REDUX

Hawai'i

Misunderstanding America III

In the first part of this series, I expanded on a first-rate Den Beste posting, Mercurial America, and in the second, responded to a rather profound and conceptually rich comment in that post, Dishonorable America, by Scott Harris.

Recalling that in the first post, I asserted that the source of much the misunderstanding of America is Americans' self-defining, self-determining natures, and in the second, that, it is not different or mutually exclusive ideas of honor that separate the world and Americans, but instead it is the archontic principle of our society is troublesome (if not downright sociopathic) in their eyes: we are not organized about the herd instinct (although it remains strong), rather, our community embraces creative destruction.

This term was first coined in 1942 by Joseph Schumpeter's, "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" means to describe the:

"process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."

Within the paradigm of a general economy, and more precisely, a market economy, we find the principle configured accordingly in the following article from Fredrick B. Taylor, entitled, Capitalism's Forces of Creative Destruction Unleash Opportunities for Investors.

At the root of the creative destruction process are individual companies. They are the agents of change that develop new products, new technology, new production or distribution methods, new markets and new types of organization that will revolutionize the economy. Companies that change the business model for their industry or develop a new paradigm significantly alter the competitive landscape. As Schumpeter says, "competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage…strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives."

We want to own companies that benefit from creative destruction. Good businesses that are constantly adapting to their changing environment and establish a decided competitive advantage will generate strong returns for their shareholders over a long period of time. We search industries throughout the world to find those companies that are transforming the terms of competition in their field. The forces of creative destruction in capitalism are not only the engine of economic growth; they also generate unparalleled investment opportunities for astute investors.

And, as we all know well, the business of America is business.

Still, I find this principle at work in more than just the private sector. If we strip this concept down further, into plain language, as does Investopedia.com, what we find is:

In other words, creative destruction occurs when something new kills an old thing.

Now, that sounds more like the America that I know and love. And, this might grate on some fellow Americans' finer sensibilities. This is not surprising; America is big enough, bad enough (not-bad-meaning-bad-but-bad-meaning-good), and so thoroughly contradictory that very often Americans misunderstand America.

This misunderstanding manifests itself most concretely in one of the "hot button" issues of the day, protectionism, advanced by trade unions and a sacred cow of (an increasingly) bigoted Left. If that weren't bad enough, their misunderstanding of America is so great, that this position, as currently configured, is actually un-American

I know what you're thinking: "Ah, wait, no way, you're kidding, he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?"

Well, let me reassure you, not only do I know the unfortunate and sordid history of that phrase in American politics, but I use it purposefully, or in other words, it's not the case that I "Didn't know what I was doin' but did it anyway!" But in case you didn't hear me in the back, let me say it again:

Protectionism and Unions are un-American.

First the protectionism, and they're main proponents, left and their paymasters, the trade unions. Scott Harris, said in his comment, Dishonorable America, some things which I didn't quite agree with, but on this point, we're on the same page:

The political left has ceased being liberal in the classical sense. Individualism and property rights must give way to group imperatives. You see this illiberality exposed in the Socialistic anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization movements. In group think, if you belong to an over achieving class of people, then your personal level of success is immaterial. Those belonging to “lesser” classes must be given greater rights, and your rights must be limited so that the classes become more equal. Your personal situation is therefore defined according to your class membership, not your personal integrity, effort, and achievements, or even your lack thereof.

I would expand this to include identity politics, but we're all about the economics right now, so....

Capitalists exist outside this class system, and are assumed bad because they transcend the traditional honor system. Rather than examine the merits of someone's success, and emulate their behavior, people in class-based societies are encouraged to forgo self-examination and vilify those who achieve and even those who attempt to do so. Instead of personal justice, the concept of collective or “social justice” is emphasized.

I confess that I had never entertained the idea of social justice as being tied to traditional honor systems, because the honorable always get the lion's share of the prizes (and the booty), but the insight is profound -- social justice is "justice" for those that forgo self-examination, forgo absolute responsibility over their actions and seek, instead, to ameliorate their mediocrity,

In Socialism, [where] the working class is awarded status by being "underprivileged." This begs the question of just who awards the status. To try to achieve would be a tacit admission that their current position is less than honorable. This cannot be admitted, therefore they embrace Socialism - honor bestowed by being a member of a class. This allows the ruling elite and the privileged class to maintain their elevated positions insulated from popular revolt.

Notice the use of this word: "class". I dare say that Scott would agree with me that "class" is a fiction, invented by small, feverish minds, and abetted by small, petty people.

Which is why the language, rhetoric, and soporific fantasy of "economic classes" is something that is perpetuated by the ruling elites in Europe, as well as the Democrats and their trade union paymasters here at home. That's because trade unions are the children of an ideology which posits some kind of labor as better, or more noble, than another and, in a great, cosmic injustice, this self-evident (and redemptive) fact is lost on an evil, crass, commerical society -- which must be destroyed.

Granted, you won't find many trade union members in the United States talking about the tenets of scientific socialism anymore, but that doesn't mean that it didn't find its origin in the anti-liberal backlash of 1848 and their feet in the late 1800's and early 1900's. First organized in Europe, and then, by European immigrants to the United States, these organizations sought to limit the social distress and fallout that accompanies creative destruction. And, in nearly all literature concerning unions, this is always accepted uncritically: that unions are good for workers. Well, they're not. They're not even good for Jimmy Hoffa.

Wait, you say incredulously, aren't they? I mean, the world used to be, like, some totally horrible Dickens novel, right? Maybe. But that was fiction, after all. Fiction carries within its narrative its own, particular validity, proper to the story, which does not necessarily describe our world -- a world of becoming -- choosing instead to frame a dynamic world into a stasis, and one usually predicated upon by a moral order. Which is what unions and their able propagandists tell you -- the story of the labor union is about the strong, courageous underdog, made noble by his labor against the enfeebled, cowardly capitalist, made wicked by his property. To wit: Norma Rae, F.I.S.T., Roger & Me et.al.

Here's the problem with that narrative: it's bullsh!t. It's true, Americans like winners, and they like underdog winners who "move on up" (and then it's even better when, after having "arrived" they get their "comeuppance"). The 2 hour movie ends after the heroic union organizer triumphs over wicked suits -- but never shows their dreary existence afterward. Because heroes don't stand still, they are never content to stay within fixed boundaries, the exceed them, and if there's one thing that a union likes to do, is limit: limit competition, limit business, limit legislation, limit work hours, limit ambition, limit talent, limit drive, etc., and often, this is accomplished at the expense of and in direct opposition to their membership, to whom they are not accountable!

Let me explain. I have a cousin (who shall remain nameless, and hence, blameless) who is currently working in one of the Central California school districts. She is a conservative Catholic. But, when she get her teaching position, she was forced to join the teacher's union under the federal "Open-Shop Agreement" rules. The dues are taken out of her paycheck! And, much to her chagrin, her dues are spent on radio advertising bought by the California Teachers Association to express their solidarity with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Moreover, there is no accounting of her money, no checks and balances on the union, and this, remember, is supposed to be for her benefit! I'm sorry, come again?

Let us once and for all end the notion that America has so-called business unionism, directed only at improving the wages of working stiffs everywhere. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, NEA, and other public sector employee unions are proof that labor unions are political entities -- nothing more. No wonder organized crime and organized labor got so cozy together: labor unions are really nothing more than elaborate protection rackets. Pay us dues, and we'll look after you. Never mind that we aren't accountable to you, or that you disagree politically with us, but we know what's best for you, silly worker. They prey on those that they ostensibly protect, just like the Mafia.

But what does this have to do with creative destruction? Simple. Unions do everything they can by fiat and intimidation to ameliorate if not countermand its effects. Protectionism, minimum wage, smaller work week, etc. That's because unions are a desire for stability, not opportunityy. They are a desire for calm, not anxiety. They are a desire for repose, not activity. They are a desire for death, not life.

Wha?!?! That's going to far, you say. No, it's not. Not only do unions seek to restrain the spontaneous growth and destruction of enterprises through political manipulation but ultimately they inhibit the ability and potential for America to grow by colluding to provide artificial and unsustainable stability for workers. I mean, really, who's responsible for promising people a job for life? And just what the hell is a living wage, and who gets to decide it? The guy getting paid $20 an hour to bag groceries?

Combine the populist need for security with irrational fear of foreigners, and you will see that it is why it is not surprising to find that the rhetoric of the trade union and their supporters, is almost always a bigoted demogogery.

But, as it turns out, the competition and the exposure to challenge and opportunity that know-nothing unions run kicking and screaming from, are actually goodfor all of us.

"Any way you slice it, the world is creating or transferring more jobs to the U.S. than we are doing to the rest of the world," said Daniel T. Griswold, a trade specialist at the Cato Institute, a research organization in Washington. ... While reliable figures aren't available for the last two years, the Commerce Department estimated on March 18 that the number of Americans employed by U.S. affiliates of majority non-U.S. companies grew by 4.7 million from 1997 through 2001. In the same period, the number of non-Americans working at affiliates of majority-U.S. companies abroad rose by 2.8 million.

Then, there's this:

WASHINGTON — The "jobless" economic recovery finally created a significant number of new jobs in March: 308,000, according to data released Friday.

That's because when we are exposed, when we struggle, when we compete, we become stronger. This is most certainly not a zero-sum-game-socialist logic, rather, we can see it demonstrated in resistance training. Lifting weights makes someone stronger, period. The weights don't get weaker at an other's expense. From the resistance, the lifting, one becomes stronger.

The logic of protectionism, of outrage at outsourcing, is based on not on an economic need, rather it stems from a psychological need for a stable, threat-free, blissfully ignorant existence. This existence is a static, sleepwalking, know-nothing, save-me-from-my-own-stupid-mistakes-and-give-me-benefits-while-you're-at-it waste of human potential. But I guess some people are content to cease growing, to cease moving forward, and instead, react to their own life of quiet desperation by seeking, in an ignorant and boorish fashion, to impose limits and constrain others' growth. If the sky is the limit, unionist protectionism is based on a logic that necessitates a low sky and mandates narrow horizons, even as, we Americans dare to "slip the surly bonds of Earth" and reach to the heavens.

What protectionists, out of their fear, out of their desire for repose and stillness forget is that, struggle is life. And, as Nietzsche reminds us,

All great things bring about their own destruction through an act of self-overcoming: thus the law of life will have it, the law of the necessity of “self-overcoming” in the nature of life.

And, if there is one thing that is certain about America, it's that We Shall Overcome

For a more professional treatment of the intersection of Nietzsche, Schumpeter, and Creative Destruction, check this paper by Erik and Hugo Reinert.

Misunderstanding America II

The other day I expanded on a classic Steven Den Beste post, Mercurial America, and I've been pleased to see the response that it's engendered, and, since there really is a good deal to expand on here, well, I thought I might unpack it in a couple more posts.

In part one, I received a good deal of comments, but there was one lengthy comment that I felt deserved a more comprehensive engagement. The author, Scott Harris, sought to explain how it is that America is misunderstood because our society doesn't operate under a "honor/shame" dichotomy, unlike the vast majority of traditional cultures around the world. His article is called "DISHONORABLE AMERICA", and while it is both insightful and problematic, it also delves into a very rich subject.

A fundamental reason America is misunderstood by other societies, regardless of race or continent, is that many throughout the world view America as dishonorable. This is due to the fact that the way Americans relate to one another is not based on the historical concept of honor, or "face."

How can the United States tolerate insults from every corner of the world? Americans differentiate between insults and threats. We happily tolerate insults, because we do not perceive the need to "save face." But to those who live according to the historical concept of honor, any insult is a threat to honor and must be vigorously defended.

Yes and no.

I think that yes, honor is not an informing and regulating, almost metaphysical concept in American society. And no we don't tolerate insults from every corner of the world. ContraCostaTimes:

"We will be back in Fallujah," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said in Baghdad.

"It will be at the time and place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals. We will kill them, or we will capture them. And we will pacify Fallujah."

So, maybe it's just under the leadership of Democratsthat we suffer fools lightly. But that's just a cheap shot.

Returning to Mr. Harris:

The nasty fact is that the concept of historical honor is inseparably linked to the darker concept of historical dishonor. In rejecting this concept, Americans do not view defeated enemies through the lens of honor. Hence, Americans have an unusual capacity to forgive former enemies and contribute to their rehabilitation. We do not perceive their defeat as “losing face.”

I'm not sure that I agree with this, either. While Americans do not organize their society following a logic of honor/shame, we do, in fact, "view defeated enemies through the lens of honor". How many WWII movies have you seen that take great lengths to differentiate SS from Wehrmacht ? And how many times have you seen General Erwin Rommel elevated to semi-mythical status? We do view defeated enemies through a lens of honor, their honor. In spite of this, the loss of face is not a concept easily understood by Americans, because "face" is not useful.

Let me unpack that, because there is more at work than might seem. "Face" is useful, if not an end in itself in a honor/shame culture. That is to say, it has value within that particular frame of reference, within that validity. Continuing,

You see this concept of historical or collective honor throughout the Oriental cultures; you see it in caste-conscious India; you see it in most tribal situations, which includes many of the Middle Eastern, African, and Native American cultures. It is very pronounced in Latin America. You see it in urban ghettos. And finally, you see it in Europe and Russia, with their historical ideas of royalty, landed gentry, and working classes.

Then,

This is not to say that Americans do not have a sense of honor. But our sense of honor is based on personal achievement and integrity, not hereditary position. The son of a rich man may have more privileges, but in America he is not automatically accorded more honor than the son of a poor man. In fact, the opposite is true. Rich heirs are seen as soft, coddled, and not fully tested. Hence the practice of leaving home to "make it on your own."

My experience has shown me that the latter sense of honor, the sense of "personal achievement and integrity" is nearly universal. Rich heirs are seen as soft and coddled everywhere. It's just that some cultures are more fatalistic than others. Having seen firsthand (over the course of 12 years) the example of Latin American machismo, this sense of face is wholly individual, perhaps even more individualistic than the "rugged individualism" that we exalt. In a society where the individual's needs and desires are more or less dependent on the whims of others, Latin men stake out positions, often foolhardy ones, to emphasize that they are "their own man", that they cannot be broken to another man's will. Another excellent example of the need to prove one's manhood comes from Native American tribes on the Great Plains. "Counting Coup", as it was called, made almost no sense to European settlers, because the young Plainsmen warriors would charge them in battle, only to touch them, or steal a hat, and thus, prove their courage and their skill, and thus, earn personal honor in the eyes of both their tribe and the enemy. It is safe to say that only in the most sycophantic and decadent of situations, like say, Louis XIV's Versailles, is the consuming need to be "one's own man" shunted to the side and debased as trivial.

Yet, if this is what is shared by (nearly) all peoples, everywhere, the question gets reconfigured into something more like: "Why doesn't America possess the 'historical' or 'collective' honor that more traditional societies display?" Scott's take on this is because, instead of viewing everything through a lens of collective honor,

Americans look at issues based on merit. When criticized, we tend to examine the merits of the criticism. Is there any truth to the accusation? If there is, we thank the critic, change and move on. No loss of face is perceived or recognized. If untrue, we dismiss the accusation. I am personally fond of saying, "I would rather be right at the end of the argument than at the beginning." But for those whose identity is built upon the concept of historical honor, the challenge itself is cause for violence regardless of the merits of the challenge.

When I lived in Egypt, I used to see a lot of fights. Cairo was crowded, polluted, and frustrating, and people would lose their cool. This was a regular occurrence. But these "fights" (almost) always took on this following shape: Two guys get into a shouting match over some trivial reason. A crowd gathers at the noise. Once there is a crowd large enough that had gathered, and bystanders begin to interpose themselves between the adversaries, only then would they "lose it". Yet, very rarely would you ever see a punch thrown, a push, or a tackle, because the tipping point always came after there were enough onlookers to allow the posture of reckless aggression, but, all the while, being "held back" by the gathered crowd. Cooler heads would prevail, feathers would be smoothed, and nobody sacrifices "face". The end. Why does this make no sense to us? Because, as you say, it has no "merit". So, what then, is "merit"?

1a. Superior quality or worth; excellence: a proposal of some merit; an ill-advised plan without merit. b. A quality deserving praise or approval; virtue: a store having the merit of being open late.

2. Demonstrated ability or achievement: promotions based on merit alone.

3. An aspect of character or behavior deserving approval or disapproval. Often used in the plural: judging people according to their merits.

Merit is a value! So then, what is its criterion and how is it so easily presupposed? How do we determine this value? And, is this value particular to America, or do others share it, as well?

The genius of America is not in our form of government, but in our reliance on personal integrity and personal responsibility. It is a concept of honor that is foreign to most of the world. It is why they don't understand us. It is why we don't understand them.

It is also why America is the cradle of creativity, vitality, and strength. Much like a fruit tree must be regularly pruned so that it produces more fruit, American civil society demands a constant reevaluation of one's status based on his RECENT achievements, and his personal integrity. We regularly celebrate those who are newly successful more than to those whose success is more distant. And we ruthlessly destroy the reputations of those who are discovered to have achieved success by compromising integrity.

The operative phrase in America is "What have you done for me lately?" To maintain status, you must continuously have new successes. And this concept is not limited to monetary issues. Someone who does voluntary philanthropic work is awarded community honor for his recent contributions. Another very American phrase is "Don't rest on your laurels."

Once again, I take issue at the idea that "personal integrity and personal responsibility" are unique to Americans. I've known too many Mexican agricultural workers and too many Californian university students to know this to be preposterous.

But, to paraphrase Scott, America is a source of creativity, vitality, and strength. This is true, but surely there there is a great deal honor to be gained in "creativity, vitality, and strength" -- how is it that other cultures don't seem to manage the level of innovation that America is capable of maintaining?

And, more to the point, "What have you done for me lately?" isn't exactly the position of an honorable person, one full of "personal integrity and personal responsibility". This is precisely the attitude that made the French, Turks, et.al. seem so base, so dishonorable. And it is this attitude that is precisely what other nations can't stand about us. We're fickle, mercurial; we have short memories, and we're always looking at the percentages.

Honor is a very difficult, slippery concept. This is because honor is something interpreted, and as such, has different value within different cultural configurations. This is why I agree wholeheartedly with Scott on is his summation:

It is our values, not our form of expressing them, that provide the foundation for American success. Only by adopting our fundamental principles of mutual respect, professional honesty, personal integrity, individual responsibility, and hard work can others expect to truly copy our success.

But this, in turn, begs the question: what "mutual respect, professional honesty, personal integrity, individual responsibility, and hard work"? Simply: it's a morality -- and who better to explain morality than Nietzsche:

Herd-Instinct. -- Wherever we meet with a morality we find a valuation and order of rank of the human impulses and activities. These valuations and orders of rank are always the expression of the needs of a community or herd: that which is in the first place to its advantage - and in the second place and third place - is also the authoritative standard for the worth of every individual. By morality the individual is taught to become a function of the herd, and to ascribe to himself value only as a function. As the conditions for the maintenance of one community have been very different from those of another community, there have been very different moralities; and in respect to the future essential transformations of herds and communities, states and societies, one can prophesy that there will still be very divergent moralities. Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.

Many traditional cultures developed their moralities in subsistence economies, overcoming severe challenges by an implacable, indifferent, and inhospitable nature. Nobody rocked the boat because it meant death. Things were done according the way things had always been done, i.e., the surviving traditions and customs which had preserved the community. Consider a caravan route through the Sahara. If one didn't pay attention to doing things how it had been done, following the same route, the same prescription, it would be disaster for the "herd" -- so the rules took on cosmic significance.

In contrast, America is, and always has been, a great dynamo, a locus of creative-destructive forces, all of which center around utility and production. This is what is terrifying about America: following Scott's metaphor, the tree must be pruned in order to bear fruit -- to be made useful, productive -- and few other nations can face the inherent danger and anxiety that accompanies such struggles and open the door into a great maelström of creative-destruction.

Who, in their right mind, would get on that ride? Isn't it the case that most people, if given the choice, would look to escape, and like so many George Jetsons scream, "Hey Jane,…how do you stop this crazy thing?!?!?!?" Seen from this worldview, isn't it the case that Americans are just plain crazy? You bet. Crazy like foxes. Fearless, crazy, foxes.

You know, there's a reason that the "No Fear" brand got so overblown a couple of years back. It speaks to a fundamental quality of ours: Americans, relative to the rest of the world, live fearlessly. This is what is so puzzling to the world (albeit, in greater and lesser degrees of puzzlement): We pull up stakes. We risk. We gamble. And we take it to the extreme. We sacrifice stability, order, and predictability in order to "make things happen". Aye, there's the rub.

UPDATE: Part III is up.

Misunderstanding America

Steven Den Beste has a long, witty, and insightful post -- Mercurial America -- which like all good Den Beste postings, successfully educates, suggests, and kicks @ss, all the while side-stepping the pedagogical voice that his topics might otherwise invite.

He discusses a rather interesting article from the International Herald-Tribune that talks about how, well, I'll let them speak for themselves,

Congress's leading Democratic voices on foreign policy, with a trace of the disdain that so rankles Europeans, suggested that their critical view of the European Union's weaknesses was intact, and that in puckering up for a November embrace Europe might have to settle for a formalistic kiss.

This may come as a surprise in Europe, where wide segments of opinion, official and public, confidential or boisterous, want Bush beaten. Many influential Europeans seem to believe that Senator John Kerry in a Democratic White House would restore both respectful equanimity to the American side of the trans-Atlantic relationship and, perhaps more naïvely, aim to redefine U.S. interests in a way that did not seem so self-interestedly American.

Which, Mr. Den Beste argues, is simply not the case. To think so is to misunderstand the U.S. government, because,

[T]hey discount the degree to which our system maintains continuity of policy. Even if Kerry wins this year, there's still essentially no chance of the Democrats regaining control of the House, and that would mean that the Democrats would have to compromise on foreign policy even if they thought the way the Europeans somehow hope they do.

This insight is so telling, because Europe (and, indeed, the rest of the world), don't understand "how" America works. And what is so deliciously ironic is that whenever American foreign policy results in friction with other nations, foreign nationals always insist that "if only you Americans only understood... (reality, or the situation, or how things really are, etc.)", then you would come around to the proper position.

I know this because I lived overseas for half of my life, a dependent of two U.S. Foreign Service Officers. (Let me assure you that this does not mean that all diplomats or the sons of diplomats think like Lurch--er, Sen. Kerry.) So, not only did I hazard the anti-American lecture, but somehow, being associated with the U.S. Government practically made it inevitable.

Sometimes I would agree. Sometimes I would disagree. And sometimes the discussion would remain respectful. Sometimes I would be so irritated by someone "talking loud but saying nothing" at me concerning my nation. When this occurred, my response to the "you Americans just don't understand" argument was always:

It's not we who needs to understand you, but you who needs to understand America.

Yes, it's chauvinist. Yes, it's dilatory. And, yes, it's incredibly satisfying to say. Because it's true -- an incredibly ugly, misanthropic truth.

Before I came to be an aggressive apologist for America, I was an American Abroad (perhaps not so Innocent, however), who clucked his tongue at the boorishness of my home country, and who would go out of his way to distance himself from his own country. That's because, until I was 13 I had never lived in the United States, and I left again at 17. My knowledge of America consisted entirely through the distorted lend of popular culture. So, when Mr. Den Beste writes,

I think one reason "the world" has been so bewildered and frustrated by us is their assumption that what they see in our popular culture, and the way we behave when we are not threatened, is somehow an indication of our true deep nature. We seem to squabble incessantly amongst ourselves about little things, so they assume that we are deeply divided and cannot unite against big challenges. We seem to seize on fads easily, and discard them for others just as readily, so they assume we cannot remain dedicated to long term projects. They see in our trashy entertainment preposterous triviality and banality, so they assume we have no deep important convictions or standards or values.

I know his point to be accurate, because, having been an American ex-pat I came to understand America precisely in this manner. And if that's how it was for me, imagine how it is for non-Americans!

When I was in Egypt, I remember chatting one day with someone at a coffeehouse who wanted to practice his English. He was really quite good, having studied it somewhat in school, but, since the Egyptian school system is so overcrowded and under-taught, he learned most of his English from the English language programming that the Egyptian state television broadcast And what was the vehicle for this cultural exchange, none other than The Bold and the Beautiful.

If all that you knew from America, you learned from a daytime soap opera, maybe you would misunderstand America, too. Maybe it would even form the basis for disdain at the degenerate, materialistic culture, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But the misunderstanding is not simply one of popular culture. In the previous instance, the question of the structural continuity that built-in to the U.S. Government, is so baffling to the vast majority of the world, precisely because 1) the separation of powers is counter-intuitive, but most importantly, 2) they have a parliamentary system, so governments get formed from a majority or a majority coalition and get to dictate policy.

Don't believe me? "Dictate" too strong a word? Listen to the political class in the vast majority of the world, and invariably what you'll hear is the language of "masses". The "masses" this, the "masses" that. Not "Citizens", not "Voters", not "Taxpayers", not "Constituents", rather "masses": undifferentiated, unessential matter.

And if there's one thing that Americans cannot and simply will not suffer, it's to be "masses". Den Beste reprints the following (scroll down) from a letter sent to a newly minted American citizen, signed by none other than Dubya.

Americans are united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals. The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, and that no insignificant person was ever born. Our country has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by principles that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every citizen must uphold these principles. And every new citizen, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Contrast this attitude with that of France's Mr. Chirac, who, let the newest members of the European family know what they meant to him in expressing his displeasure at that their support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which was,

"[N]ot really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

Can you imagine any President of the United States acting like such a rat bastard? (Apparently not even the Democratic party could, which is why Kerry, and not Dean is the Jackass candidate).

In spite of our differences, what we do share with the rest of the world are politicians. Den Beste points out is that when it comes to foreign policy we have two kinds of politicians

...Democrats don't have any higher regard for European opinion than the Republicans do, and are no more enchanted by the Europeans as any kind of role model. The main difference between the parties when it comes to foreign policy is that the Democrats are willing to smile and nod at the Europeans before ignoring them, whereas the Republicans are more straightforward in expressing their disdain.

A different way to put that is that the Democrats are more willing to lie; the Republicans are more likely to tell the truth. There's less real difference between them in practice than the Europeans think.

Which is also why the various Socialist Lite countries in the world feel a kinship to the Democratic party. Not only to they share the same absurdist views vis-a-vis macro-economics, but they also believe in the symbolic spectacle as policy means and policy goal -- the empty, "smile and nod" and photo-op politics of recognition -- which amounts to a self-referencing and self-refracting falsity

But still, even the modern Democratic party establishment is American. Even as they reiterate the tired, transplanted political dogmas of Europe ("monumental public works, yeah, yeah, that's the answer") what they share is the distinct belief that all Americans share: we define ourselves.

In another post, Den Beste reprints the dawning awareness on an American ex-pat, who is coming to see his country as honorable, in spite of the political climate in his residency in Barcelona. Den Beste concludes that ,

Honor comes from inside. An honorable man is true to himself and his own ideals, and he lives and acts according to those ideals no matter what anyone else says. It doesn't matter if that makes him respected or despised, for honor is not based on peer opinion.

This is part and parcel of the American mythology. The rugged individual, the entrepreneur, the man of his word, the self-made man: these are not only myths, but they are real. To wit, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, and Bill Gates.

That's why we like pickups: we define the vehicle by making use of it. Mini Coopers are cute and all, but I guarantee you that in that particular case, the driver is defined by the vehicle. The Chevy Silverado is a vehicle for the can-do-Nation, the Yugo is for the can't-do-Nation. What a difference a world view makes.

Even Nietzsche saw this, when he said,

"But there are opposite ages, the really democratic ages, when people turn more and more against [society in the old sense of the word], and a new belief comes to the fore -- that belief of the Athenians, which was first noticed in the age of Pericles, that belief of the Americans today. In such ages, individuals are convinced that they can do practically anything, can handle practically any role; they all experiment with themselves, improvise, experiment again, take pleasure in experimenting; all nature ceases and becomes art."

(emphasis in original)

Why are we so misunderstood? It's because we cannot abide being determined by other forces -- we create ourselves. It's because we cannot abide managing or accommodating a problem -- we fix it.

And this is why Europe (and indeed, the rest of the world), simply doesn't "get" us.

UPDATE: You can find part two here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Part III is up.

Tangents of the Day

From Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind:

I have see young people, and older people too, who are good democratic liberals, lovers of piece and gentleness, struck dumb with admiration for individuals threatening or using the most terrible violence for the slightest and tawdriest reasons. They have a sneaking suspicion that they are face to face with men of real commitment, which they themselves lack. And commitment, not truth, is belived to be what counts. Trotsky's and Mao's correction of Marx in calling for a "permanent revolution" takes account of this thirst for the act of revolution, and its appeal lies therein. The radical students of the sixteis called themselves "the movement," unaware that this was also the language used by young Nazis in the thirties ans was the name of a Nazi Journal, Die Bewegung.

Damn dirty hippies. I always new that they were fascists. Who showed me what lay in their black little hearts? Why, Jello Biafra, of course: