WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

why would it be "some mere pretense"?

<shrugs> it's in the (e-)mail now.

You could want me...physically. (tah)

the second piece is not so good....honest

george

Two thousand years ago, there was a culture operating in the area we know as Lithuania. That culture, like all cultures, had some good points and some bad points. But, if you had a time machine, and you wished to understand the world and perhaps even help make it a better place, would you go to that culture, or straight to Rome?

Canada is, in world events, greatly irrelevant. The US is the proper subject at present.

Putting issues or arguments into a binary opposition or balance (the US has failings/Canada has failings) is a continuation of a defensive posture which allows you to avoid what is critical...elements in your culture which are destructive.

I've been puzzled by the willingness of the otherwise intelligent to glom onto the concept of Bush hatred. It's clear to me that this trope is cheap stuff, a way of seeming smartish without actually thinking things through. Kind of Limbaugh in flavor. What many liberals are expressing is not hatred but something much more complex. I hope in this thread we will think things through, find the right word, invest more in discovery and less in dismissive cliches. Also I have to admit that, though Chait's and whathisname's series was fun to read -- a gig -- it was lightweight, not exciting or challenging or particularly helpful.

Well Blatham, you are correct. There are destructive elements in American culture, and even in our political life. And, yes, what we do likely has more direct impact on the world than comparable actions of Canada. However, I don't accept the analogy with Rome. We don't rule an empire, and we don't forcibly impose our rule or laws on others. A better analogy would be with the external relations of Great Britain. They exerted great influence on others through commerce, diplomacy, balance of power brokering, and military deployments. Perhaps dominant, but it wasn't Rome. There is a difference.

On a subjective note, while I accept your proposition that, because we are so dominant, we are therefore a fit subject for the minute examination and criticism of others, I still cringe a bit when Europeans (particularly) and even Canadians lavish their criticism on us with, what to me is a remarkable complacency and hypocrisy.

What comes to mind is "Have they taken the trouble to think the problem through from our perspective?"; "Do they really offer a better solution to the problem at hand?; "Could they really do better in the same circumstances"; "Have they done better in their historical moments in the sun?". In my view, most Europeans fail all these elements.

While we may well be a fit subject for the consideration of others, we are not common property. The history of the actions of other great powers over the last five hundred years does not show me any better examples than the one we have set during the last century. None! I recognize that history continues to unfold and that it is never too late to fail. We should welcome and examine potentially valuable criticism from any source, even undeserving ones. True enough, but difficult to do.

Lola - "Passive aggression makes me aggressive and therefore more in need of controlling myself. And I do agree.."

Yes. Ain't nothing like passive aggression to make real trouble -- it comes with the hormones I've got too and is as about as popular with me as hair rollers and coming-out parties. But I just want to assure you that I do appreciate it when particular people stick up for me... in the widest meanings of the phrase, of course...

Congratulations everyone, this has developed into a "classic" thread for entertainment, elegant but risky humor, but most of all stimulating intellectual "honest to god" discussion. Now don't get aggressive Tart, I won't attempt any "penetration" until such time as I am invited . For some unknown reason my down to earth, homespun (but Brilliant ) analysis is just not appreciated. The most amazing aspect though of this thread is the mutual respect suddenly shown after such a long search. Carry on----I'm just watching and admiring.

Likely!? George...I'm beginning to suspect you might disavow ownership of your very shadow on the basis of the mutuality of shadow casting.

Re Rome/Britain...sure, quite different, but I wasn't making an analogy to means of dominance, rather to the fact of it.
Well, here you don't disavow ownership of your emotional response to criticism of the US (the admission being rather more helpful in this discussion than the response itself, which is a big part of our problem). But as to the content of those criticisms, there's little which doesn't arise from American voices too, so pointing to the source, once again, avoids.

And speaking of avoiding You do it AGAIN! Same move...us/them...all is equal...nothing but balance as far as the eye can see...no special unique guilt or error deserving notice because everyone is a sinner. Do you get through confession with this moral gymnastic too?

What on earth is the fear here george? My positive response earlier wasn't due to lola or good pot, it was to your notice of a thought process. You moved a bit. Hallelujah! Fresh-faced cheerleaders leap to their feet! But on the subject of your nation, you don't move...time after time after time it is the same.

It is not just you, george. This is but an instance of national myth evidenced in an individual. There is something sacred in here. And outside waits something profane, threatening. A tad Manichean, perhaps?

There is an advantage to being a humanist, as compared to being a nationalist. It is easier, very much easier, to become Pogo-ized. You ain't yet, george, 'seen the enemy...and (seen) he is us'.

george wrote:



george,

Do you really believe this? We've made a pre-emptive strike on a foreign government and we're (under this administration) behaving as if we think we're King Kong, when really we're much more like Napoleon.

Let's work on getting George to measure our actions against our statements about ourselves, our myths about ourselves.

I doubt he would get very far in the world with, Well, uh, Guantanamo is better than the Hanoi Hilton, we are more bigger and more important than Canada, are newer than France and Germany, are less oppressive than the USSR, so hurray for us!

No, he (like so many) would go back to the lame "We are who we say we are." I guess quite a few nice foreigners would save their LOL's for after he's left the room, but he won't find that kind of reception here!

I'd also like to demolish for once and for all the notion that Europe wouldn't prosper or even BE there without us. That the world is dependent on us in some way. The world is no more dependent on us than we are on the world: look at our consumption of the world's resources vs. our generosity. Preservation of the myth has always required playing up the latter while ignoring the former.

Hey Lola----isn't there some non-invasive way to reduce the level of testosterone in Tart----did you just notice that aggression reving it's motor?

Perception wrote:



Perc,

I wouldn't dream of reducing the testosterone level in Tart, or in myself, for that matter. I love that stuff. Aggression is my preferred method. Of course, I think we all have to control it, as Tartarin already said, and I agreed. I wouldn't want to reduce that testosterone in you either.....we'll all try the control thing and enjoy what we have. How about that? Deal?

Lola

You certainly can be contradictory at times but I'm still in love and I can't deny any request you might have. I think it's time to retire (or maybe bury) is a better word, the moniker of perception----he's just not ready for "primetime". I might just come back as a fly on the wall.

Well, it didn't convince me. I found Chait's tortured argument suggesting that, though the hatred of some Republicans for Clinton was certainly paranoid and unjustified, his and that of other liberals for Bush is certainly fully justified, to be ludicrous in the extreme. Moreover his opening remarks criticizing Bush's style of walking, with elbows out and shoulders back as some exercise in vanity, reveals the author as an envious pencil necked geek who doesn't know the effects of regular physical workouts.

Blatham is very sore at me for my consistent belief that, taken as a whole, large groups of people exhibit more or less the same good and bad human qualities, and, for example, Canadians overall are no better or worse than Americans. What would he say if I amended that to exclude citizens of BC? The shadow metaphor was very good, but so is my point ! Also I find, it wasn't either the weed or Lola - it was me! 'George moved - a bit', he said. (I'm reminded of Pilar's question in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" -- "Did the earth move?". Was it good for you?)

I do readily admit to an emotional reaction to some of the criticism of the USA by others. I also acknowledge that the fact that numerous Americans may have voiced the same criticisms does not assuage the discomfort I feel. I also note that to a degree this is an observable national trait. We do have a mythology about ourselves, and like all such myths, its contradictions to fact are its most visible parts. In turn our critics should recognize that, in a similar way, their criticism puts their own hypocrisy and contradictions in stark relief in our eyes.

Beyond this I also believe that some of the most important good things we do are likely to be among those most criticized, both domestically and internationally. I agree with Tartarin that Europe would still be Europe without us. Indeed, in view of European history, that is a good argument for our active role in the world.

The facts suggest that Guantanamo is indeed a good deal better than the Hanoi Hilton or the French prisons in Algeria, or even the Maize in Ulster. The fact of American dominance in the world is merely an historical fact - it is not a result of any particular virtue on our or anyone's part. Our mistakes and shortcomings are rather easy to see and comment on. However, i don't know of any historical precedent suggesting it has been done a whole lot better. That is certainly no excuse for our failings, but it is a factor that any responsible critic should keep in mind.

Tartarin wrote:



I don't know that I agree with this statement entirely, Tartarin. I do agree that we are all mutually dependent.....but within our borders, we do have more resources to consume than other countries (except for oil, big surprise.) We did help Europe out, when they needed us. And they might have lost the war without us. Which would have been a horrible outcome for us as well. So we were acting in self interest. Of course we could ask why didn't we get in there sooner, once it was clear it was necessary. But I think you're getting at the idea that wealth in money, rresources, might, or what ever, requires more responsibility. That's the bad news about being strong. But it's the good news as well. It's up to us to use our resources wisely and not waste them. And yes, I do agree that in a way we owe our strength to other nations because our strength is dependent on them.

I think Blatham is correct here, the US is different in this way and it's up to us to recognize that and act responsibly, as voters and advocates for a new administration. I think, Tartarin, that you were getting at the vulgar self important pride so many Americans have about being better than everyone else. And the presumption we have that since the resourses are here, we can hog them up if we want to. I think, also, we should keep in mind, as you're suggesting, that bigger, more wealthy, stronger, prettier, more accomplished at seduction, etc... doesn't mean better in every sense of the word.

Aren't we talking about our behavior, what we do to control and be fair about what we have or don't have? Whether we have more testosterone or estrogen than others, it's what we do to make positive use of it that matters. And we (the US) are not making positive use of our strength now. We're cheating, bullying, coercing and dangerously taking chances with the safety of others as well as ourselves. The administration is not making positive use of it's power now either. They have lied to the public about who they are and what they intend to do about it. As Leo Strauss suggested, "since we're better, we have a right to break the rules." In my profession, that's called pathological narcissism.......and it's not a good thing. Behaving through pathologically narcissistic methods causes far more pain than the person using this behavior seeks to avoid. It's a bad bargain. This administration uses sick methods (if we use the medical model as an analogy in this case). What are we going to do about it? Before we can answer that question, first we have to believe and acknowledge that the methods are destructive. I believe they are.

Why are we talking about who criticizes who? I think we should be talking about evaluating ourselves and be less concerned about what others say about us. Are we (is this administration) behaving in a responsible way? Are they destructive? Let's answer that question. Or struggle with it, then we (as voters and activists) can better decide what we need to do.

But george (and others), I think we can look at ourselves critically, or evaluatively, not to blame ourselves, but to determine if what we're doing is wise and honorable. In self examination, resistance is to be expected on all sides. The fact of the resistance does not say anything about whether we're learning or listening to each other.
We're bound to be influencing the opinions of each other is some ways. Let's take that as a given and continue.

Let's stop arguing about who is to blame for what and consider whether what I wrote below on the previous page is true or not. george, you seem to be saying that while it may be true of the fanatics, they are neither large in number in your party and the government and that they are not in control. About this, I think you're wrong.

Lola wrote:

Lola, Though we apparently disagree about the interdependency and resources issue -- and the relationship with western European countries -- your response to the argument in general is terrific!

You may have misunderstood my statement about interdependency which could (should?) have been written: We are no less dependent on the world that it is on us. Maybe we differ in that I think the same can be said about Uganda or Finland or Japan or Australia or Germany. The point is, we are inextricably connected. The cold caught in one area eventually turns into the flu for all.

As for resources, we use -- heavily, disproportionately -- not only on the resources within our border but use a lion's share of the mineral and other resources from the rest of the planet. We are hugely able to find what we want and arrange to have it at a price much closer to what we'd like to pay than what would be considered a fair price. In the process, we take brush away the reality that we are taking advantage of poorer economies, cheaper labor, and methods of production we wouldn't put up with here, saying (grumpily), They're damn lucky we're paying their kids 80 cents a day.

It's not wrong that we helped Europe during and after WWII. It's just that altruism wasn't the main driving force, and I dislike hearing people recount how great they've been to Uncle Fred in his time of need but neglect to mention that Uncle Fred put them through college, or helped them out when things were tough. I'd like a tad more honesty and humility in our accounts of ourselves as a people.

Tartarin,

The disproportionate use of resources argument is quite familiar, however, it presents a few problems. First, we produce also a disproportionate share of the world's stuff - a lot of which is exported and consumed elsewhere. Second, if we were to reduce our import and consumption of such materials, the incomes (and buying power) of producing nations would be diminished. That too would lead to problems. Social distribution of resources has led mostly to uniform poverty.

I agree that we should work to develop more sustainable forms of transportation, urban development, and energy production.