According to recent newspaper accounts, anti-American sentiment
is on the rise worldwide, even within the United States. While some
of this sentiment is related to the war in Iraq and allegations of
U.S. imperial ambition, this feeling has deep philosophical and
empirical roots.
It is clear, or at least should be clear, that utopians apply a
standard to American behavior that is neither realistic nor
consistent with national achievements. Rather than apply a standard
of “seeing is believing,” the utopians rely on “believing is
seeing,” creating a Potemkin Village of the mind, a vast area of
artificial conditions that invariably put the United States in a
disadvantageous position and the country of choice, viz. Cuba or
the former Soviet Union, in a favorable light.
Many of the utopians are “red diaper children” — those raised
by left-wing parents — or “red rebel children,” those who rejected
the conventional ideas of their parents. In both instances, the
United States is viewed as the embodiment of evil. Even virtues in
America are converted into criticism. As one red rebel of the 1970s
noted, “You don’t know what hell is like until you’ve live in
Scarsdale.” The irony of this claim was lost on him.
Another group of utopians, acolytes of Antonio Gramsci — the
Italian Marxist philosopher — contend that individualism has
created a nation of self-interested parties devoid of communitarian
impulses. To a remarkable degree Gramscians marched through
American institutions spreading a philosophy of group rights that
resulted in the acceptance of affirmative action and other
categorical ethnic and racial privilege. For Gramscians America is
hopelessly flawed, a land of deep seated racial antipathy, despite
concessions to racial groups in an effort to redress the wrongs of
the past.
Yet another group of utopians is composed of Pelagians who
maintain a belief in innocence and a consequent faith in the
perfectibility of man. These utopians cannot accept the Augustinian
assumption of Original Sin which prompted a U.S. Constitution based
on checks and balances and limits on possible acts of evil. For
Pelagians, the United States promotes the worst in human behavior
by assuming a belief in imperfectability. The gravamen of this
argument is that the assumption of evil justifies evil
institutions.
Anti-Americanism, however, is not comprised only of idealists.
Ramsey Clark and his army of bedraggled students are paid by
foreign government hostile to the United States to engage in
rallies and demonstrations. It was hardly surprising that before
the first U.S. bomb hit Baghdad, there were already hundreds of
demonstrators in Union Square Park and the Washington Mall with
placards denouncing the United States as the Evil Empire.
International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is merely
one of several professional anti-American organizations poised to
express its antipathy to national policies and the nation
itself.
Of course the major source of anti-American hostility can be
found abroad. The last, best hope for mankind, the model for
constitutional republics, has been converted into a caricature by
west Europeans who reflexively detest any action taken by the
United States. Remarkably the French accuse Americans of arrogance.
But what these detractors appear to be saying is that they are
dismayed by U.S. military superiority and the role history has
granted it as the balance-wheel in international affairs.
When the German and French refer derisively to America’s
Anglo-Saxon capitalism, they are criticizing free market decisions
that they do not countenance. In many surveys Europeans are
critical of U.S. labor practices because cradle to grave security
is not provided. On the other hand, west European unemployment is
routinely twice as high as the U.S. and unfunded pension liability
of gargantuan proportions has already had a dampening effect on
Europe’s economy.
Perhaps the leading European gripe with the U.S. is its alleged
unilateralism, a belief that the U.S. hasn’t regard for any
policies but its own. The classic illustration is the U.S.
rejection of the Kyoto Accord. What many European critics of the
U.S. overlook is that this is a weak treaty that does not include
the world’s two most populous nations, India and China, and was
widely seen in many European capitals as an effort to stifle
Western industrialization. But this reality doesn’t matter for
those intent on using the U.S. position on the treaty as a
manifestation of its unilateralism (read: selfishness and
insularity).
Needless to say, not all criticism of the U.S. is misdirected.
In response to humanitarian concerns, American intervention may
come across as overreaching. Anti-globalists voice concern about
the spread and homogenization of multi-national corporations. And
then there are those critics who see — often with justification —
the spread of a degraded American culture in the form of Hollywood
films and television programming. The promotion of sexual
promiscuity is often a source of criticism in countries offended by
this unwanted cultural invasion.
While these critics have legitimate reasons for their position,
they often overlook that what they object to is merely one
dimension of American life or, in many instances, the negative
effect of a positive state. For example, pornography is undoubtedly
reprehensible, but it is the irresponsible side of open expression.
In some cases, the legitimate concern is emphasized without
contextual explanation. After all, the U.S. is an imperfect nation,
but the imperfections could well be offset by national
achievements, of which there are many. That obvious point is often
overlooked by some whose goal is undermining America’s stature.
Clearly anti-Americanism exists, but it is glibly suggested by
media mavens that it is “on the rise.” I’m not persuaded that is
accurate either in the United States or in Europe.
In the wake of 9/11 patriotism within the United States appears
to be at an unprecedentedly high level. Surely home grown utopians
haven’t disappeared as attendance at most American university
lectures will confirm. But it is also the case that respect for
military personnel as representatives of the nation’s will has
reached a high point in this post Vietnam War period, something the
anti-war activists of the 1970’s couldn’t have predicted.
I have also observed that western European attitudes, which
receive the most attention in the United States, are unlike the
views of central Europeans in Hungary, Poland and the Czech
Republic, where pro-American opinion dominates. In Asia, American
prestige remains undiminished. The U.S. is still the model for many
nation’s emerging from the throes of authoritarian regimes and
America’s military strength is considered the only counterweight to
potential Chinese adventurism.
Paul Valery once noted, “the future isn’t what it used to be.”
Indeed that is true in ways Valery could not have envisioned. The
U.S. was, and in my opinion still is, the great hope for humanity,
but that could change. U.S. self-confidence could decline;
anti-American sentiment might engulf the globe. Should these
conditions emerge the future would look different from its present
posture.
But if that were to occur, the world would be proscribed. Faith
as the harbinger for change would evanesce and the efflorescence of
human ambition would ultimately decline.
As I see it the idea of America resides in the heart of mankind
beating continuously with the spirit of hope and promise over the
horizon. If the United States were ever to disappear, it would have
to be reinvented as the best prospect for the expression of the
human spirit.
