America - A Nation with a Beam in its Own Eye?

[Stravo]

Some of you may know the scriptual passage from the New Testament Matthew 7:3 "And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?"

I've been seeing some interesting back and forth in N&P for some time now and some people are branded as Anti-American and there is a certain contingent that can be counted on to come in and say something deragatory or simply focus on the negative in a news article or what have you concering the US.

If however you take a step back and look at the rhetoric coming from the US you have to wonder if this anger and vitriol has some reason to be.

During the Cold War years America took a firm stance as the shining beacon of freedom for the whole world. Best personafied in a speech by Saint Ronald Reagan: "America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere."

And in Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the nation he repeated the notion when he stated "I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'"

Beautiful words and many right wingers probably masterbate to this imagery but one has to wonder what does everyone else in the world think when you have the leaders of a nation speaking in these terms to the whole world? What does the rest of the world, outsiders looking in, think when they see this kind of rhetoric from our leaders?

Do they see a nation chastising Third World nations for not running elections properly and forcing them to give all opponents equal opportunties to be heard and then essentially having their own elections run by corporations and who spends the most money wins?

Do people see a nation berating others for polluting the evironment and using up oil while it greedily consumes 50% of the world's oil and is angered by others wanting to join in on the party of excess and waste?

Do these nations see a country that talks of itself in terms of being an innocent bystander when planes were flown into towers yet this innocent bystander propped up dictators for generations across an entire region that spawned those who hate freedom?

I'm not trying to say that all these perceptions are true nor do I believe that we are as evil as the dictators we have supported, etc. All I'm saying is that when we hold ourselves up as a standard, a standard for things like freedom, democracy and in general goodness then when we fail, as we seem to do A LOT then maybe those "haters" have some reason to hate.

Maybe they don't want a nation with a beam in its eye to go around criticizing other nations for sins it commits with reckless abandon, holding other people to standards either other regions don't support, care about or want to do the American way.

I mean, if we were sitting at home and the president of Russia started using some of the rhetoric to describe his own country that I've heard routinely from politicians here I would probably roll my eyes and have a good chuckle.

And maybe, just maybe, some of those "haters" actually love this country and what it wants to stand for and are just angry at how far it can fall sometimes.

And then again despite all of this let's face it folks, sometimes a hater's gonna hate.

In any event what are people's thoughts on this? Is America sometimes asking for it? Has the US put itself on a pedestal no one asked it to and now suffers the slings and arrows for it? Is there some culpability in our own rhetoric that begs for a negative response?

[Aaron]

Eh, in a sense America has had it coming, you can't go around screwing people over for temporary gain without pissing people off. Propping up dictators, fucking around in the Middle East and such bred a lot of resentment. And as a child of the cold war I remember America talking a lot of big ideas, but it didn't live up to them and in the last ten years it's become obvious that it's just hot air.

It's unfortunate and I don't wish any harm on it's citizens but the American government fucked a lot of things up and it was only a matter of time before it got bitten in the ass. I feel sorry for you guys honestly.

[Broomstick]

In other words, America has done what a lot of major Imperial Powers have done. There's a collection of good things over here, and a collection of bad things over there. Different people give different weight to those two piles.

Most people I've encountered who "hate America" hate the government, or something the government has done. When they deal with individual people who are Americans they're more likely to evaluate them as individuals. There are some folks who really do hate all Americans but they're the minority of US haters.

Right now, I think one of America's biggest weaknesses is failure to look at what other nations do better than the US does (hell, most of 'em can't even admit some other nation can do better on a number of issues) and seriously consider adopting the superior method. Health care being the most glaring example of this. Much trouble has occurred due to failure to concede someone else has a better system, which ties back into the idea that the US is somehow inherently superior. That's quite pernicious, and goes along with the "beam in the eye" that gets in the way of an honest self-reflection and assessment.

[D.Turtle]

One thing I distinctly remember that really, really bothered and upset me was during the inauguration of Obama, which I watched online on MSNBC (I think).

What was that?

The pundits were going on and on, talking whistfully about how the rest of the world was looking on in amazement at the peaceful transfer of power taking place, as if that was something special that could only happen in the US and would be absolutely inthinkable everywhere else.

Now, I doubt that they really thought that there are no other countries out there who routinely have peaceful transfers of power, but it still grated quite a lot, how they were just going on and on about how great the US was, and how there was nothing comparable, and how special they were, and blablabla.

So, yes, I think that Stravo is right - the problem isn't that the US is that bad - its that the US (and yes I'm generalizing) thinks that it is so fucking great - when it isn't.

[mingo]

Something else that I talked to a friend in Scotland about, you often hear some talking head refer to the U.S. President as "The leader of the free world". Now don't you think that the REST of the nations in that "Free World" might take issue with our President being assigned as THEIR leader, since they didn't get a vote?

[mingo]

I'm also galled by how some politicians in the US have suddenly decided that many of our allies in Western Europe are now EVIL socialists because they have a health care system not built on greed.

[Caiaphas]

So, yes, I think that Stravo is right - the problem isn't that the US is that bad - its that the US (and yes I'm generalizing) thinks that it is so fucking great - when it isn't.

I'd, unfortunately, be forced to agree. I'm thinking the main problem is that we've still got almost this "Greatest Generation" mentality--we went to war, we saved the world from Nazi domination and Japanese aggression. Only this time I'm thinking instead of Nazis and the Imperial Japanese it's the Soviet Union (Saint Reagan, anyone?), since admittedly, we did take the lead in opposing Reddie advances across the world.

I feel sorry for you guys honestly.

Thanks. The sentiment is appreciated.

[JME2]

I'm thinking the main problem is that we've still got almost this "Greatest Generation" mentality--we went to war, we saved the world from Nazi domination and Japanese aggression. Only this time I'm thinking instead of Nazis and the Imperial Japanese it's the Soviet Union (Saint Reagan, anyone?), since admittedly, we did take the lead in opposing Reddie advances across the world.

Exactly; America is still living off of that mentality, that need to define itself against that great, terrible enemy -- albeit while making a shitload of money and fucking everyone . We went from Nazis to Commies and now to Terrorists. Enough with the fucking bogeyman of freedom.

I feel sorry for you guys honestly.

I've come of age during the Bush junta and the Recession. I presently do not feel an overwhelming sense of nationalism or pride in my country, its government, its history, and its people. I think we are collective a very flawed, very seriously dysfunctional culture. It's paying the price and I'm not happy to be caught in the middle of it.

[Aaron]

One thing I distinctly remember that really, really bothered and upset me was during the inauguration of Obama, which I watched online on MSNBC (I think).

What was that?

The pundits were going on and on, talking whistfully about how the rest of the world was looking on in amazement at the peaceful transfer of power taking place, as if that was something special that could only happen in the US and would be absolutely inthinkable everywhere else.

Now, I doubt that they really thought that there are no other countries out there who routinely have peaceful transfers of power, but it still grated quite a lot, how they were just going on and on about how great the US was, and how there was nothing comparable, and how special they were, and blablabla.

So, yes, I think that Stravo is right - the problem isn't that the US is that bad - its that the US (and yes I'm generalizing) thinks that it is so fucking great - when it isn't.

Yeah I remember that, it was pretty cringe inducing, especially as the capital of Canada is less then a days drive fro D.C. and we hand over peacefully all the time. It was all over the local radio the next day as well. But I'm so used to the Yank media feeding them what they want to hear, it's not really surprising anymore.

[Shroom Man 777]

There's a considerable segment of American society, maybe not in size but in vocality, that would call you (liberals) traitors for harboring dangerous sentiments that weaken the nation and some such, that your weakness costs lives, and that you are little better than enemies who need to be set right or otherwise get rid off in a variety of ways.

What do you, liberal left-leaning Americans, think of this? These people from the opposite side of the spectrum who blame you for this, and who consider you to be the ones at fault for all that's wrong in America.

[LaCroix]

Nitpick: Especially since the elections and news/talkshows around that time were considered as highly aggressive. The sheer amount of vitriol used during that period actually made that transition less peaceful than elections in Europe are.

[Edi]

For me at least, there is a very real disappointment in the US for the failure to live up to its much touted values, since I grew up in the shadow of the Soviet Union and the US was seen as the opposition to that, the good guys. So the picture I had of the US, what I grew up to see it as, turned out to be very, very different in reality and currently it does not look all that much different from the oligarchic Russia of today. That's a bitter thing to experience.

A friend of mine had a rather illuminating thing to say about the US as a nation: "It used to be, 20-30 years ago, that America was regarded as well-meaning even if they made mistakes and things didn't turn out that well. No more. Now they are not even given the benefit of the doubt."

And that's actually a fairly accurate point, especially after what happened during the Bush presidency and how Obama has continued what he started.

[Sarevok]

A friend of mine had a rather illuminating thing to say about the US as a nation: "It used to be, 20-30 years ago, that America was regarded as well-meaning even if they made mistakes and things didn't turn out that well. No more. Now they are not even given the benefit of the doubt."

I think your friend sums up the situation quite succinctly. The America people dreamed about and supported all over the world was not a nation but an ideal. Maybe some day another country will take up that mantle but right now the world is a pretty grim dark place where major powerbrokers are more or less self serving entities.

[Stravo]

A friend of mine had a rather illuminating thing to say about the US as a nation: "It used to be, 20-30 years ago, that America was regarded as well-meaning even if they made mistakes and things didn't turn out that well. No more. Now they are not even given the benefit of the doubt."

I think your friend sums up the situation quite succinctly. The America people dreamed about and supported all over the world was not a nation but an ideal. Maybe some day another country will take up that mantle but right now the world is a pretty grim dark place where major powerbrokers are more or less self serving entities.

Do you think it's like that now or has it always been like that and with the growing freedom of information and 24 hour news cycle making it far more apparent now than it was before?

[Edi]

Do you think it's like that now or has it always been like that and with the growing freedom of information and 24 hour news cycle making it far more apparent now than it was before?

Probably the latter, the easy availability of information through the constant news cycle and the internet has made things far more accessible than they used to be back when I was a kid. It also makes it more difficult to hide things.

[JME2]

Do you think it's like that now or has it always been like that and with the growing freedom of information and 24 hour news cycle making it far more apparent now than it was before?

Probably the latter, the easy availability of information through the constant news cycle and the internet has made things far more accessible than they used to be back when I was a kid. It also makes it more difficult to hide things.

Agreed.

The situation also reminds me of Stephanie Coontz's excellent book The Way We Never Were: American Families And The Nostalgia Trap.

[Thanas]

I think it is more likely that the massive hypocrisy shown by the Bush administration severely damaged the reputation of the USA. It is kinda hard to continue believing in American freedom etc. when the US government has been shown as massive hypocrites and Obama has done little to help that. The constant opposition to what nearly all other western nations regard as sensible politics does not help that perception, nor that the electorate is apparently too stupid to vote the GOP out of power - or does actually share their positions.

[PainRack]

I like to point out another thing though.

America has succeeded in exporting its ideals of the American dream elsewhere. Freedom of social mobility if you're willing to work hard, freedom of speech, religion, political association. The ability to chase freedom from want(well, better stated as need). Freedom from fear.

While parts of the hate is due to a conservative backlash, other hate is actually primarily driven by those. Using Indonesia as an example, the IMF(read USA) insistence that it liberalise its trade markets(by buying US grain), balancing the budget and cutting vital social services inflicted much pain and suffering to Indonesians and took away their chance to pursue the dream. While they won't have characterised it as the American dream, the values that America epoused has been seen as being desirable and plausible by many, the failure to attain them requires a scapegoat. And said scapegoats need not be their own, local governments.

I would also characterise less "american love" by the fact that the American Dream can now also be pursued elsewhere. Europe is relatively prosperous and socially mobile in say the UK and elsewhere. China is rising. The Asian Tigers have elevated income and created a middle class. This means that America unique soft power is nowhere as special as say, the 1930s.

[Spoonist]

America has succeeded in exporting its ideals of the American dream elsewhere.

Hollywood you mean? Because Carter tried to have the ideals as the starting point for foreign policy and thus export it globally. For that he got hated by those in power and the american populace quite quick. Pragmatic realpolitik seems to be what the americans want regardless of how they talk the talk.

Freedom of social mobility if you're willing to work hard, freedom of speech, religion, political association. The ability to chase freedom from want(well, better stated as need). Freedom from fear.

None which are american. Not in original concept nor in realisation of those dreams. Canada, France and Germany all outdo the US in all of those. Scandinavia even more so. Those countries though do not go around touting their own horn as much regarding those things.
But the idea that it is an uniquely american idea is strong and perpetuated everywhere in american media, which then is exported abroad by Hollywood etc.

While parts of the hate is due to a conservative backlash, other hate is actually primarily driven by those. Using Indonesia as an example, the IMF(read USA) insistence that it liberalise its trade markets(by buying US grain), balancing the budget and cutting vital social services inflicted much pain and suffering to Indonesians and took away their chance to pursue the dream. While they won't have characterised it as the American dream, the values that America epoused has been seen as being desirable and plausible by many, the failure to attain them requires a scapegoat. And said scapegoats need not be their own, local governments.

The americans have been very consistent in that the dream applies to them only, maybe europe, screw the rest. Same as with most powers of the last centuries ie europe. Self interest overrules ideals any given day.
Its sad that the rest of the world thought that the west included them in the package while the west continued to screw them every chance they get.
Look at the rebellions in the arab world now and the western repsons. Lots of realpolitiks waiting to see the shift before making any definite statements etc.

I would also characterise less "american love" by the fact that the American Dream can now also be pursued elsewhere. Europe is relatively prosperous and socially mobile in say the UK and elsewhere. China is rising. The Asian Tigers have elevated income and created a middle class.

I don't really get what you are trying to say here. But the american dream of working hard to get ahead has always worked better in europe than in the US with the exception when ravaged by war. Its a by-product of getting rid of the monarchy and aristochracy. Something which the US hasn't needed since liberation. So old-money is more powerful in the US than it is in europe.

This means that America unique soft power is nowhere as special as say, the 1930s.

And not even then. The true power of the US then and still to some part now is gearing to mass-production. Enabled by their own huge home market and abundant natural resources. Most of the nuclear family dreams and the work hard to get ahead memes come from mass production making items available to all. Thus making it possible to get immensely rich from a good business concept. What they miss is that it only benefits the top. So the largescale effect on social mobility is nil because those working in the chains still earn minimum wage.
Its like saying that central africa is great for social mobility because its fertile ground for entrepeneurs to get rich forgetting that they do so while taking advantage of the large masses of poor people.

[Thanas]

I don't really get what you are trying to say here. But the american dream of working hard to get ahead has always worked better in europe than in the US with the exception when ravaged by war. Its a by-product of getting rid of the monarchy and aristochracy. Something which the US hasn't needed since liberation. So old-money is more powerful in the US than it is in europe.

I'd actually argue that aristocracy and monarchy has nothing to do with the "american" dream. For example, Prussia, which was extremely aristocratic and monarchic had enormous social mobility, so much that for example Jews could become leading industrialists and ministers of state. In fact, to my knowledge, the "conservative" Prussia was the first nation to have any Jewish minister of state, and even had aristocratic titles passed on to Jews.

So IMO it has more to do with the state being in favor of meritocracy.

[Spoonist]

I don't really get what you are trying to say here. But the american dream of working hard to get ahead has always worked better in europe than in the US with the exception when ravaged by war. Its a by-product of getting rid of the monarchy and aristochracy. Something which the US hasn't needed since liberation. So old-money is more powerful in the US than it is in europe.

I'd actually argue that aristocracy and monarchy has nothing to do with the "american" dream. For example, Prussia, which was extremely aristocratic and monarchic had enormous social mobility, so much that for example Jews could become leading industrialists and ministers of state. In fact, to my knowledge, the "conservative" Prussia was the first nation to have any Jewish minister of state, and even had aristocratic titles passed on to Jews.

So IMO it has more to do with the state being in favor of meritocracy.

While I agree with your point, I'd argue that the conceptual idea of meritocracy has its roots in the rising educated middle class of the 16th-17th. Which had to do away with the privileges of aristocracy to become successful. Thus even though some later monarchies adopted the approach it originated in the distribution of power from inherited to merited. Which in europe was/is a continous process up until today but which isn't present in the US nor in its political consciousness. Add slavery and high migration to the mix and then the US has never had a need to spread its wealth/power in such a manner.
Its also the competetiveness of europes countries showing that those with meritocratic systems outdid those without. Napoleon et al.

[Thanas]

Yes, that is a good point. However, please also keep in mind that when the first midlde class happened to rise, it was in the United Kingdom, which at that part was not really what we could call a democracy, nor did away with the privileges of aristocracy.

Meanwhile, the United States at first did have an educated "middle class". Not many of the founding fathers were rich by European standards, yet they were clearly among the best educated men out there.

[TC27]

The more America cynically pursues its own interests and fails to live up to the ideals it frequently likes to proclaim the more distant the idea of the 'shining city' will become...which is a shame because I think the US really was seen this way especially in the first half of the 20th Century.

Of course the US has every right to pursue its own interests and owes nothing to the rest of the world - however the perception will and is changing to just seeing the US as no different to the great powers of the past.

[Spyder]

Most people I've encountered who "hate America" hate the government, or something the government has done. When they deal with individual people who are Americans they're more likely to evaluate them as individuals. There are some folks who really do hate all Americans but they're the minority of US haters.

The American government strikes me as an entity with an utter, unfounded contempt for American people. This makes it quite hard to draw the connection between people and government, also means I don't get my hopes up for any dealings the US government has outside the US.

[Spoonist]

Of course its all oversimplifications so it's going to be semantics and innuendos, but I'll keep arguing my point.

However, please also keep in mind that when the first midlde class happened to rise, it was in the United Kingdom, which at that part was not really what we could call a democracy, nor did away with the privileges of aristocracy.

Depending on when you are talking about I'd argue that just because they didn't do it violently the process of taking away privileges was definately in progress and was the enabler for the 'rise' of the middle-class in the UK. Mind you most of those rights where first bought from the aristocracy, but once it got going the conflict between king&state vs nobility made the king&state remove privileges from the nobility and put it with the burghers whose entourage then could become the middle-class.

Meanwhile, the United States at first did have an educated "middle class". Not many of the founding fathers were rich by European standards, yet they were clearly among the best educated men out there.

Agreed. Don't see where that has to do with my argument though? In my mind its an tidbit in favor of my argument.
The you can make it in the US worked really well when europe was in turmoil and starving, where all who could would emmigrate to the US and if lucky could get land or jobs which didn't exist back home. The handing out of land is one of the starting points of the meme. Add natural resources giving game, gold rushes etc.
But since the educated didn't have to fight/compete for opportunity it was taken for granted. So it was easier for old-money to get legislation etc on their side. Especially with the rise of corporations later on. While the dream meme grew the state did not evolve such policies which would allow real social mobility. For instance the US was really exemplary for public education, but didn't continuosly improve the system. Same with lots of stuff, in the dynamic early days after liberation US really was at the forefront of lots of ideas to complement their ideals. However that momentum went away somewhere in the aftermath of the civil war. US biggest competitor was itself.