One Lone Conservative's Reality in a Sea of Liberal Delusion's
Published on October 21, 2004 By couchman In Current Events
I was sufing the net when I popped on to Victor D. Hansons site..as I usually do.... when I ran across this story he wrote...as an observation...its fairly good...even it some may disagree with it...I do think he does pose some basic question we sould ask ourselves where this Anti-Americanism began...for it surely didnt start with president Bush's election in 2000 nor did it start with the Iraqi war...and if it didnt start there..then when?and why?


October 16, 2004
Why Do They Hate Us?
by Victor Davis Hanson


Understanding Anti-Americanism: Its Origins and Impact at Home and Abroad. by Paul Hollander, editor (Ivan R. Dee, 388 $28.95)
Hating America is not new. Nor does it have much to do with the unpopularity of George Bush. Instead, primordial emotions like envy, resentment, and self-loathing explain why the world’s elites damn Americans for who they are and what they represent rather than what they actually do. Criticism of American policies and culture is fair game, but not hysterical venom. Left unsaid is why millions flock to our shores and still more emulate our society if it is so abjectly awful as writers, artists, politicians, and journalists attest.

Paul Hollander has spent much of his distinguished career pondering those questions and has now brought together a distinguished team of investigators to attempt a systematic study of this strange phenomenon. What the 18 assembled authors conclude is both fascinating and depressing. Most of the social problems of twentieth-century modernity itself—from urban crime and the destruction of traditional landscapes to the shedding of tradition and the laxity of morals—is attributed to the radically democratic and popular culture of the United States.

Indeed, it is almost as if people hate what they have become, aping American slang and informality and then decrying the erosion of global etiquette. Scapegoating America allows one in the concrete to enjoy jeans, birth-control pills, antibiotics, and video games, even while damning in the abstract the purveyor of both junk and life-saving appurtenances.

Hollander’s team also cites a variety of more recent developments that have accentuated the traditional and deductive dislike of the United States. The fall of the Soviet Union meant that one superpower was now responsible for all the major crises in the world, and could not be balanced by playing it off one against another. If American-style capitalism was bad, few once saw the alternative of a murderous Soviet Marxism as any better. But with the Bolsheviks’ fall from power, there arose the romance of a sort of earlier and purer unfulfilled Trotskyism—or at least the easy fantasy of thinking “something” must be better than the United States without experiencing what that something actually was and did.

The American military build-up of the 1980s came to fruition at precisely the time the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the United States strong as never before and without a serious rival—allowing it alone to determine when, how, and where to use its usually unrivaled armed forces. No one likes an overdog—especially when it is easy to do so now in a world without major Soviet-sponsored enemies on the border.

Globalization is a force multiplier of the disease. It has allowed local and parochial gripes to be shared instantaneously worldwide on the Internet and television, even as multinational corporations have developed the ability to impose McDonald’s, Chicago Bulls jerseys, and Britney Spears into village life in Pakistan—and amid the coffeehouses of Paris.

While George Bush—his accent, public Christianity, embrace of southern NASCAR culture in lieu of Harvard and the New York Times, and willingness to use force unilaterally—may have acerbated anguish against the United States, the real recent catalyst has been Islamic fundamentalism. Indeed, the traditional Middle East feels most keenly the rampant culture of a freewheeling American presence on its televisions, billboards, video games, and movie screens.

While the rest of the world prospered under globalization and occasionally nibbled the hand that fed it, hundreds of millions of the Middle East still retain autocratic governments, statist economies, gender apartheid, censorship, state police, and religious fundamentalism and intolerance. Jihad is the alternative to Baathist dictatorship, as cheek-by-jowl dictators and terrorists blame the Jews and the Americans for their own self-induced misery.

All these arguments are offered with a wealth of detail, especially in the context of Europe where anti-Americanism is seen as the Trojan Horse that has the ability to undermine the unity of the West. Thus James Ceaser traces the philosophical assault on America as the crass soul-destroyer from Nietzsche to Heidegger, quoting Jean François Revel’s famous quip, “If you remove anti-Americanism nothing remains in French political thought today, either on the Left or Right.”

Anthony Daniels pursues that line in a more detailed analysis of the French, reminding us that we need not seek either deep explanations or concrete examples of their real grievance. It is simpler than all that: a once glorious culture has been saved by one deemed crass, and now finds its values steamrolled worldwide by its erstwhile liberator. And because America is both relatively self-absorbed and forgiving, the French simply go on hating America without repercussions, explaining why, for example, their complicity in the Rwandan holocaust draws no rebuke while America is blamed both for allowing and removing Milosevic.

In Britain and Germany the story is slightly different, if also similar in the shared fear of an all-oppressive and dominant American colossus. Both elite British Leftists and Tories, as Michael Mosbacher and Digby Anderson argue, deride American money-grubbing and hyper-individualism. The socialists think the United States is exploitive, the aristocrats find it in bad taste. Together they can focus their theoretical frustrations on us even as they grudgingly accept that their own country, to stay competitive and provide a decent living for its citizens, is becoming far more egalitarian, capitalistic, informal—and thus American—than ever before.

The Germans are again different. Expanding on Ceaser’s analysis, Michael Freund sees a once beaten country experiencing Schadenfreude, or amusement at our own present unpopularity. Whether that opportunism will continue with the withdrawal of American troops, and new responsibilities for a stagnant socialist economy, is another story.

We can see how European theory gets translated in Third World fact in the Middle East. Patrick Clawson and Barry Rubin fault us for not demanding from the Islamic world greater honesty in recognizing our own past support—tilting toward it in the Suez Crisis, freeing Kuwait, and saving Bosnians and Kosovars. Too often we either do not defend American values or allow our own elite critics to pose as grass-roots representatives of the much misused rubric “the American people”—the mythical good guys here at home who are also victims, hoodwinked by various conspiracies (read Jews, corporations, and modernists).

In Latin America, as Michael Radu, David C. Brooks, and Mark Falcoff show, we get blamed as a surrogate Spain who is the new colonizer. Yanquis are caricatured either as gunboat interveners or United Fruit puppeteers—even as well-heeled Spanish-speaking court jesters jet northward to fellowships, professorships, and grants in the United States to play on guilt-ridden American elites.

Yet the most fascinating part of Hollander’s collection is the analysis of anti-Americanism here at home. Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, Cathy Young, Adam Garfinkle, and Sandra Stotsky all make absorbing observations about the role of decades of communism, militant feminism, anti-Semitism, and utopian pacifism have had in creating the current American Left that we see turn up at televised ANSWER rallies and Moveon.org meetings with their potpourri of causes and gripes that appear on our C-span screens.

Bruce Thornton and Roger Kimball offer two brilliant essays. Thornton asks how do the intellectual and artist, in a sea of affluence and leisure, win status and acclaim from a nose-to-the grindstone, take-out pizza, 9-5 citizenry that make it all possible? A New York Times critic like Frank Rich or Sam Mendes, director of American Beauty, suggest that a few sensitive and compassionate sorts like themselves carry the thankless (but usually quite lucrative) burden of explaining to Jason and Nicole of the suburbs just how empty and inauthentic their lives really are.

Roger Kimball’s insights into the detritus of the 1960s are many, but he reminds us that anti-Americanism flourishes because we choose neither to question it nor to defend our values—and thus it will start to disappear precisely when we do.

Paul Hollander has performed a great service with this volume, one that explains Michael Moore’s popularity here and abroad far better than any ephemeral hatred of George Bush.



If you'd like to check out Mr. Hansons site....I have it linked in my favorites......

Comments
on Oct 21, 2004
Couchman, this is an interesting post, however, I have to disagree with the author(s)' characterization that the left has been "influenced" by "communism, militant feminism, anti-Semitism, and utopian pacifism." The author’s use of these phrases without properly indicating exactly what they mean is academically dishonest. This unfair characterization of the left also fails to acknowledging that the left has been influenced by many things such as civil rights/liberties including long-standing American values of equality and fairness, equal application of the law, and other notions regarding real, meaningful diplomacy before war in lieu of diplomacy as an afterthought. I also challenge the author(s)’ accusation that the left has been influenced by “anti-Semitism” without providing any evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim. Absent specific examples, I will assume for the sake of argument that the author(s) are referring to criticisms from some people within the left of Israel’s behavior in the Palestinian territories and more generally, Israeli policies in the region. I think the author(s) would be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that criticizing a particular country’s behavior/policies equals anti-Semitism. If he/they do, then he/they simply lack a meaningful understanding of dissent and political speech in our democratic society. Addionally, I think the author(s) anti-Semitism characterization fails to acknowledge that there are more American-Jews in the Democratic party (the so-called embodiment of the left) than there are Jewish Republicans (the so-called embodiment of the right). It doesn't seem to make sense for American-Jews to predominately flock to the side that is anti-Semitic, unless the author(s) are suggesting that they do not know any better. I think such an argument would be both patronizing and ridiculous. As such, I can not see the basis for this particular accusation.

Additionally, the fact that the author(s) seem to characterize the women's movement as "militant feminism" with all of the negative connotations associated with that label, appears to be playing on an unsubstantiated stereotype that fails to acknowledge that to be supportive of "feminism" or being a "feminist" means: "a supporter of or being in favor of; women being given rights, opportunities, and treatment equal to those of men." Couple the word “feminist” with the word “militant” which means: “prepared to take aggressive (not violent) action in support of a cause,” and you end up with “militant feminism” which means: “supportive of or being a person who is willing to take aggressive action in order for women to be given the rights, opportunities, and treatment equal to that of men.”

If women or “feminists” who, by definition, do not necessarily have to be women, have had to and continue to have to resort to aggressive action for women to obtain equal rights, opportunities, and treatment, I think this speaks more of our society’s shortcomings than it does of the left in general or of feminists, in particular, who are in our midst. The use of such a negatively perceived and stereotypical phrase to misleadingly broad-brush the left’s ideology also speaks volumes about the author(s) themselves. Using the phrase “militant feminism” and placing it along side the negatively perceived term “communism” is again academically dishonest and illustrative of the author(s) lack of understanding of what feminism is and illustrative of his/their obvious bias. As we speak, women make approximately 67 cents for every dollar earned by a man doing the exact same job, so if a little militancy is required to put an end to this obvious disparity, so be it. And if being on the left means being supportive of women who simply want equality for themselves and embracing the right to free speech and political dissent, then I am proud to call myself a card-carrying member of the left. And if that also means that we will continue to “…turn up at televised ANSWER rallies and Moveon.org meetings with [our] potpourri of causes and gripes that appear on our C-span screens,” I guess those on the right who are so offended by it can simply turn off their televisions sets or just get over it.
on Oct 21, 2004
AS TO ANSWER AND MOVEON.ORG....BOTH TWO FACES OF THE SAME COIN...I HAVE ATTENDED THEIR ANTI-WAR PROTESTS AS PART OF A SMALL BUT GROWING PRO-WAR/PRO-US/PRO-GOV GROUPS....THE LEFT WAS ANYTHING BUT CIVIL,FRIENDLY, PEACEFUL, RESPECTFUL(NOTHING LIKE HAVING AN AMERICAN FLAG GIVEN TO US BY A LOCAL VETRANS GROUP TORN OUT OF HANDS AND RIPPED AND SET ON FIRE TO MAKE ME FEEL THEY ARE AMERICANS) SORRY...BUT THE ANTI-WAR/ANTI-US LEFT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT SHOW HOW MUCH THEY MIRRIOR THOSE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH IN THE 60'S WHO VIOLENTLY PROTESTED CIVIL RIGHTS AND DESEGRAGATION....THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEMINISM AND MILITANT FEMINISM IS THE KEY WORD "MILITANT"...IF YOU ARE UNAWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE THAN YOU ARE EITHER NAIVE OR LYING TO YOURSELF....

I WOULD RESPOND FURTHER BUT IT IS ALREADY 6AM....
on Oct 21, 2004
couchman...do you really find it necessary to shout? Secondly, I am sorry for your bad experience(s) at whatever meeting(s) you attended. I make no excuses for their behavior if what you are saying is true. However, I still don't think the small group of people you encountered at a meeting is demonstrative of a very diverse group of people, most of whom, you have never met. I could cite a number of examples where I went to meetings, rallies held by the right where so much hatred and bile was being spewed it made my hair stand on end and yes, there were times when people reacted hostily to my presence. However, I do not take those bad experiences and project them onto everyone on the right. In fact, I have quite a few friends/acquaintences that are Republicans as they have quite a few friends that are Dems. I think you have to try and understand (and again I am not excusing the behavior you experienced, just trying to maybe help explain it) is that the anti-war people have been under a sustained and massive assault from the right since before the war started. Again, I am not making excuses for bad behavior...that being said, the anti-war people have had to constantly endured being called traitors, communists, anti-american, unpatriotic, and guilty of treason (which is a federal crime punishable by death). After being under such a continuously harsh and extreme assault, it is no wonder that SOME of these people are defensive and perhaps out of control at times. This is what happens when an entire group of people are attacked and their patriotism is not just questioned...but accepeted as fact. Just try and put yourself in the shoes of the group being attacked and imagine how you would react to the things I just described above? Secondly, I was not at these meetings with you so I am in no position to judge your or their behavior that may or may not have led to your bad experience(s). Just out of curiosity, what the hell were you doing at a Moveon.org meeting anyway? I don't mean to imply you had no right to be there, I'm just saying that from what you've written, you obviously don't agree with them and hold them in disdain and contempt...so why did you go? Again, that doesn't make what they did to you acceptable but it also isn't acceptable to pile all of us into one group based on your limited, though I imagine, memorable experience.

Lastly, given that I just literally spelled out what feminism, militancy, and militant feminism means...I think your statement that I have no idea what those terms means is sort of silly..don't ya' think?
on Oct 22, 2004
However, I still don't think the small group of people you encountered at a meeting is demonstrative of a very diverse group of people, most of whom, you have never met.


Once again your wearing bliners.....first off the where was NYC during the GOP convention....the "small" number of people you refer to was in the hundreds of thousands....

Lastly, given that I just literally spelled out what feminism, militancy, and militant feminism means...I think your statement that I have no idea what those terms means is sort of silly..don't ya' think?


I have no prob with feminism....which i stated....although I do have a prob with the militant version of it..........and I am not in the minority here in this regard.....if you cant distinguish between the two....than you have a prob