American Exceptionalism by any other name...
I try to imagine a historically-minded Latin American reading Anne-Marie Slaughter’s claim that the essence of American patriotism is its commitment to “liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith,” without exploding in bitter laughter and I find that I cannot. Anne-Marie may be right (I am not at all sure) that values play a particularly important role in the American national psyche, but psycho-history is not history, just as self-love is not real love.
But leave what we have wrought in Latin America from James Monroe through Woodrow Wilson (self-determination, indeed!) to Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan to one side. There is, more generally, something strangely over-intellectualized as well as over-sentimentalized about Anne-Marie’s account of our own history. Take, for example, her argument that our debates about what our values mean constitute what she calls “the essence of our politics, the secret of our success, and the source of our strength as a vibrant, open society.” Frankly, while I might wish this were so, I don’t think there is really much historical basis for the claim.
Would an economic historian agree that political and moral debate was the secret of our economic success? Perhaps one who subscribes to the neo-liberal and neo-conservative view that democracy engenders successful, liberal capitalist societies would do so? But that, frankly, is utopianism disguised as economics and is, in any case, foundering as China and Russia demonstrate the economic viability of capitalism in an authoritarian political context. At the very least, surely, an equally strong case can be made that our historic success is based on our economic success and that, historically, that economic success had very little to do with values and much more to do with such dry, unromantic stuff as mineral and agricultural wealth, slavery, immigrant cheap labor, and capital accumulation.
I am, in any case, deeply suspicious of arguments like Anne-Marie’s that are, fundamentally, progress narratives. Not only do they seem to me, in terms of the history of ideas, penumbral transliterations of the ur-Biblical Progress narrative, and as such worth examining with the greatest skepticism since they are so deeply engrained in Christian cultures, but they seem to me highly dubious as any other kind of history than what is now rightly disparaged as Whig history. When, for example, Anne-Marie writes that “debates and struggles over the meaning of our values has driven our history forward,” by using the term forward in what is clearly the moral and political rather than the chronological sense, she in fact illustrates this Whig paradigm perfectly.
But is history really a progress, as Anne-Marie claims? Perhaps we are not going ‘forward’ at all, but backwards, or sideways. Frankly that seems far more likely to me and I can’t help wondering, were Anne-Marie herself not trying to ‘rehumanize and revitalize’ what I believe she would think of as the American project, whether she would really disagree? Again, when Anne-Marie speaks of the need to “get our foreign policy back on track,” or, in her justifiable consternation over the Bush administration’s suicidal foreign policy, refers to nations friendly to the United States that think that we Americans “no longer (italics mine) listen and learn,” I come back to my fantasy of a Latin American reading these words, and I invite Anne-Marie’s readers to ask themselves what any non-American would make of such a claim? I also cannot help wondering if the nations and peoples who did once believe this were any other than the Europeans grateful at America’s role in their liberation from the Nazis. But Europe is not the world, and I do not believe that Latin Americans or East Asians ever believed anything of the sort.
Frankly, I don’t see why anyone should believe anything that self-serving. Anne-Marie wants dialogue with other nations. She honorably calls for humility. And yet she remains married to a romantic, self-loving vision of the political and moral essence of the United States that seems to me based on confusing a sociological analysis---as she puts it, “part of what we think makes us distinctly American is that we hold to a set of values that apply around the world”---with an historical one. What a florid romance Americans make of America! Surely, if we are serious about gaining “both friends and humility, not necessarily in that order,” as Anne Marie rightly calls for, the first thing to do is to once and for all renounce this romance and see the United States for what it is---a great country that, like all great countries, has done many good things and many bad things throughout its history, but also whose national myth about itself is a self-serving fantasy, like all national myths. To say that we Americans think something does not make it so, and until we are prepared to confront that possibility seriously, we will remain lost in the dangerous forest of American exceptionalism of which Anne-Marie’s latest book is a humane revision whether she accepts the fact or not.
By whatever standard people want to measure "exceptionalism", I think its plain that we are on a decidedly downward trajectory with no bottom in sight. So if we ever were exceptional, (and I dont think theres any good arguement that we were) then we shortly will not be.
I wont miss the nationalism and jingoism. (not that we will give it up, even if we end up living in boxes and eating radioactive dirt).
June 19, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, you obviously hate America. Who let you in here?
kidding...
But I don't think America is, or ever will be, ready to give up our precious Myths.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 19, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are American values unique? The only other nation that talks about itself in this way is France (culture). Is there some inferiority complex here? Why do you need to make such a fuss over your values and at the same time export some of the worst excesses of Hollywood and not very good fast food.
Why do you need to do all this good in the world? Do you think people at the receiving of these values appreciate it? Those at the receiving end of American scholarships, foundation grants and other forms of assistance are grateful But they do not necessarily accept your values. Because, in addition to all the values set out by Anne Marie there is an awful lot of distasteful stuff: religious extremism, hypocrisy, greed, riding rough shod over the feelings of others, etc. Freedom Fries says more about America just now.
June 19, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has all been discussed in a highly readable book:
Myths America Lives By
"Myths America Lives By identifies five key myths that lie at the heart of the American experience--the myths of the Chosen Nation, of Nature's Nation, of the Christian Nation, of the Millennial Nation, and of the Innocent Nation."
Slaughter and Ikenberry spent several days explaining their romantic version of US history and our need to take on the white man's burden on TPMcafe a few month's ago. Very few of us bought into their thesis that time either.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 19, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw this as the feature in the TPMCafe Book Club and posted there but this seems a more likely place to see other thoughts on this. Here is part of what I posted:
________________
It's not that those ideals listed are not truly inspiring nor that using them as a basis upon which to engage other nations is a bad thing, it's that we don't truly even practice or embrace them here at home. We need to be honest about that fact because it is a critically important distinction. And while we may be too busy wondering what Paris is eating in prison and how much it will cost us to fill our tanks for our 4th of July road trips, the rest of the world sees us trying to paint it with a very broad brush only using the colors red, white & blue. And no amount of back slapping or misty-eyed idyllic theories of what America is supposed to be, that we put forward to justify doing as we please, is going to get the rest of the world to buy it. Not a single word of it.
The real "Idea that Is America" these days appears to me to be "do as we say, not as we do". And there's nothing inspiring or enlightened about that. In fact, I think you could argue that in doing so you actually turn those admirable values into American exceptionalism.
_____________
I also take "exception" to the presumptuous position that everyone in the world (or at least by our measure those that matter) universally subscribe to not only the same core ideals but also to the same definitions and implementations of those ideals. This strikes me as further evidence of American exceptionalism because it proves itself immediately false by ignoring the realities of different cultures, traditions, religions and histories. I think that perhaps that's an equally stark aspect of what makes this an exceptionalist position, it's exclusive and not inclusive.
June 19, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very impressive post in putting its finger on my qualms. As a scholar at Princeton, Professor Slaughter should be doing more than adding a hazy glow to created conflicts among nations. I'm not seeing signs of that.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say that we Americans think something does not make it so, and until we are prepared to confront that possibility seriously, we will remain lost in the dangerous forest of American exceptionalism of which Anne-Marie’s latest book is a humane revision whether she accepts the fact or not.
David Rieff (and I don't say this often), you rock!
At first, I didn't think of what to make of Slaughter's thesis. I'm all in favor of better relations with the rest of the world, and her argument seemed idealistic and hopeful. Beyond this, I didn't care too much about it. But you've managed to succinctly and cogently explain why Slaughter's seemingly innocuous argument is in fact dangerous and conceited. Suddenly I care a lot about this argument, and you've completely won me over to your point of view. Kudos to you.
June 19, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Mcboo, I'm troubled by the assertion that American values define "universal values."
Slaughter writes: "Liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith bind Americans together, but these values do not stop at the shores of the Atlantic and Pacific, or the banks of the Rio Grande and Saint Lawrence. We have always insisted that our values are universal values. Indeed, part of what we think makes us distinctively American is that we hold to a set of values that apply around the world."
"Democracy" simply is not considered the highest for of government in all parts of the world. Think of Scandanavian countries where socialism still shapes healthcare and so many other social policies. As for "faith" I presume Slaughter means faith in a god or perhaps even faith in an afterlife. Y
Yet there are many moral people in this world who are secular humanists and/or atheists. They do not share her faith. I'd add that the "faith" of many Eastern religions is so very differet from what most in the West mean by the word that Slaughter's idea of faith can hardly be called universal.
The same could be said of "equality." Here in American, we tend to insist that "equality" means equality of opportunity. In other cultures, which are more interested in stability and promoting a collective sensbility, equality means equal results in terms of standards of living. We value the exceptional individual who "stands out" because of his success--in other cultures "standing out" would be cause for shame.
"Today," Slaughter continues, "other countries, by and large, do not believe us. When we say, 'We want to promote universal values,' they increasingly hear, 'We want to impose American values.'"
Of course they do--and for good reason. What are we are we doing whenever we try to suggest that other countires should aspire to become "democracies."
Finally, Slaughter urges us to "to learn much more about the idea that is Japan, France, South Korea, India, . . . Botswana, Ghana, Brazil, Turkey, . . Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, Italy, Australia and a great many other liberal democracies."
How about learning more about countries that are not "liberal democracies?" Perhaps we could learn more about China? (Since it is about to displace us, this could be useful knowledge). If we are interested in tolerance We might want to learn more about Sweden or Denmark (I'm assuming Denmark didn't make her long list of liberal
democracies because it's too socialist.)
How about learning more about Middle Eastern cultures (so that we can at least tell the difference between Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran)?
June 19, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about all the rest, but self love is in fact the root of all love. To love another honestly, one must first love the self.
Which is way different from narcissism - which term might better fit your analogy, David.
Jake
June 19, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that we move in fits and starts, but on the long haul (i.e., discounting the last 6 years especially), I still believe we're on an upward trajectory. Over the last 200 years we've gotten rid of slavery, given women the vote, eliminated poll taxes, and probably one or two other good things as well. Over the next 100 years, I suspect that the majority will accept the "homosexual lifestyle" and that homosexuals will be given the right to marry and adopt/have children. I know it's hard to see while sitting in a trough, but I still believe that we're continuing to improve (on average).
That's not to say that we don't still have a long way to go, or that we're "the best" or anything, but I believe that discounting our progress is selling us short.
June 19, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
He he, Americans and French are by no means unique in seeing themselves as unique.
I would conjecture that the same is the case with Russians, Indians, British, German and Chinese. And, of course, the Jews.
It was interesting to me that the Russians have a single world (podnebesnaya) that correspond to a Chinese world that means "all under Heaven" -- but in usage, it means the only country that really matters (which is different for Russians and for Chinese).
June 19, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the mistake here is trying to say these values are the values of all 300 million Americans. Clearly Bush, Cheney and Rove have vastly different values - unitary Presidency, oil, torture etc. The question is whether a significant debate can occur and I think that at least 40% of the US holds closely to these values that Slaughter talks about, with these values as foundation. I think the debate has to be between those who hold these univerals values which are rather guides for action amongst 'the believers' rather than a basis for dialogue among all. The goal then is to create a world based on these universal values rather than to start a conversation amongst all who can talk.
June 19, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
American exceptionalism is primarily for internal consumption. Very few people outside the US take it seriously, but it's what helps Americans convince themselves that they are purely a force for the good in the world and not just another nation with narrow self-serving interests like everyone else.
June 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "Democracy" simply is not considered the highest for of government in all parts of the world. Think of Scandanavian countries where socialism still shapes healthcare and so many other social policies.
Democracy and socialism are not opposites, or even exclusionary of each other. The Scandinavian countries would be considered democracies by just about everyone, even though three of them are, fornmally, constitutional monarchies.
Re: In other cultures, which are more interested in stability and promoting a collective sensbility, equality means equal results in terms of standards of living.
Oh, good grief, is there any country on Earth where this has been achieved or is even a true ideal? Even countries where almsot everyone is equially wretched have a tiny and rather fabulously wealthy upper class. And yes, there are rich people in Scandinavian too.
Re: We value the exceptional individual who "stands out" because of his success--in other cultures "standing out" would be cause for shame.
Every culture defines and admires excellence in some way or another. Maybe wealth alone is not the be-all and end-all, though there no where on earth will you find a place where wealth is sneered at, where an ordinary person would reject a fat inheritance or tear up a winning lottery ticket. If some peopel have too idealistic a view of America, you seem to have a very unrealistic view of the rest of humankind.
Re: Perhaps we could learn more about China? (Since it is about to displace us, this could be useful knowledge).
How so? China's GDP is going to larger than ours soon, but it also has four times as many people.
Re: I'm assuming Denmark didn't make her long list of liberal democracies because it's too socialist
Where is this coming from? Ms Slaughter certainly made no such suggestion. As I said above no one would seriously exclude any Scandianvian country (in fact no European country save Russia, Belarus and the Vatican, and maybe Serbia still) from the list of democracies. You have a chip on your shoulder about something, but Ms Slaughter is not your target.
June 19, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a clue boys and girls. People who brag about their humility, don't have any.
June 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trouble is all this preening in the mirror admiring themselves for just being so darned special ,has knock on effects in the Us's relations with the world.
After all a constant diet of how wonderful and special america is leads both to a complete inability to understand how any other country could possibly disagree with american policies ('its just pure anti-americanism' 'they hate us for our freedoms' etc etc ) and a belief that even if the governments of other countries are opposed then surely the people of those countries must actually support america.After all is not america loved and admired by people around the world and don't they really deep down want to be americans?
And that road leads to 'we will be welcomed as liberators' and other such sentiment ('irans population is really pro-american so if we can just overthrow the goverment.....').
It also leads americans to believe that as they are such a noble country then anything they do abroad must be noble and for the best interests of the foreigners even if the foreigners can't see it. (see interventions in latin america, support for dictators etc).
June 19, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and for the record, what made America the great powerhouse that it is today, was relentlessly killing off and making war on the weaker peoples who had original claim to the place.
America's power comes not from virtue, but from controlling three and a half million square miles of prime temperate zone real estate, plus a goodly portion of the world's key resources of oil, gas, iron and other essentials, conveniently located, and the security of two vast oceans and no threats on the continent.
No other state in human history has ever had such a spectacular run of luck.
Russia and Canada were bigger, but a lot of their territory is basically tundra. Australia is almost as big, but its mostly desert. Europe and India were comparable, but divided into squabbling fractious mini-states with territories of a few thousand or few tens of thousands of square miles. Even China, in other respects comparable, was surrounded by competing empires - Khmer, Vietnam, the Mogul, Japan, Korea, and repeatedly invaded by barbarians, the Monguls, the Manchu, the Han.
Nope. America, born on third base, and convinced it hit a triple.
June 19, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
It's time to let the mighty Eagle Soar once more
I too am caught between laughter and tears choking on each.
June 19, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron, yours is the best but here are some more:
The person who describes him/herself as a "giver" is extracting a huge price for whatever they may be "giving" away.
When someone says, "I'll be honest with you..." LOOK OUT! You are about to hear a big lie.
When you hear, "This is in your own best interest..." Opt out.
And finally, when our president or veep say absolutely anything, but especially if they mention 911, God, or The Rule O' Law (why can't George pronounce the letter, "f?" Hide your children, your pocketbooks, and get ready for the next scandal which they will blow off, right up everyone's a**es!
Jan
June 19, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No other state in human history has ever had such a spectacular run of luck.
Not luck. It's manifest fucking destiny pal! Just be glad Jesus didn't manifestly destine us to get busy on Canada's ass. I sure don't know why he didn't, cuz you terr'ist-luvin pinkos could sure use a dose of Faith, Tolerance and Liberty - adminstered straight to the nuts, Abu Ghraib style!
June 19, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. America, born on third base, and convinced it hit a triple.
And don't make fun of baseball!
June 19, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
With an entitlement to be safe at home.
June 19, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But...well...how to say this? I don't think most Americans who think about it at all believe in American exceptionalism. If pressed, they'll say they believe in equality. Look at the divergence of opinion on the topic itself!
Besides, "exceptionalism" is by no means uniquely American. The jingoism, mindless militarism, fear-mongering, and exceptionalism that Bush has brought into play recently are just local versions of the old fascist tools used by Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, and more recent minor league fascists like Milosovic in Serbia and Papadopoulos in Greece (one of the fascist Greek colonels' mottoes in the 1970s was "Make Greece #1 Again"--absurdly hearkening back to the Age of Pericles!).
These are the siren calls of fascists everywhere, and there aren't many populations that are immune to it. But, I don't think Americans are unusually susceptible, either. Bush's bullshit about a generations-long war, the superiority of our society, the urgency of the threat to our survival--these horseshit spewings aren't appealing uniquely to Americans. They've worked almost everywhere, at different times, for thousands of years.
A great observer once said that "All of life is a struggle against barbarism." You can recognize barbarians by their fruits--war, hatred, death, religious fanaticism, and an urgent desire to control learning and scientific development. That's what we're getting from Bushism now, but it was always true of nations run by barbarians.
June 19, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with Mr. Rieff, but I must say he takes it a bit far.
Without the ideals that Ms. Slaughter refers to and without an ongoing effort to make them real, no progress can be made in this country. Why? Because without them, without our myth of upholding certain ideas and values we will be, as the late Hunter S. Thompson pointed out in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972, just "a nation of used car salesmen." Or, put another way, there would be nothing left of what many of us consider the only unique and worthy parts of our nation. We would then have only commercialism, profit as the highest and greatest of all values no matter what, materialism and me first-ism. One of my college professors said that "the motto of America is Hurrah for me, and Fuck YOU!" In many respects that is right. But while all the ugliness that characterizes much of our nation's true nature is there, we also have a side that does strive for the ideals Ms. Slaughter writes about. It is a side that is in conflict with the commercialism and crassness, the idiotic jingoism and bully-boy antics around the globe. What we are as a nation is a big, messy, difficult to describe and certainly difficult to comprehend beast. I think we all understand that. But we are still a beast with great potential and many of us, perhaps not all, believe that at our greatest moments and when our nation has been at it's best it has always been because of the ideals and values the nation has always claimed it was about. We may not be making progress right now, but we have seen progress in the past and will continue to do so over time. We may be in a phase of regression as a nation and getting worse in some respects, but I think that is coming to an end and we have the potential to achieve things greater in the years to come than anything we have ever achieved before. If we do, it will be because of the triumph of the kind of values and ideals Slaughter writes about. It may be only a temporary triumph but that is the nature of the beast. The struggle is ongoing and our generation has an obligation in my view to make sure that our best ideas, ideals and values do triumph.
June 19, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a schizophrenic discussion this is!
I will not even try to express a position either pro or con Ms Slaughter's book. Instead, perhaps a little dip into philosophy will help (me at leat) get clear as to what we are actually talking about in the first place.
Marie Slaughter's post and her defenders talk a lot about the "meaning" of our values--sometimes the meaning of the actual words (liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith).
Bertrand Russel distinguished between semantic meanings and existential meanings. Obviously Ms Slaughter is not engaged in an exercise in linguistics, so we must assume she means something more akin to "existential meaning".
Wittgenstein did not make such distinctions and (in his later works) gave us the famous formulation "In a large number of cases the meaning of a word or expression is to be found in its use" (PI. §43). He talked about language games and he talked about “ways of life.”
So what concrete uses do we have for these words in our "way of life"?
I must say that rarely do these words/concepts play any role in our daily life other than to evoke a certain set of "feelings". In practical terms they are of little if no effect at all.
I dare say that a woman can spend her whole life living in this wonderful country never using these words in any language game at all (e.g. never even using the words themselves) and have quite a successful and wonderful life.
They are evocative words that play a role in language games whose purpose is to make the participants feel a certain way (depending on the circumstances).
Do these language games have a more diffuse effect on the culture in which they are played on a regular basis such as ours? Let’s take a peek.
George Bush uses language games using the locution "they hate our freedom" and "we need to spend money on faith-based initiatives" and it seems to motivate people to invade other countries (not a very salutary act in my opinion) or to make people intolerant of those who are not religiously inclined or of a non-Christian persuasion. So off-hand, it seems that these words can be and are often used for purposes that have nothing to do with any presumed abstract meaning we try to impugn on them.
It is not so much the words that a nation uses to describe it's ideals, although those that Slaughter chooses are as good as any, it is to what effect they are used.
Looking at the way many Americans use these words, I have to agree with the critics of Ms Slaughter that they are used in an exceptionalist way. They are used to distinguish ourselves as superior to "the others". That's the way I see these words used in my everyday encounter with people.
So I would say yes let us aspire to high ideals ( higher ways of life?) but let us not confuse that with mere self-serving lofty talk.
June 19, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron @ 7:04PM, Jun 19.
America's power comes from .... the security of two vast oceans and no threats on the continent.
I'm sorry, Valdron, but your security analysis for America is grossly out of date. Those two vast oceans are very likely contributing facts to a growing assessment among the largest powers out there, who are competing for the same resources that America (and Canada) overconsumes. Who knows for sure, but certainly, as Bangladesh starts fleeing to India to escape the consequences of our overconsumption, and as the world price of crude oil goes ever higher in Bush's program to please Russia (and get those missiles into Europe), it is becoming fashionable to think that North America is, ultimately, expendable.
It might be to India's benefit, say, to crash the world price of oil and end global warming by simply burning out the US and Canada. If you want to save Bangladesh from moving into India en masse, by stopping global warming, then a shutdown of North America might work for you. If India or some other beneficiary were to engage a rogue player, an untraceable detonation could be arranged over America or even just near enough to the continent to do the job.
And that would be the burn-out of every electrical component in all things electrical from coast-to-coast-to-coast.
How?
Most people think of 'nukes' as either dirty bombs or city destroyers, but a powerful nuclear bomb can actually shut down the United States and Canada in half an hour, without ever touching the ground. If such a nuclear bomb is detonated in the stratosphere, it causes an EMP, which will set afire almost all electrical infrastructure from Florida to Prince Rupert, from Quebec to Los Angeles. The death rate from this would be astronomical.
The higher this detonation takes place, the greater the area of destruction. Therefore, if a rogue player in possession of a nuclear bomb did not have access to missile delivery, the rogue player would need to detonate four or five nuclear bombs in the same number of high-altitude aircraft such as cargo jets, for example, over North America or even close by.
So, our natural isolation, may I suggest, is a neutral fact, and certainly not something that works in our favor on all occasions.
Add to this that sordid fact that the absence of "American values" in our foreign policy has been accruing major rage over the years. Therefore, such a major blowback op is not an impossibility. I hate to sound like Vice President Elmer Fudd (oops), I mean, Cheney, but ... be verwy afwaid. Be verwy, verwy afwaid.
And you're Canadian, are you? Then your goose will get cooked along with our turkeys, and we got a lot of them. Oh, and who started off India's nuclear program? Canaduh. That's who. Their Candu staff got locked out of the nuclear facility they built for India, back in late 1964. It's been 'progress' ever since. But that's okay, Canada, 'cause we helped train Dr. AQ Khan, the ultimate privatizer and marketeer of nuclear secrets, technology and matériel. So, don't think Canadians are dumber than Americans. 'Cause you ain't.
June 19, 2007 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who has lived and traveled in East Asia for nearly 20 years, I take exception to comments here about the rest of world not sharing our "myths" or seeing the US merely as a materialist and imperialist power. For Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Filipinos and many others in this part of the world, there has been and continues to be admiration for the US mingled with confusion and sometimes contempt - especially in recent years. Yet families send their kids to school in the US, transplant at least one child there should things go awry at home, go there to work and send back their paychecks, seek asylum and sanctury from repression, etc. So whatever second thoughts we are having about our self-professed "values" and whatever disrepute we find ourselves in now, the virtures that Slaughter would like to revive and that many here disparage are a experiential reality to many people. Of course US is also seen as materialistic, imperialistic, and decadent. Our hyprocrisy is often too transparent, especially when our leaders boast about supporting democracy in every corner o the globe, etc. as GWB has often done. But it's not pointless or a mere psychological exercise to consider how to bring our words and actions into closer alignment and to measure more carefully how we use our considerable influence.
June 19, 2007 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To say that we Americans think something does not make it so, and until we are prepared to confront that possibility seriously, we will remain lost in the dangerous forest of American exceptionalism of which Anne-Marie’s latest book is a humane revision whether she accepts the fact or not."
Which makes me wonder what is the purpose and motivation of this project. Prof. Slaughter probably is an intelligent and well meaning individual. The first makes me wonder if she believes all the tripe about American values that they compiled. Is it possible that this project is conceived as a propaganda manual: how to convince American imbued in the notion of their exceptionalism to abandon positions that are based on that exceptionalism?
Political scientist may legitimately figure out that explaining the populations at large that they are morons (OK, beholden to unwise beliefs) is a "bad frame", and that a good frame is to agree with the premise of exceptionalism, but draw "correct conclusions". Perhaps a naive and polyannish frame is a wise thing to adopt. Perhaps not. But I feel that Rieff misses the point here: "Frankly, I don’t see why anyone should believe anything that self-serving." I would state the opposite -- most of the time people believe what they believe is self-serving. If the book is adressed to political philosophers or jaded denizens of meta-blogistan, sure. But if it is meant as a manual for politicians and activists...
June 20, 2007 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think? ;-)
June 20, 2007 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: be glad Jesus didn't manifestly destine us to get busy on Canada's ass.
We tried that, back in 1812, although in those days no one dragged Jesus on stage as justification for American wars. We also got out butts kicked.
June 20, 2007 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: but a powerful nuclear bomb can actually shut down the United States and Canada in half an hour, without ever touching the ground.
Yes, but very few countries have the wherewithal to do this. You need a thermonuclear bomb and the means to loft it into the outer atmosphere. Russia, China, France and Britain could od that. Maybe Israel (do they have H-bombs and what range are their missiles?). For sure no Middle Eastern country (except maybe Israel) and no terrorist organization could do that.
Re: If such a nuclear bomb is detonated in the stratosphere, it causes an EMP, which will set afire almost all electrical infrastructure from Florida to Prince Rupert, from Quebec to Los Angeles. The death rate from this would be astronomical.
I'm not sure one bomb could cover that much territory-- curvature of the Earth you know. Also, the higher the bomb the weaker the effect (radiation strength falls with the square of the distance). As for your airplane scenario, no cargo jet flies high enough to create a widespread EMP effect. No, missiles capable of reaching the upper atmosphere are necessary for this. As for the death toll, the US and Canada had a vast blackout in the Northeast, from NYC to Toronto to the edges of Chicago in 2003. What was the death toll from that? And for that matter natural EMPs (from solar flares) occasionally strike the Earth and cause circuit failure (not "fires" as you floridly put it) and the results have not been especially gruesome. whiele we do know that bombs can cause nasty EMPs the scneario you outline is highly speculative and unproven.
June 20, 2007 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron is right, convenient geographical location is where US's power comes from - historically. Nuclear bombs became a factor only after the US already became a very powerful country (not to mention the first owner of nukes).
The United States of America was historically very lucky. It was created at the onset of the industrial revolution in a land whose original inhabitants were militarily no match for white colonists. There was plenty of land for European settlers who came in big waves in the second half of the 19th century. Until mid-20th century, the US had no enemies to speak of, and it had plenty of time to grow and consolidate.
Compare with, say, Britain. The Isles were already fairly densely populated, certainly no room for major expansion. The French or Germans weren't going to step aside without a serious fight. Britain was a major colonial power but the locals weren't all that fond of Brits and quit as soon as they could. Same thing with France or Spain - nowhere to expand on the continent and unfriendly inhabitants of colonies. Germany didn't even exist as a state till Bismarck, and by then there wasn't even room for Germans to grab any major colonies.
The one country that was probably in a position closest to America's was Russia. It had a huge contiguous landmass, although a lot of it was just too cold. Russia also suffered major invasions in 1812 and especially in 1941. Something that hasn't happened to the US since 1812 (coincidence ?). Like the US, Russia had plenty of natural resources. It is not a coincidence that Russia was US's adversary in the Cold War.
June 20, 2007 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this reminds me of high school and how it always seemed to be about "school spirit." It was a distractor, a motivator a bonding agent. But when you got to the big world of the university, wearing a high school jacket seemed really tacky.
June 20, 2007 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez Pooter.
Yes, no significant threats on the continent and two mighty oceans made a difference. It gave America a 185 year head start.
During that 185 year period, every other major power or region faced or fought invasions on its home territories. India, France, Germany, Austria, India, China, Russia all fought and endured the devastation of major wars repeatedly fought in their own territory.
Hell, look at WWII where the Russians lost 25 million people and were half overrun. The same war saw France and Germany reduced to bombed out hulks. WWII was preceded by WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War, the Napoleanic Wars, the 18th century 'French and Indian Wars', etc. etc.
Facing forward, I'd note that even during the cold war, when America was targetted with ICBM's, its missiles were a lot closer to the USSR than the USSR's were to the continental United States, and American strategic thinking called for the conventional war to be fought in Germany.
During the vast period of continental security, America's wars were mostly uncontested wars of conquest against Indians or Mexicans. The only serious conflict on American soil was the Civil War.
You know what that's called? A head start.
Freedom from the risk of territorial invasion, and freedom from the destruction of wars fought on native soil was a major economic advantage, allowing resources and population to develop to best use.
In WWI, France literally lost an entire generation of its young men, and lost the economic drive and opportunities these young men represented. America didn't.
June 20, 2007 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Slaughter's assertion that the basic American values she writes about are universal is, more than anything else, an expression of the fundamental liberal/Lockean position that such things are the natural rights of human beings, and that they are "self evident". This is the root and basis of American political thought and government and the values she discusses are essentially those fundamentals the 18th century founders asserted despite not having attained them all by a long shot. We still have not done so. She may have built upon the basics, but it seems to me that's what she is getting at. The founders believed in "Novus Ordo Seclorum", that the US was just the first nation and thus the leader of the new order of the ages. They believed these self evident truths would spread here and throughout the world because a new age had dawned. The age is not over, even now, two centuries later and these basic concepts such as equality, liberty, etc... are still growing throughout the world and taking on a variety of flavors as they establish themselves in various nations and cultures, though these values clearly have not triumphed, it's hard to argue they haven't been spreading at a pretty good clip.
June 20, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think any of those myths are the myths that Ms. Slaughter is talking about or have anything to do with the values she's talking about.
They are instead reflections of parochial movements that occassionally arise in our country and which, if anything, stand opposed to the values Slaughter talks about.
They have nothing to do with what's at the heart of America's foundational myths.
June 20, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why exactly should we?
As any cultural anthropologist will tell you, EVERY culture is based on a set of myths. Every culture needs them to hold the culture together.
It's amazing to me that my fellow liberals can constantly attack such foundational myths and then be surprised that many in the country think you're trying to undermine their culture, undermine the country and that you hate America.
I don't believe that because I understand intellectually where you're coming from.
But I certainly understand why the kind of contempt for the country's beliefs that is expressed here (and I don't just mean your post) raises alarms for alot of people.
June 20, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except in the case of the US this has been a constant theme in the public discourse across the board since the country was founded. This isn't a line being pushed by a particular party or group for a period of time, it's part of the very bedrock of the US.
As someone who occasionally visits the states it really does stand out at how often the whole 'exceptionalism' line is pushed.By the politicans , the press, in the media etc etc.
After all it wasn't bush's Sec of State who remarked that "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
June 20, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 20, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's cut the bullshit get down to brass tacks:
June 20, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I can get this poster working right:
Yes, the historical isolation worked for us, but this is no longer always the case. We have to think outside those old boxes. The world is different.
Yes, WW1 was harsh on the French, the Germans and the Brits, but Canada also lost heavily, over 86,000, out of a population that was less than Israel's today. This hit Canada very hard, and I doubt Canada has ever recovered from that one, in a sense. A lot of skills and industry disappeared in Canada during, and after, that war. And Quebec does not forget those losses even to this day.
June 20, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
One man's progress is another man's decline!
Such value judgements are, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. That is why Bin Laden and the Christian Reconstructionists in this country can argue that history shows that America and Western Civilization have declined over the last few centuries to the point of failure -- in the moral and political sense. That's part of their justification for trying to take it down.
Forgive me if I prefer Slaughter's narrative.
Yes, from a purely abstract academic viewpoint, we are never moving from a worse moral, political system to a better one. We are merely moving from one to the other. Removing such value judgements is useful to academic study, but Ms. Slaughter isn't writing for the academy.
She's writing about what kind of country we want to be and that's really a question that's all about value judgements. You can't remove values from it as you would an objective academic analysis.
You would have prefered, apparently, that she confine her analysis to the sociological rather than historical. But it is the historical that defines a nation, and the definition of America is what she -- and I think many Americans -- seeks.
At the end, you concede that America is a great nation, which is confusing since you've spent the whole time arguing that it isn't. I can only guess that you're making some sort of distinction between great and exceptional because you never explain it.
You seem to call for a realistic assessment of American greatness rather than one based on fantasy but you provide no evidence that Ms. Slaughter hasn't presented such a vision. My guess is that she does acknowlege America's shortcomings and mistakes.
The real problem with all this is that at the heart of it, you yourself ARE making a value judgement. You're not being objective.
You're saying that Slaughter's analysis is wrong because it's based on self-love, which you insist is not real love.
In effect, you make the value judgement that any positive opinion we might have of ourselves based on our country's history is not real because it is a product of self love, which is not real. You further imply that such positive views are somehow morally wrong because they're "self-serving."
Under this forumulation, what positive view of America as a country, historically, would be permissible? My guess is none.
But any criticism, however harsh, would be perfectly acceptable because flogging oneself is obviously not self-serving.
This is at the heart of what is wrong with liberalism.
We don't believe in self love, but boy do we ever believe in self hatred.
And by the way, the notion that self-love is not real is a view that most in the psychological profession would disagree with.
June 20, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
off topic but very interesting. Sometimes I feel like crashing a blog that is of marginal interest with something more substantive but refrain from it.
June 20, 2007 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Rieff:
You ask: "Would an economic historian agree that political and moral debate was the secret of our economic success?"
Good question. I think that, after a long knock-down drag-out fight, an economic historian might come to agree that political and moral debate was, in part, the secret of our economic success. With Slaughter's list of American virtues in mind, we can say that our political and moral debate brought high standards to our manufactured goods. For one micro-(but also macro-)example, China cannot, and does not, guarantee that it will produce contaminant-free toothpaste for export. We can. We did. And we do.
I suggest this fine American quality is the backbone of our success. Yes, our moral and political imperatives were strong contributors to our economic success. Other nations have also performed successfully with this quality implanted in their production and exports. So, American exceptionalism, always a nasty thing, is well-tempered in the fact that our political and moral debates are shared among others and is manifested in our own production.
You say that China and Russia demonstrate the economic viability of capitalism in an authoritarian political context, but I strongly disagree. Russia sticks a talented sinner (Khodorkovsky) in prison, instead of cutting a deal that our Securities and Exchange Commission would cut with such a guy. We would let Khodorkovsky get back in the harness, and we would anticipate new revenues deriving from his talents. Sadly, Russia does not do this, and this is a sign of unyielding rigidity and weakness. Russia seems likely to remain a one-industry nation, and this is also a weakness. I see no viability here.
Like Russia, China is also proving unable to build the kind of governance that will sustain its sudden powerhouse economy. It has ravaged its own countryside so badly that it just cannot maintain its present production in its environmental devastation. In the US, it was our early recognition of the problem brought about by our freedom of idea-exchange that enabled us to make those necessary investments to reverse or stop the worst of our devastations. And though we have a long way to go on this, it is our American political and moral debate that enabled us to deal with these problems and acquire the skills (resources) needed to effect recoveries or reduce devastations. We did good. We are viable. Russia & China, much less so.
And one more thing: Our moral & political debate, our 'essence of Americanistic values', manifests itself even in our securities regulations. Does any other nation offer our degree of good governance? No. This is why I always recommend investment in American ventures in America. Your money is 'safer' in America, and this extra security to your investment is a product of American values in American political and moral debate. You betcha. This is realism, not jingo-ism.
Sadly, however, too many of us take it to 'exceptionalism'. It is our 'Number One' arrogance that is our biggest weakest. This is the beast. This is our challenge.
June 20, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say it was absolutly on topic [that is if we're discussing actions and not just ideas].
Thanks for the vote though.
'preciate it.
June 20, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rieff makes the value judgement that we can't make value judgements, a universal that there are no universals. The argument collapses under the weight of its own dogmatic contradictions.
June 20, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The ideal height for an EMP bomb is 3 to 8 kliks up in the sky.
???
What is a "klik"?
If you mean "kilometers" (that's just a guess) a one megaton warhead exploded at the lower bound of that range is going to create a highly destructive airburst with lots of dead bodies and pulverized real estate. The upper bound of that range will produce burns and blindness on exposed persons near the hypocenter and cause moderate structural damage.
The EMP effects however will be fairly local. Imagine being in an airplane at that height range. The EMP will be limited to the area you can visually see (EMPs, like all radiation, generally travel in straight lines). Moreover since the EMP will strike a glancing angle in the farther distance it will be much weakened out on the edges of that visual circle.
Re: There is no one to say that a major player cannot team up with rogue elements to effect such a disaster using thermonuke tech.
"Could"? Yes. The US itself could be that major player. But have motivation to do so? I don't see any of the five major nuclear powers having any motivation to behave in such a manner. For one thing they would all be vulnerable to retaliation (each nation has long ago taken precautions and hardened off their own weapons and comamnd structures against EMP effects).
June 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poll time:
How many who have commented on the purported contents of Ms. Slaughter's book have actually read it? Y or N will suffice. Respond as a reply to this, if you wish.
There is, of course, a subtext to the question. Relying on what either Mr. Reiff or Ms. Kleinfeld have told you of the substance and proofs of Ms. Slaughter's books require an implicit trust in the judgment of one or the other of them, plus an assessment, overt, or covert, of which judgment is accord with one's own world view. My sense is this lacks a fundamental utility. The results are like meditations on one's own presuppositions as inspired by what the article's authors world views are, and this gets pretty divorced from the book itself.
I begin to doubt the utility of the idea of TPM as a "Book Club". Members of book clubs generally read the books first. Ms. Slaughter's own comment is not particularly useful, being neither a précis nor an apologia for it.
aMike
June 20, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you enter the realm of the slippery-slope when you claim a discourse on US values and ideals is historical rather than sociological. Yes, you can valorize moments of history to make your case - while repressing the great contradictions and ironies attending to each ideological milestone. There's little valor in establishing a nation which was stolen from its inhabitants, is there? But that's the history, and we all know it. So would we argue, as history shows, that a principle founding ideal of this country was dishonor and theft? That would be the historical discourse if we chose to make it, as real - perhaps more real - than other claims to ideals that strike us as valorous.
In 1850 most US Citizens supported the axiom "the only good indian is a dead indian." Today, only a small minority of folks support this ideal. Let's thank our lucky stars that sociology has intervened.
Neoboho
June 20, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But a dogmatic contradiction would require Rieff's statement to be a value judgement, which it is not. Equally, saying there are no universal values or ideals is not a universal. Sure, sure...Hitler was a socialist and atheism is a religion. Most of us here are tired of that sort of semantic mumbo-jumbo. But welcome to TPMcafe.
Neoboho
June 20, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Rieff intends us to interpret his words as poetry, signifying nothing but his own internal, subjective view. If your subjective view is that there are universals, that's fine, but then you are in no position to critique viewpoints that say there are universals.
But Rieff does not intend this, because he views universals as a license to oppress. But what makes oppression bad? Since we aren't allowed to hold universals, we can't conclude that this would be something to be avoided. I know I don't like to be oppressed, but I can't conclude that someone else might not find that a desirable state of affairs.
I don't know what you mean by "Hitler was a socialist and atheism is a religion". Perhaps you think I am a right-wing troll because you can't fathom that a real liberal would critique the excesses of the American misinterpretation of postmodernism? You are mistaken -- my critique comes from the observation that this misinterpretation has consistently undermined liberals' ability to actually address the real issues of oppression and injustice, and that we should move beyond postmodernism while including its very important truths.
June 20, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cliche-o-matic turned up full blast, I see.
Yes, the world is different. Every day, the world is different. We have to think in and out of boxes, gotcha.
So what? The world isn't a video game. It's not a whole new game once you press the button. History is a life force for better or worse.
America today is the product of 200 years of historical advantages, compounded. Only an American favoured by two hundred years of historical luck and advantage could take its current commanding military, political and economic power.
All that good stuff carries over into today. All those advantages from the past are the arsenal America brings to the modern playing field.
June 20, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm sure that you can provide a selection of economic historians, hmmmm?
Two words: Hamburger disease.
One word: Lawsuits.
An acronym: FDA.
A question: How many VCR's or DVD players are manufactured in America?
How imperative to America killing the indians and taking their land to America's economic success?
Would America still be America if it had the land area of France? Would America still be America if that land was 3/4 desert or tundra? Let's get real.
June 20, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Greatness is not what someone is. Greatness is what someone does.
American myths and self love are toxic because they make excuses. They excuse complacency and laziness, they excuse faults and flaws, failings, they turn blind eyes to inequities and injustice. American myths are stories that Americans tell themselves, so as to avoid the responsibility that should come with power and greatness.
American myths are like a rock star proclaiming himself the greatest poet who ever lived, without bothering to write a line of poetry.
Well, I'm here to tell you, that the greatest poet who ever lived took out his pen, and he wrote lots of poetry, and he worked fucking hard at it.
So your choice America. Be self indulgent buffoons puffed up on your own self love, or get out there and earn your places in the history books.
June 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your subjective view is that there are universals, that's fine, but then you are in no position to critique viewpoints that say there are universals.
I'm guessing that you intended to write If your subjective view is that there are no universals,.. Close, but I would consider it an objective view, as it can easily be demonstrated - in hermeneutics, anthropology, ethnic studies and so on. But by what authority is one forbade to critique holders of the viewpoint of universals? Precisely because stating that there are no universals is stating that "x" doesn't exist, how could we interpret that to be a claim, in any sense, to universality? And where do you find dogma in such a statement? Surely there must be some truth test that governs our use of the term. What's yours?
I apologize, but I did think you were a right-wing troll, but it was because of your language use. I can fathom that a liberal would critique liberal misinterpretations of postmodernism, in fact. I just don't feel that you have done that at all. Claiming that we should move beyond postmodernism is my case in point. "Postmodernism" is only a term some scholars use to distinguish western culture from its precedents. It's not something that we an elect to "move beyond." At best some egghead might notice something unique and different about how we behave collectively in 2007, and make a good case that it's quite different from how we behaved in 1968.
Neoboho
June 20, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just be glad Jesus didn't manifestly destine us to get busy on Canada's ass.
And don't make fun of Jesus! Or Canada!
June 20, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, yes... no universals.
I would consider it an objective view, as it can easily be demonstrated - in hermeneutics, anthropology, ethnic studies and so on.
This is not proof, this is just a deferral to a different argument that we can have about whether a hermeneutic analysis of, let's say the science of global warming, has priority over the scientific truth claims it attempts to analyze. The fact that useful information can be derived from those methodologies doesn't prove that other non-interpretive methodologies are invalid. There is of course nothing stopping you from criticizing others' use of universals, but given that you have to rely on universals yourself, you are applying a standard to others that you yourself refuse follow. If that's OK with you, then please yourself.
As for dogma, the insistence that no-one can use universals is a dogma, and a self-contradictory one at that.
No-one has actually suggested that universal statements do not exist -- clearly they do, people make them all the time. If they didn't exist, how could they lead to oppression? So the actual statement is "All universals are invalid" or "no universals are valid", and that is clearly a universal itself, therefore self-refuting. I can't make you believe it, of course, but you can confirm it here.
June 20, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's quite clear that Valdron was speaking of the US' development as a nation from the late 18th through the 19th century.
The Atlantic protected us from the conflicts in Europe. Powerful armies did not march about, laying waste to the countryside on a sickeningly regular basis and on only a few occasions were we burdened by massive military expenditures.
June 20, 2007 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing how I am the only one that hasn't commented here I understand this to mean you must be asking me to participate in your poll.
But first I need to say what a curious slog this blog. As part of my initiating obligatory duties to feel somewhat akin to my more intellectual brethren here at TPM I take it upon myself to try to comprehend what the big dogs have to say.
and all I can come up with after linking and learning more about Ashcroft's Soaring Eagles and the threat the ebombs pose to isolating me from my electronic umbilical cord and the blather about American Destiny in regards to American Exceptionalism as an elitist soft-speak for American Superiority is that this thread is prima facia proof.
as a point of reference I was recently in Europe immersed with some young British hipsters and found myself befuddled whenever they were confronted with authority or something seemingly inane; they used the tag "Texan." I'm probably showing my ignorance here or maybe a thread to my argument, but it felt so un-American to have to ask about a term to a bunch of underage punks that is in reference to a state I have a more intimate knowlege with than most. It now seems aprapro when they explained that it is short for the typically American wet dream attitude of "look out the big dogs are back in town, my sh*t don't stink, and if you don't get it, f**k you."
and Yes, I've read many books, but not this one. I'm an American for Christ sake, I don't have to!
June 21, 2007 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have childhood memories, before a good lashing, of " this is going to hurt me a lot more than it's going to hurt you."
June 21, 2007 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Powerful armies did not march about, laying waste to the countryside on a sickeningly regular basis and on only a few occasions were we burdened by massive military expenditures.
Wasn't this true of Britain as well? After William the conqueror the only battles that were ever fought on British soil were the results of the Brits fighting themselves, as in the wars of England and Scotland (which were along the border and did not affect the rest of the island), the War of the Roses and the English Civil War.
June 21, 2007 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The UK/EU people here can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that "Texan" has had that meaning in Europe (and the UK!) since at least 1840.
sPh
June 21, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you sPh. I agree with the swagger aspect of the term, but with my lack of exposure I have not seen it used as a replacement dolt or for marching with the ducks as in all things Bush.
June 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am no world-cultural expert myself, but I happen to have spent a fair amount of time on business travel in Europe with some of my Texas-native then-coworkers during the 1997-2000 period. The amount of effort it took to translate from Texan to English for the benefit of the Europeans was exhausting. And a few times when I was there by myself they sorta mentioned my point above in an off-hand, not-for-attribution way.
Of course, I am sure this has been amplified in the W Bush era.
sPh
June 21, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent! Now follow that idea a bit further. What was one of the dominant European states? The one that came out as the economic leader, victor of the Napoleanic wars, largest colonial empire the world has ever seen?
Of course, the British Isles didn not consist of 3.6 million square miles of arable land in a temperate zone, so they kind of lost out.
June 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, I had forgotten that one!
But the most incidious:
The Republican Party supports the troops
No, they support the war profiteers; Haliburton and Blackwater. They screw the troops on a daily basis, but their car magnets are enough to make them feel good about themselves.
Jan
June 21, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? OK, Canada isn't funny. Jan
June 21, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Jan,
Once in a while, I report that it offends me. I try to do that in a light way. Can you let me do that, please?
Always good to see you,
Tish
June 21, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, Gary, I didn't make myself clear. My point was simple, complicated by trying to be too clever.
I was theorizing that people were taking sides on a book they had not read, and that troubles the ol' perfessor--too many of his own students do the same thing. So If you hadn't read the book and hadn't left a comment on the book, you were doing 100% the right thing, in my not always humble estimation. Bravo you! you rock! <grin></grin>
aMike
June 21, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So should I cancel my subscription to the New York Review of Books? I end up reading 5% or less of the books reviewed therein.
sPh
June 21, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but you should stop contributing reviews to books that you haven't read yet. ;)
(For the record, I haven't read this book, either. Of course, my previous comment in this thread wasn't at all about the book, but about someone else's comment regarding the US.)
June 22, 2007 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the "it" you're referring to?
Dan K makes a fairly accurate, historically based and somewhat witty comment about Christianists and their "muscular Jesus" and you get all offended? How come?
June 22, 2007 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, this is what I meant. Sorry SPh. I again didn't make myself clear.
I read book reviews all the time, for fun, and professionally. One has to have some way to decide what to read. I confess to relying on bookstore browsing and cover art for too much of my junk reading. When I bring a PB home for the second time because the publisher has changed the cover I want to strangle someone...usually the person who looks back at me from the mirror. I promise to do better next time, and don't.
I do remember two favorite scandals, one of them only vaguely. It concerned a book review by a reviewer who hadn't read the book in question... A similar situation happened quite recently, a fairly famous reviewer complained that the book was undocumented--no footnotes. There were pages and pages of endnotes. <sigh></sigh> But my favorite of all time involves a now long dead music critic for the Chicago Tribune who wrote a review of a concert which never happened...at least the second half never happened. The program changed at the last minute due to illness of the scheduled soloist. The woman didn't like the interpretation of the piece which wasn't played by the player who didn't play it.
aMike
June 22, 2007 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because I love Jesus and this joke hurts.
Tish
June 22, 2007 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Ticia,
I thought it was pretty clear that I was not mocking Jesus, but a certain kind of belligerent, American jingo who thinks Jesus is a sort of kick-ass General Patton in sandals, with Americans his chosen people, who commands conquest and brutal punishment of foreign infidels in his name.
As for the real Jesus, to the extent I understand who he was, I can't think of much bad to say about him.
June 22, 2007 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we should peruse the book of Anne-Marie before making more elaborate judgment, but even so, what is wrong in discussing the premise ``American patriotism is its commitment to “liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith,''
Many voices were deriding the premise, I kind of endorsed it (it can be a useful book, especially if Anne-Marie does not believe all of it).
Often the state premise of a book provides ample material for discussion. Examples:
why DOW industrial average will triple before five years will be over
Muslim multiply like locust, Europe is lost, fortify the Atlantic people before it is too late!
How to recreate Roman empire, but bigger and better
Oswald was alone, no second shot, no conspiracy
use hydrogen to eliminate the need for all fossil fuels
These are actual books. Some of them I KNOW are crap, some are obvious (to me at least). I read discussion on all these topics, participating at occasion. So, what we had here was not a "discussion about a book" but "a discussion stimulated by a book premise, as announced here and on numerous TV shows".
June 22, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Mr. aMike for assuming my inability to communicate is somehow related to, in my view, your near mastery of the written word. It's exactly because I did not read the book that I made an attempt at humor. You did make yourself perfectly clear, your theory I was trying to expound and exemplify. Even my feeble mind understands the irony. That was the point in my first sentence, and again in my last two. ( The middle bit was a prattle of one uninitiated reader.) I even attempted inserting one of your signature <smile></smaile> type punctuation marks after my first sentence to help clarify any confusion and set the tone, but I gave up on that thought when I couldn't readily find a reference, and in my haste to not look stupid I omitted it, oops. In hind sight I'd like to think that would have made my post clear. But alas, after repeated readings (actually, only one) it's quite obvious that it's going to take a lot more than clever punctuation and a handful of attempts for me to be effective at putting my thoughts in readable print. My writing skills have always been suspect and an arduous task. I toil only to find results akin to splashed paint.
June 22, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing wrong with it, nothing at all. I'm going to try to split a hair, however, and I'm probably not going to be successful doing it, so forgive me in advance.
There is, I think, a difference between discussing a premise and discussing what someone else asserts the premise to be. I could write an essay on the statement about patriotism above. I expect you could, too. Yours might be a better one than mine. It probably would be a better one than mine. I can be quite certain that it would be different from mine. I'm sure we'd each nuance all those nouns differently, and we'd probably define commitment differently as well. That's my first point.
My second is that here I've been told by "Rachel Kleinfeld, Bruce Jentleson, David Shorr, Suzanne Nossel, Lee Feinstein, Michael Levi and David Rieff" what Ms. Slaughter means by the premise in the block quote above and in what ways her argument is either sufficient or deficient. I've also had the premise stated by ahg (Andrew Golis, I gather) and not by Ms. Slaughter, though I'm willing to stipulate that it is accurate, or Ms. Slaughter would have refuted it in her short commentary. Is any of this enough for me to make a judgment on the book? I would argue no.
Suppose that Ms. Slaughter's original essay simply stood alone like any of the other essays published at the TPM Café, and suppose that the pieces by Kleinfeld, Jentleson, et al., had appeared as "Comments" in the typical TPM Café format. This certainly could have happened. Oddly enough in her essay she never uses a phrase like "in my book" or "I came to write this book because". In fact, aside from the title to the essay there is no internal reference to the book at all.
Could I join in then? Sure I could. Everything would be referenced internally and I could make judgments on what the respondents said because they would have responded to what I knew Ms. Slaughter said. But that's not what this purported to be: a discussion of a work of scholarship. Ms. Slaughter recognized this problem in her June 21 response to her critics. "...I realize that I should have done a bit more to situate the book before providing an excerpt from the conclusion. Let me do that briefly now, both with a link to the book’s website, and an explanation of at least where the title comes from."
I hope this explains where I was coming from and why. As I said, it may be a matter of splitting hairs, but that's what my profession does, occasionally. <shrug></shrug> <grin></grin>
aMike
June 22, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But which "Jesus" do you love, Tish?
There are, after all, several hundred million of them out there.
June 22, 2007 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's easy. The Jesus who just helped me change a urostomy bag on an elderly person a few hours ago. I was scared but I wanted to do it right. I didn't want it to leak, I wanted it to stay in place and to drain well, so the person would be comfortable and dry and able to watch the Dodger game and enjoy his dinner. It worked, and he is so happy!
Is that the same Jesus you love? :D
Anyhoo, good to see you, Ellen. Thanks for stopping by my blog with your Summer book picks. I am going to read those, as soon as I finish Perkins: The Secret History of the American Empire.
Tish
June 23, 2007 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Dan,
I understand. I am just sick of the neonitwits -- even the jokes about their hyperbolic "jesus" remind me of just how much they have robbed this earth. It is excruciating for me to absorb what they have done in "his" name. As an American citizen, believing in the separation of Church and State, I want them impeached. Personally, as a Christian worker in the peace and social justice arena, I want a clear record of their crimes prepared in a lawful and Constitutional manner, for the sake of future generations. We are witnesses to these crimes and we are responsible for setting the foundational correctives for healing in place. That starts with the truth -- their lies must all end.
Thank you for your words, Dan, and for making the distinction you did, from your perspective.
From my perspective, it is immensely important that Jesus, the Good Shepherd who loves all persons, not be conflated with that vicious pack of impersonating wolves in sheep's clothing who have exploited and extorted his followers, along with those of all other worthy persuasions, for nothing more than their mendacious bloodlust.
Tish
June 23, 2007 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, the Good Shepherd who loves all persons
Would that be the same Jesus who says if you don't know him and worship him that you're going to spend eternity in hellfire? Are you SURE he loves all persons?
Jan
June 23, 2007 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can only say what he told me about that. I was very concerned as a kid about all my friends, naturally. I told him I would just stay back with them until he could get around to us all.
So here's a sort of rabbinical method of teaching that he used on me, paraphrasing the sentiment:
You get an answer, Ticia, but you have to become responsible for living out that answer with your friends, before jumping around to the next questions. (In other words) I am not his interrogator, but I do get to ask and to receive. So I'd tell the kids, just ask him your question --if that's the question most concerning to you. But pick your question sincerely and carefully, so that (a) you expect an answer from a real person and (b) you can live out the answer you receive in a real, straighforward and thankful way and (c) continue the dialogue in a genuine sense, with faith that the Shepherd who loves you is as real as you. And use his name, he will use yours. He doesn't say, hey you, or something. You know, it's more like, Jan, how are you feeling? Jesus draws near when you are in pain, imparting immense dignity and respect for you, he will not move beyond the point you allow. You can complain to him, sometimes, because you need to know he's for real, and he needs to know you're for real, and that's the way people figure it out on a day-to-day basis, not a theological basis. But a reality basis for faith is very important. So keep the question real and one that you can take responsibility for in a practical way when you get the answer. If you care about other people, as you obviously do, Jan, that's a deposit of sincerity right there.
So, for me, on the topic as a kid, he said, yes, he loves all persons. All impersonators, no.
He said, Now go on from this question and walk with me by the light you have been given. [Otherwise, it's a head trip, not a relationship, was the implication]. I agreed as long as he understood that I could certainly not agree to a relationship with anyone who would damn my little friends to hell.
So all these years, I am sure (for my level of needed assuredness), that I asked him that question and that I can hold him to the answer and that he answered me clearly. He loves all persons and I have no need to ask the question again, because it was answered with authority and he left me with sufficient dignity to share the good news with the kids in my world. So, when we'd go camping or someone was scared if their parents were getting divorced or something, I would just say Jesus is the Good Shepherd who loves all persons.
June 23, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ticia, You are obviously completely sincere in what you say. I do think you are probably the only Christian who believes that unbelievers in Christ are not going to hell, but I guess that is because you are just a nice person (and Jesus told you so, too).
I can't help but think you would be just as nice, and that you would have conquored the challenges you mentioned if you had looked inside yourself; within your strong moral compass and found strength there. You choose to attribute your accomplishments to Jesus. If that does it for you, then I hope you will continue to find comfort there.
Jan
June 23, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | chat odalari
March 7, 2011 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink