Liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith bind Americans together...

Such lofty terms.

Don't Americans value money, above all?

Greed Is Good.

I just don't see how we can have a discussion about values without discussing the main thing that drives Americans and their government -- capitalism, corporatism, greed.

Also, maybe I'm not taking enough of a long view here, but it seems we've gone past the simple ebb and flow of balancing our values, especially around the issue of torture. I was really shocked to hear the audience cheer at the GOP debate, when they were talking about torturing using enhanced interrogation techniques on prisoners. I don't know how you turn that back.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Am I alone in saying that I don't spend a lot of time wondering what it means to be an American, or what America stands for or what's the American Dream?

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in policy, of course. I definitely have ideas about how I'd like society to change.

But I'm not overly concerned with "the idea of America." In fact, I don't think much about the country in an abstract sense. In a lot of ways the whole notion of "American patriotism" strikes me as a bit silly.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I can't comment on all the generalizations in your second paragraph - I don't know very much, for example, about the Chinese heritage. But I have a couple of thoughts about England and South Africa - two countries I have frequently visited and in which I have relatives living.

Dealing with South Africa first, the concept of ubuntu is not something by which South Africans, in my experience, have sought to define themselves (I suppose the very definition of the word in some ways prohibits the co-option of it for the purposes of national identity). No question, however, that South Africa's leaders have sought to use it as a principle to underpin the nation's future development - it's just my impression that people don't wear ubuntu as a national symbol, regardless of how attached certain people may be to it.

On the English, perhaps you have read "The English: A Portait of a People" by Jeremy Paxman? In it, there's this quote:

"... it is worth noticing that there is something positive about the fact that the English have not devoted a lot of energy to discussing who they are. It is a mark of self-confidence: the English have not spent a great deal of time defining themselves because they haven't needed to. Is it necessary to do so now?"

He actually goes on to argue that it is necessary, but the initial question he poses is quite fundamental - and for me anyway, very interesting.

Why do we seek to define ourselves? If as a nation we have inate self-confidence, should we need to have our nation embellished with the image we have of ourselves? And what happens when reality only barely reflects one's stated ideals?

As for universal values, I think there's a simple maxim to understand... they can be imitated, but not imposed.

I thought it was all a bit much, too, as well as a bit too far to problematizing the obvious.  It's not hypocritical if we live up to certain ideals but don't tell another society they must live up to our ideals or else.  Or at least it depends on what that "or else" is.   We've already proven that if it means invasion, then we've already failed in the process to live up to our ideals.  That's a weird distortion of the old liberal plea to the Kissenger types to take human rights more seriously.  We've also proven that it fails to get others to live up to our ideals, assuming they end up alive at all.  

It also isn't hypocritical to start ordering us to live up more to our ideals by, say, stopping torture and illegal detentions. Liberals were pretty consistent in despising Kirkpatrick's Central American policy, and seeing the same people pardoned from Iran Contra back in action in the last few years shows me that the lines in foreign policy debate haven't changed all that much since we were all pretty sure what we meant by the American dream.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Good essay, though I'd agree that humility is not and never has been a characteristic of Americans.

Once we did try to live by our ideals, if imperfectly, at least during the first half of my life. We treated prisoners of war humanely during WWII, distinguishing ourselves from the Nazis. We may have slipped some later during our conflicts with the Communists, but our forces were at least taught that torture was wrong.

After WWII we were in part shamed into expanding civil rights when pictures of police dogs attacking peaceful demonstrators and howling mobs screaming at schoolchildren went around the world.

But the deep insecurities of Bush/Cheney and their henchmen and their infatuation with power for its own sake and for their own and their patrons' enrichment have profoundly corrupted America.

I don't think Americans are basically greedy or interested only in money. That is true of most of the top 5% and a much smaller percentage of the rest. Most people care most deeply about their families, their jobs and recreational pastimes and their communities.

You're not the only one.

In a way, it seems like the stuff of 5th grade writing assignments: Why Is The Fourth Of July Important?

At least you care about policy and social ills -- many people don't even think about that stuff. Or Justice, Humility, etc, etc. Which was the point of my comment earlier -- most people do, though, spend lots of time thinking about how they can get lots of money.

 
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I think a procedural approach to debate has to be taken. There has to be freedom of speech so can debate can take place assuming one is interested in a debate. The Internet has to be set up to allow the free flow of ideas etc. On the other hand I think attempting to win the hearts and minds of the neo-cons via debate is seriously mistaken. Not all individuals are reasonable. Many 'debates' are entered for sophistic reasons simply to score points. There is no real exchange of ideas. Take Cheney. Cheney basically says Dems are soft on terrorism. Debating Cheney on this point is ludicrous. The Dems' time would be better spent rolling large rocks up a hill rather than debating Cheney on terrorism. Cheney has to be excluded from the debate by labeling his views as nonsense. The point is that the possiblity of debate always best be open but one best gear a debate towards those who really exchange ideas. Exchange of ideas is extremely important but only of assistance amongst those who are reality based.

Liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith bind Americans together...

Jeez. I wish you had left out "faith" from your list. It is a term that has become owned by the right wing where it can be used to mean "blind obedience" or to self congratulate people that they are religious while avoiding any substance (e.g. is "faith" compatible with "torture"). Many on the right have "faith" that GWB is a good man - lacking evidence is the very definition of faith.

While I have "faith" that most people can be good (as opposed to the right that thinks most are evil), I prefer to use a different term.

Spot-on description of our self-perception. But can you give even a handful of examples where these vaunted values have made a difference in, say, the way we treat foreigners or, for that matter, the way we treat one another.

I'm all for striving to be all the wonderful things you think we are. But there's a huge danger in further building up our already bursting-at-the-seams egos. We're already the most complacent of peoples. Personally, I think a couple decades of self-doubt, shame and remorse would do us -- and the world -- a whole lot of good.

for a unique reason: Although we inhabit a common land that we love, we do not share a common race, creed, or national origin.

And canada ? Australia ? New Zealand ? Argentina ?
How do they fit into this 'unique' category?

America is an idea? How comforting that knowledge must be to all those Iraqi parents who can now be told that it was nought but an idea that dropped a bomb on their child, and spattered the poor kid's guts all over the courtyard. Watch out for those falling ideas, children!

I struggle to understand the supreme importance attached by foreign policy academics to these obsessive, abstract and impossibly vague forays into national self-definition, and literary distillations of the Essence of America. What practical difference do these dissertations make? Should one's commitment to an ideal turn on whether or not that ideal is an "American" ideal? Aren't there more fundamental facts about human desire, human happiness and human nature that precede the divisions of humanity into nations and political communities?

I suppose most of us, from time to time, notice things that we don't like about the world and the lives of the human beings who live in it, and are occassionally moved to try to improve that world in accordance with our judgments about what is wrong with it. And this activity does involve the application of certain ideals and value judgments. For me, these are usually fairly simple value judgments that have little to do with national traditions: for example that it's generally better to be alive than dead; that its generally better to be healthy than diseased; that leisure-time occupations of the heart are generally more pleasurable than the alienated, grinding toil of economic necessity; that the contemplation of the works af art and nature is more spiritually rewarding than the contemplation of invoices and spreadsheets; that lush forests and pristine lakes are generally more beautiful than wire-crossed patches of cement; and that cloud-capped mountain peaks are generally more inspiring than mountains of oozing garbage bags stinking in the summer heat at 5pm.

What does it matter whether these ideals are "American ideals"? If I were to learn that most Americans actually prefer garbage to grizzly bears and PowerPoint to Pindar, or that they take more pleasure from specatacles of violence and death than acts of peace and grace, should I then alter my values so that I can become a "true American"? If not, then the whole discussion of American ideals in practical deliberations about individual and collective action seems like a monumental distraction. If something is worth pursuing, it really doesn't matter whether the Founders, or Woodrow Wilson, or Johnny Appleseed found it worth pursuing. And if it is not worth pursuing, no input from the latter should persuade us otherwise.

We live in a world in which a substantial portion of the world's teeming billions are increasingly packed into filthy and destitute slums, comprising sprawling and irrational mega-cities; in which the indebted, exploited and overworked many are indentured to a tiny few greedy gluttons who feed on the work-product of their slaving underlings; in which battalions of hapless suckers are pitched by idiot ideologues and the competitive commanders of the armies of capital into violent conflicts over land and resources; in which merchants of death reap fortunes as they force the machines of incineration and destruction into every peaceful crevice of the world; and in which the natural environment, including many of the world's species, continue down their accelerated path toward human-precipitated toward ruin. We're all in this shitty mess together. Perhaps, then, we could do with fewer "My County 'Tis of Thee" essays and books from the foreign policy chatterati, a diminished emphasis on obsessive interrogations of national "identity" and lofty ideological differentiation, and a recommitment to practical problem-solving applied to the most pressing global matters.

And ask how this could not perfectly apply to, say, illegal immigrants?

As for the question of why we should define ourselves, the one reason I can speak to from personal experience is that it helps considerably in dealing with people from other countries. For one thing, it can help a great deal in explaining American actions---or sometimes you can simply agree that certain actions go against those principles. For another, it's important to remember that whether or not you have a definition of American national identity, people from other nationalities do, and it's sometimes helpful to counter some of the myths that crop up about it (or maybe just explain that we don't have such a good idea about what it is ourselves, if you prefer!). Most importantly, though, is that we aren't the only ones with an "ideal America"---a lot of other people have America as an ideal too (and are very angry because they see us as having moved away from that ideal).

Anyway, not the most coherent set of points ever written, but I do think there are reasons other than sheer ego to think about American values and national identity.

Actually, I'm going to edit this to add one more reason why values are important. Some people in this thread seem to take a realist view of America: that it's nothing more than a country motivated by greed and a desire to maximize its own power, both economic and military. Now, of course, there's some truth to this view---certainly America is far from ideal---however, we accept that this is all that America can be, then there won't be any progress in moving away from that reality. Let's not forget that a devotion to American ideals has brought about real change, including abolition, woman's suffrage, the civil rights movement, etc. We should be skeptical of any claims that America is perfect or that it always lives up to its own ideals, but we shouldn't forget those ideals or cease striving for them. Even if we don't ever reach them, we're likely to make progress along the way, and maybe even inspire some other nations to do the same.

And an affiliated value to the Almighty Dollar is Independence. After all, the Country started with a Declaration of Independence.

Independence is actually contrary to shared values, as it implies personal values. I'll do my thing, you do yours. We have a lot of independence genes in the Country since most people who would emigrate here had to be independent in order to be attracted to homesteading and being pioneers, of a new Nation and of a new land. This may be one reason why America has so many entrepreneurs.

The shared values and independence is a built-in conundrum.

W has been referred to by the rest of the world (and by our own Democrats) as "The Cowboy." He has set the standard for putting American independence on display. While independence is a large ingredient in our success, it is also our achilles heal, because it is the antithesis of cooperation and shared values.

I was just reading about this last night, reading Carl Pope's blog, where he talks about the myth of pioneer independence.

Are we promoting the value of independence to Iraq? Consciously or unconsciously? Perhaps, as the Wild West is on overdrive in Iraq. Shiites aren't cooperating with Sunnis, while religious fanatics are independently causing chaos. If the United States, the shining beacon of values, can go after Saddam "dead or alive," without obtaining a United Nations "permission slip," why should we expect cooperation in Iraq, or North Korea, Iran, or Palestine? While publicly these "outlaws" would never admit it, perhaps secretly or unconsciously they are indeed following our independent footsteps.

Getting back to our own Country, I think we are more unbound than bound together, with more of a buffet of personal values than a menu of shared values. For those of us disenfrachised with organized religion, I think we should come up with some alternative organization to be confronted with shared values, as I believe shared values are what make for a quality citizenry. I am attending sometimes a Religious Science church in my town. It is "tolerant" of all religions - it believes all religions are adressing the same God. I have put my son into Cub Scouts. Although the Boy Scouts of America are not tolerant of homosexuals, I believe that my son will get some good values/character development in Boy Scouts. Although primarily children are endoctrinated to values from their parents obviously, since I am not requiring my children to attend church every Sunday (my wife takes them to the Catholic Church sometimes, I take them to the Religious Science Church sometimes, and many other times no one goes toto any Church on Sundays,) I think it is important for my son and daughter to both get involved in Scouts. And I am volunteering as one of the parent leaders. I admit that being involved even as a parent leader puts you more in touch with Binding Values - reminds you of them. I think many of us have become disenfranchised from any semblance of shared values. And we have become more independent as a result. If I had been a parent and was involved in putting my boy in cub and boy scouts and volunteering as a parent leader as well, in my 20's rather than in my 40's, I bet I would not have the misdemeanor battery on my record (I knocked a cigarette out of a man's hand who I lost my temper regarding a dispute over an item sold but not paid for,) as one example of having some binding to shared values being advantageous (Keeping you out of trouble - from making mistakes - if nothing else. Individually, collectively, entirely as a nation.) Also, if I had been active in a church, traditional or new, at the time I made that mistake I may not have made the mistake as I would have held the values that prevent one from acting in that way more closely.

It's obvious from the polls linked to above, (Binding Values,) that the BSA is conservative, but there are some shared values conservative / liberal certainly, and I would guess that most of the BSA's values, with the exception of not being open minded about gays, can obviously be genuinely held by conservatives and liberals - depending on what you do with the values, what they imply to you. While the BSA polls are questionable in that they don't take into account the differences in the parents of the youth polled, regarding their comparison of scouts and non-scouts (since one poll question shows youth believe parents to be the largest influence of values,) the overall polls of boys and girls are interesting. Half of youth polled just about feel cheating on tests is acceptable behavior, for example. And the percentage of youth who have concern for their neighbor's property has declined quite a bit in just 10 years. Also, "citizenship" as defined in their poll is "fighting for your Country," which is clearly a limited view - as to those of us who debate and converse @ TPM Cafe know that questioning authority, in the case of an unethical war for example, is another important measure of citizenship. (And again, I'll emphasize the obvious, it's not always the values themselves that we disagree with, it's what we do with those shared values and how we define them. In some cases it is the values themselves as well, such as faith.)

It is helpful to be in touch with a shared value system. I think a lot of us, Democrats and Republicans, regular joes and Presidents, have gotten out of touch with a shared value system, whether small slipups here and there (Clinton) or as systemic flaws (Dubya.)

The thing about "family values" is actually selfish in that when family values are mentioned (or highlighted,) there is no mention or concern of values for those who do not have children - who do not have a family. While I believe in family values as a top value, I don't think it is very "tolerant" to discount singles or gays who do not have children, by ignoring them. Singles who do not have children are in a unique position to offer the most volunteer service to the community, since they have the time to do so. And both community service and your own family service if you have a family, are equally important, IMO. Having no family does not make a person morally bankrupt by any means. Yet the way "family values" are communicated in our Country by conservatives and many churches implies a moral bankruptcy, an un-worth, an un-worthiness -- at the very least singles are ignored in many cases. When I was involved in the Catholic Church, being a member of a young adult group after college, (my mother talked me into it but it turned out to be a good idea as I liked the people, although I got too religious as well,) I do remember the Catholic Church mentioning that singles had a particular vocation to be able to serve the community. A couple can be married and not have children and they should fit into the same category of those without children being in a position best able to serve the community also.

I am sure I'll be laughed at for saying so, but I believe that some sort of "scouts for grownups" would be a beneficial thing. And I think it can only really happen when adults volunteer in youth organizations that indoctrinate youth with shared values. Although some of the service clubs, which I've never taken part in partly because I have children to serve as a priority, fit the "scouting for grownups" idea though I presume - the involvement helps to keep the members out of trouble I would imagine. Participating in a religion can serve the same purpose, but contrary to what ministers would like you to believe, participating in a religion is not the only way to hold values close. I know this by my involvement with Boy Scouts again, 30 years after I was a Boy Scout myself.

It should be mentioned that teachers are another important source of values indoctrination, as they have no choice in order to maintain order in the classroom, if nothing else. But I am a big believer in community service by mentoring youth. As liberals, we shouldn't let conservatives be the only ones who indoctrinate youth with shared values - getting back to the hypocrisy issue that others have brought up this thread. Or at least to the issue of how values are interpreted.

In order to have shared values, there needs to be a shared indoctrination. I am pursuing a career change to teach math - my degree is in business. It might have been smarter for me to get an MBA rather than a teaching credential and possibly masters in education though, as then I could conceivably anyways, teach college, if only junior college, rather than high school. As I'm seeing what it's like to be on the front lines of the change in values. Classrooms are more difficult to manage today, particularly in the diverse areas. College professors are in an ideal position to instill values. Perhaps more so than high school due to the nature of the content. Although a creative high school teacher can instill values. Elementary school is a good place to instill basic values and it is a must or else the teacher has an unmanageable classroom.

It's also interesting to note that the list of American values that the BSA polled people on is quite different from the author's list (liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith.) I don't see the golden rule in the author's list for one thing, although it is in the BSA's list and I know in the list of all religions' values. Not to nitpick, but to illustrate the fact that I don't believe there is one list that all Americans agree is the list of values that we have in common.

To boil down my long winded post, how has "cowboy diplomacy" as a role model affected the world? And how has it affected the world's view of America?

As a footnote, do the children who make Happy Meal toys in China for next to slave wages in sweat shops feel the significance of their life is on a par - "equality" - to that of the children of the world who enjoy the Happy Meal toys? (Seeing the author serves on the McDonald's Board I thought it would be a pertinent question.) Judging not, what could a student of ethics learn from this conflict of interest - from this conflict of holding dear the value of equality and holding dear the value of the Almighty Dollar? I think the obvious answer is to do the right thing, and make certain the children are paid 10 times as much, if even the price of the Happy Meal is raised a nickle. (I use "nickle" sarcastically, when in fact I am sure the market would absorb a 25 cent increase in Happy Meal price easily, yet sadly a penny would most likely more than double the Chinese children's wages. If only McDonald's gave a dam*..)

Values are such a tricky subject, aren't they? That may be because values are cultural, not absolute. Take "morals" for example. What is moral to one society is immoral to another. To one exposing a woman's face is immoral, to another covering it up is. To one abortion is immoral, to another criminalizing it is. To one democracy is the highest value, to another democracy is against the will of God. Fortunately, the way out is very simple:

Rabbi Hillel put is best: "What is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Law, all else is commentary."

If we learned that simple lesson we might be much less inclined to impose what we consider our "values" on others. After all, would we want others imposing their values on us? I don't think so.

Let's start talking about who will be making money off Iraqi oil instead of this jibba-jabba. Word has it the lion's share will go to the American energy companies. And we will finally see the actually reason for the invasion of Iraq come to light, eh?

(I kinda doubt it.)

America was founded with a certain kind of idealism. It was also founded in a continent whose native inhabitants had been wiped out in a genocide, on the backs of slaves.

America's economic dominance in the 20th century has a lot more to deal with
- economic power
- geographic isolation

than anything else. No other nation has been able to establish a monopoly on the natural resources of a continent. Given traditional meddling on the part of the US in the activities of our Southern neighbors, it would probably be fair to expand "continent" to "hemisphere".

The biggest development of the coming century will be the systematic dismantling of many of the naive myths that underlie the national consciousness of the United States. Hey, I was raised on them too, and I miss them. But I don't know how anybody can watch what's going on these days and feel anything other than abject horror.

There seems to be a certain segment of the Left that thinks that, if only the band plays on, the holes in the ship caused by the massive iceberg will somehow magically fix themselves. Well, from my perspective, this does not seem to be happening.

How can any discussion of "American values" simply gloss over
- the elective, unjustified invasion of Iraq
- the systematic abandonment of the founding legal principles of the United States, including basic human rights like habeas corpus
- the intentional spread of fear on the part of the people in power
- the embrace of torture by the people in power.

Talking about headscarves in light of all that seems absurdly inadequate.

"It is reason why we call it the "Middle Ages" and we celebrate the growing liberalism represented by the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightment. "

Absolutely, and that is why Europeans believe we are blithering idiots when we give ourselves credit for values that did not originate in North America.

lets get out our big books and break bread together. I'm bring cupcakes tonight to the speaker. There were 7 values listed there.

Maybe we can try to participate instead of ripping this lady to shreads.

Here's the real defining American values:

*Kill the Indians, and take their land.

*God helps those who help themselves, so take with both hands.

Humility, for Americans, would be finally accepting that the United States is just another country -- not God-chosen, not a light unto the nations, not morally superior. As far as I can see, Americans on the whole have never ever given the slightest indication of such humility.

It seems that the right to bear arms is very dear to a "controlling proportion" of Americans, and we even managed to honor it in countries we occupy (I understand that household weapons allowed in Iraq and Afghanistan are limited to hand-held varieties). However, we do not actively export that value --- as it can be attested in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

Ah, but the thing about truly universal values is that they don't need exporting. It's pretty obvious - if a value is really universal, everyone has it already. Any value that has to be exported cannot, by definition, be universal.