following November, Wilson appealed to the people to support the League. The result of the election, which was fought chiefly on the League, was an overwhelming Republican victory. This was taken as the death knell of the League in America - and so it was.
These arguments aroused the Americans, and many began to wonder to what extent the League might keep the US involved in international disputes and wars.
<snip>.
,,,,,consequently the resolution was lost by a vote of 57-37. In the general election of the following November, Wilson appealed to the people to support the League. The result of the election, which was fought chiefly on the League, was an overwhelming Republican victory. This was taken as the death knell of the League in America - and so it was.
While there was some support for economic support for the Allies in WWII, there was very strong support for staying out of the war and other people's affairs. It took a surprise attack upon Pearl Harbor to push America into war with Japan. And then it took a German declaration of war on the US, to draw a reciprocal declaration of war on Germany. From Wikipedia
On December 7, a Japanese carrier fleet launched an unexpected air attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The raid destroyed most of the American aircraft on the island and knocked the main American battle fleet out of action (six battleships sank, but four of them along with two other badly damaged battleships eventually returned to service). ...... The attack united American public opinion to demand vengeance against Japan. The following day, December 8, the United States declared war on Japan. ........ Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, even though it was not obliged to do so under the Tripartite Pact. Hitler hoped that Japan would support Germany by attacking the Soviet Union. Japan did not oblige because it had signed a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union. Instead, Germany's declaration largely removed any significant opposition to the United States' joining the fight in the Europe Theater with full commitment.
The attack united American public opinion to demand vengeance against Japan. The following day, December 8, the United States declared war on Japan. ........
Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, even though it was not obliged to do so under the Tripartite Pact. Hitler hoped that Japan would support Germany by attacking the Soviet Union. Japan did not oblige because it had signed a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union. Instead, Germany's declaration largely removed any significant opposition to the United States' joining the fight in the Europe Theater with full commitment.
These statements are a blatant and a very transparent rewrite of history. His statements are evidently for "public consumption".
Except that Wilson was reelected for his second term in 1916, then entered the war, then lost control of Congress in the 1918 midterm, and then advocated for the league of nations and lost the Senate vote in 1919.
You seem to have a penchant for reversing chains of events. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
The signatory nations to the Treaty all ratified it, which meant acceptance of the League. Mr. Wilson, seeing a change of sentiment, began a speaking tour of the country to restore sentiment in favor of the League. He was successful in arousing the people of the Pacific Coast to his support. But the strain of the tour was too much for the President and he collapsed at Wichita, Kansas, on September 26, 1919. There were some attempts at a compromise on Article X by President Wilson and his opponents, and certain reservations were voted on against President Wilson's wishes. After two votes on November 13 and November 19, in which the Democrats, on Mr. Wilson's advice, did not vote, the opponents of the League voted for ratification of the Treaty with reservations, but failed to carry the resolution. President Wilson was incompetent through illness to lead the Democratic part, and, as he had no lieutenant capable of taking his place, the championship for the League became weak. Finally, on March 20, 1920, a resolution of ratification was presented and again President Wilson advised the Democratic senators not to vote for it; consequently the resolution was lost by a vote of 57-37. In the general election of the following November, Wilson appealed to the people to support the League. The result of the election, which was fought chiefly on the League, was an overwhelming Republican victory. This was taken as the death knell of the League in America - and so it was.
There were some attempts at a compromise on Article X by President Wilson and his opponents, and certain reservations were voted on against President Wilson's wishes. After two votes on November 13 and November 19, in which the Democrats, on Mr. Wilson's advice, did not vote, the opponents of the League voted for ratification of the Treaty with reservations, but failed to carry the resolution. President Wilson was incompetent through illness to lead the Democratic part, and, as he had no lieutenant capable of taking his place, the championship for the League became weak. Finally, on March 20, 1920, a resolution of ratification was presented and again President Wilson advised the Democratic senators not to vote for it; consequently the resolution was lost by a vote of 57-37. In the general election of the following November, Wilson appealed to the people to support the League. The result of the election, which was fought chiefly on the League, was an overwhelming Republican victory. This was taken as the death knell of the League in America - and so it was.
Wilson was not the candidate due to stroke, but the primary issue in the 1920 presidential election was the League of Nations, and Wilson's views on it:
The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I. The wartime boom had collapsed. Diplomats and politicians were arguing over peace treaties and the question of America's entry into the League of Nations......Outgoing President Woodrow Wilson was deeply unpopular: the economy was in a recession, Wilson's prosecution of the war had angered several traditionally Democratic constituencies, and his sponsorship of the League of Nations ran counter to American isolationism which had been strengthened by World War I's butcher bill.....Both major parties turned to dark horse candidates from the elector-rich state of Ohio. The Democrats nominated newspaper publisher and Governor James M. Cox to take on Senator Warren G. Harding. Harding essentially campaigned against Wilson, and, with an almost 4-to-1 spending advantage, beat Cox in a landslide.
Even so, they were finally sold, and look how they were sold: War to End All Wars; Make the World Safe for Democracy, &c. The Fates are kind.
Even so, they were finally sold, and look how they were sold: War to End All Wars; Make the World Safe for Democracy
And that doesn 't mean they won't change their mind down the road. Rationale people do, as events unfold, and situations change.
Nevertheless, many Americans deeply opposed American involvement in the Philippines, leading to the abandonment of attempts to construct a permanent naval base for use as an entry point to the Chinese market. In 1916, Congress guaranteed the independence of the Philippines by 1945.
It ALWAYS goes like this. The opposition is there, but NEVER succeeds. This is a constant over the whole US history. The Fates are kind.
