...there are two things getting mushed together here. One is the worldwide negative sentiment about the US. I think it's been there for sometime but the policies of the Bush folk have made it worse.
There is a second process, however, and it's the one that disturbs me, in which certain commentators think it's a good idea to accuse the American critics of Bush's policies of anti-Americanism because they are critical.
The original string came out of discussion of the appointment of the somewhat shop soiled Elliott Abrams. Which because I'm not US citizen and don't live there is not of great interest to me. I thought Tek's comment was apposite - why can't they appoint new untarnished right wing loonies? - or something to that effect.
The discussion eventually diverted to the more interesting one of the sources of the criticism of US policy. Bill is very strong on the idea that a lot of it is based in erroneous description (although he doesn't use the term). His view, as I understand it, is that the erroneous descriptions are the result of too great reliance on theory ultimately derived from Marx's writings and the interpretations of them. ("It all goes back to some scribbler").
He posted an interesting article by Lee Harris, "The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing", from Policy Review which has the intent of tracing these origins from marxist writing.
Harris is quite clear what he means by 'america-bashing':
America-bashing is anti-Americanism at its most radical and totalizing. Its goal is not to advise, but to condemn; not to fix, but to destroy. It repudiates every thought of reform in any normal sense; it sees no difference between American liberals and American conservatives; it views every American action, both present and past, as an act of deliberate oppression and systemic exploitation. It is not that America went wrong here or there; it is that it is wrong root and branch. The conviction at the heart of those who engage in it is really quite simple: that America is an unmitigated evil, an irredeemable enormity.
Well now! Is there such a thing? He cites some examples and I've read and heard some of it also, from all sorts of places inside and outside the US. I think it does qualify as anti-americanism. (If we could find a new label, it might be easier for you folk to talk about it, don't you think?)
What I did find interesting was Harris's explanation of how folk got to such a view. I think it may be a valuable thing to know how folk got to such a mistaken belief and to perhaps to some less extreme but also mistaken beliefs.
Bill summed it up nicely in a reply to me:
Frank, the key point to me is this shows you where the idea that the "USA is getting rich by impoverishing the Third World" originated from. It stated with Marxists,who spread it, and is now being repeated mindlessly by people who would not know Karl Marx and his followers if they walked up and bit them on the rear.
It is the ideological basis that Chomsky and his followers run on. 911 gave them a great platform to push the point of view that American is the fountainhead of evil. I find it is much easier to combat an Ideology if you understand where it came from.
The crucial phrase is "USA is getting rich by impoverishing the Third World." That is what a lot of America-bashers do say. It's powerful, lots of normative content there.
It's also wrong. It doesn't fit reality, the marxist objective conditions, without which ideas will be fantasist and utopian. Describe what's actually going on and we see the USA (and the EU) is actually getting less rich by impoverishing 3rd world; to the tune of at least 311 billion dollars a year, which at the margin is not chump change. (Remember the article from WSJ about African ag we discussed yesterday or day before). If the "opposition's" aim is skewed how can it be effective in changing the conditions it deplores?
Bill is right to be upset with the likes of Chomsky, who is far more intelligent than me or Bill, extremely scholarly, very influential, and has it extremely, horribly wrong. (I've no doubt Chomsky believes he's a great patriot but he's still got it wrong). How could he be so wrong? What lens is he looking through?
Harris has a description of the manufacture and astigmatism of that lens and the nature of the error contributing to the astigmatism. That is, its distorted even in marxist terms which themselves are already discredited by objective reality. I say the view through such a lens leads to an inaccurate description which leads to erroneous ideas and lots of extra unintended consequences arising from their application.
I don't see Bill attacking the patriotism of those he says are saying anti-american things and I do see him attacking their ideas. And I'm sure that's why he posted Harris's article. Like I said, you guys need a new label so you can talk about these things.
Having said THAT. Here is my outsider's sermon for you guys:
Right now the US 'left' and 'right' are talking past each other. The 'right' says things like, you lefties don't get it, and how can you say these things about America, where's your patriotism? The 'left' says things like you're right wing war mongers, baby starvers, McCarthyites. Neither side is useful to themselves or the other with this stuff.
You live in a modern country. You must believe in the two big things democracy and reason. The US Democrats right now are jammed by defeat - they have to examine all their premises. The US Republicans are stuck with victory and have to examine all their premises because they are in power - their mistakes matter right now. The 'right' and 'left' must oppose each other on the field of ideas otherwise what they do is a vast exercise in narcissism.
There is real gold in hostility. What's the deep idea being defended?
End of sermon.
But there is a point:
Am I missing your point?
Perhaps. I'm not entirely sure of this:
One is the worldwide negative sentiment about the US. I think it's been there for sometime but the policies of the Bush folk have made it worse. My guess is that if the proper distinctions are made in the surveys it's the classic distaste for the government and a like for the American people.
The Bushies have done only one really clumsy thing and that was put forward preemption as a principle. It was unnecessary. If you have to preempt, you do it and it's always an exceptional thing.
It's about the world wide anti US sentiment. That the folk who are against the US like US citizens individually, is not relevant. They vote, they influence policy makers in democratic countries, and are a convenient shield for rulers to hide behind in undemocratic ones. |
