I was speaking with an acquaintance other day (he a European, me a North American) and, after discussing topics such as baseball and the peculiarities of spring weather in the Midwest, the topic of America's role in this rapidly changing world came up. (Some people would tend stick with discussing baseball and the weather, but I have a strong nerd-streak that runs to an alarming extent through the very fiber of my being, so....) One of the things we discovered that we agreed upon (instantly, as a matter of fact) was the idea that the New World--and, in particular, the United States, as well as Canada--will in the coming years increasingly become a part of the Old World (Europe), and vice versa.
Necessity would seem to dictate such an increased affiliation, due to the rise of China as a major world superpower (which threatens America's primacy), as well as the rise of Russia as a major energy supplier to Asia and (if Russia has its way) nearly the entirety of Europe. Much of Europe has been balking of late at Russia's increasingly belligerent methods of influencing the direction the European Union takes (which have included, but have not been limited to, Russia cutting off oil supplies to former Soviet Republics it feels are cozying up too much to Western Europe; forcing legitimate European oil companies out of disputed "Russian" territory; flying old but functional Cold War military aircraft over U.K. airspace; etc.). For its part, the United States is increasingly on edge regarding the rapid economic rise of China (a former student of mine lives in China, and she reports that every eight months or so the country seems to expand economically at an amazing rate, which serves to change both the inward and outward landscape of that country on a constant basis).
This would put China and Russia, always heretofore somewhat suspicious of one another, in the position of forming a strategic partnership, with Russia a major energy supplier (and emerging economic power) and China a major economic power with the purse-strings to bring the influence of both itself and the Kremlin to bear on much of the rest of the world. We are already seeing this played out in the U.N., where China and Russia have been voting in very similar manners on worldwide (particularly Middle Eastern) matters to an increasing extent of late.
Hence, North America and Europe would also be put in the position of consolidating their enormous strengths, economic and otherwise, in order to offset the rise of these primarily Asian countries. With the continuing consolidation of the European Union creating an ever more united Europe, and with both the E.U. and the U.S. eyeing favorably the eventual expansion of just about all E.U. privileges (and, by extention, American influence) into just about every former Soviet Republic (and with the U.S. poised to place missile defense systems ever closer to the Russian border), the new fault lines are being drawn.
What we're left with is an increasingly strong indication that there will be on the one hand a new "Transatlantic Old World Alliance," made up of ever more integral ties between what we now call the Old World (Europe) and what we now call the New World (North America, Australia, etc.). Hence, the United States will become a major, major part of the Old World. On the other side of the scale there will be an "Asian New World Alliance," made up of the ever-expanding new economic power of China and Russia. (I realize that some of Russia is technically on the European continent; let's let that slide in order to avoid confusion.)
This is not "new" news, at least not to Europeans, who have been speculating about this in increasing levels of intensity since the end of the Cold War. Their predictions, by and large, have thus far come to pass, and all indications are that they will continue to do so. This scenario is a bit newsworthy for many North Americans, however, who have tended to continue to be a bit more aloof regarding geopolitics and view themselves as a bit "apart" from the rest of the world. But just listen carefully to what John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have been saying of late regarding the future of transatlantic relations, and pay close attention to increasing American political alignment with European Union policy, and you will see what we're getting at.
And look at the increasingly unified positions of the Chinese/Russians vs. the increasingly unified positions of the North Americans/Europeans regarding broad policies (though not always in regards to exact, specific policies...at least not yet) in the energy-rich Middle East.... That may be one of the fronts in a coming New Cold War between those two camps.
So where does that leave us "Yanks," as the Brits often call us Americans (regardless of where in the U.S. we are from)? If necessity dictates that we become more interdependent with our old allies--and it does--what does that suggest about the notion of "American Exceptionalism," which argues that we are at root very unique, even when compared to Western Europe, in our underlying values and social patterns? Does it mean that it will fade?
No. It will simply adapt where it needs to, as suggested in a wonderful new article from The Economist magazine (an international publication dedicated to financial, political, and cultural discussion), published in its "Lexington" section, which deals with American topics. I will provide bits of the article here as a snippet into what our American mindset in the not-too-distant-future may look like, at the end of which I will provide a link to the full article for those who are interested.
The only thing that I would say as a qualifier is that this article deals heavily with the coming U.S. presidential election, whereas what it has to say could very well be indicative of overall trends in the U.S., regardless of who is elected in any one election. I think the idea that American "values" will be utilized to alter certain operating procedures in the U.S. towards a more Western European norm, but one that is still distinctly American-unique, is accurate. And let's not forget that though Americans will most likely become slightly more "European" in the coming years, Europeans have become a lot more "American" over the past several decades....
It's food for thought, anyway.
Only in America
Apr 24th 2008
The Economist
America's Particularities Will Survive George Bush
...All countries are exceptional. But America likes to think of itself as exceptionally exceptional, different from other advanced industrial countries not just in its social arrangements but also in its underlying values....
...The current Bush administration, with its commitment to conservative values at home and assertiveness abroad, is the most exceptional administration in recent years. But [a new book] raises a new question: is a new cycle, dominated by a rejection of conservatism and a convergence with West European norms, about to dawn?
...Americans strongly favour the introduction of universal health care. They are also desperate to improve their global image. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to introduce the former. All three candidates have promised to improve the latter. The next administration will undoubtedly see significant moves, such as the closing of Guantánamo Bay or the adoption of stronger environmental regulations, that will be intended to make America less of an outlier.
But look at the 2008 election—the one that is supposed to be changing the direction of the country—and American exceptionalism seems to be as strong as ever. Where else do primary elections go on for well over a year? Where else do candidates raise tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? And where else do the party rank-and-file (as well as some non-party people) get a chance to choose the candidate for the top job? Gordon Brown became Britain's prime minister without a single ordinary Briton casting a vote. John McCain won his party's nomination despite the opposition of a large chunk of his party. Mr Obama is leading an uprising against his party's old establishment.
The various campaigns have often invoked American exceptionalism, especially the strength of its religious feeling. Mrs Clinton has stressed her credentials as a cradle Methodist who once thought of becoming a minister. Even before the Jeremiah Wright affair, Mr Obama spoke at length about how he found purpose in life when he discovered God. The only odd thing about this election is the fact that the Democratic candidates both seem more comfortable with God-talk than Mr McCain.
All three candidates preach a peculiarly American style of patriotism. Mr McCain invokes his military service in Vietnam, when he learnt to depend on something greater than himself. Mr Obama argues that there is not a red America or a blue America but one America united by common values. All three candidates wax lyrical about the American dream. And by European standards all three candidates are strikingly willing to sanction the use of force....
More Liberal Is Not Less American
...A Democratic hat-trick in November would certainly produce a more liberal America, with more government involvement in providing health care and protecting the environment. But it will be a liberal America of an exceptionally American kind, not a facsimile of Europe. Both candidates have rejected the “single-payer” health-care model popular in Canada and Europe. Instead they advocate a very American solution—allowing people who are happy with their private health coverage to keep what they have but then using a mixture of mandates and subsidies to extend coverage. And even modest changes will be endlessly diluted. The world may be transfixed by the presidential campaign. But the president's powers...are remarkably limited, qualified not just by Congress and the courts but also by the states and the localities.
The big change coming is not the end of American exceptionalism but the end of American triumphalism. Winning the cold war left many Americans intoxicated with power. Even Bill Clinton boasted about America as the “indispensable nation”—a country that stood taller and saw farther than its rivals. The mood is very different today. The main challenge facing the next president will not be to blunt American exceptionalism, but to make sure that American triumphalism is not replaced by a grumpy and irresponsible isolationism.
Necessity would seem to dictate such an increased affiliation, due to the rise of China as a major world superpower (which threatens America's primacy), as well as the rise of Russia as a major energy supplier to Asia and (if Russia has its way) nearly the entirety of Europe. Much of Europe has been balking of late at Russia's increasingly belligerent methods of influencing the direction the European Union takes (which have included, but have not been limited to, Russia cutting off oil supplies to former Soviet Republics it feels are cozying up too much to Western Europe; forcing legitimate European oil companies out of disputed "Russian" territory; flying old but functional Cold War military aircraft over U.K. airspace; etc.). For its part, the United States is increasingly on edge regarding the rapid economic rise of China (a former student of mine lives in China, and she reports that every eight months or so the country seems to expand economically at an amazing rate, which serves to change both the inward and outward landscape of that country on a constant basis).
This would put China and Russia, always heretofore somewhat suspicious of one another, in the position of forming a strategic partnership, with Russia a major energy supplier (and emerging economic power) and China a major economic power with the purse-strings to bring the influence of both itself and the Kremlin to bear on much of the rest of the world. We are already seeing this played out in the U.N., where China and Russia have been voting in very similar manners on worldwide (particularly Middle Eastern) matters to an increasing extent of late.
Hence, North America and Europe would also be put in the position of consolidating their enormous strengths, economic and otherwise, in order to offset the rise of these primarily Asian countries. With the continuing consolidation of the European Union creating an ever more united Europe, and with both the E.U. and the U.S. eyeing favorably the eventual expansion of just about all E.U. privileges (and, by extention, American influence) into just about every former Soviet Republic (and with the U.S. poised to place missile defense systems ever closer to the Russian border), the new fault lines are being drawn.
What we're left with is an increasingly strong indication that there will be on the one hand a new "Transatlantic Old World Alliance," made up of ever more integral ties between what we now call the Old World (Europe) and what we now call the New World (North America, Australia, etc.). Hence, the United States will become a major, major part of the Old World. On the other side of the scale there will be an "Asian New World Alliance," made up of the ever-expanding new economic power of China and Russia. (I realize that some of Russia is technically on the European continent; let's let that slide in order to avoid confusion.)
This is not "new" news, at least not to Europeans, who have been speculating about this in increasing levels of intensity since the end of the Cold War. Their predictions, by and large, have thus far come to pass, and all indications are that they will continue to do so. This scenario is a bit newsworthy for many North Americans, however, who have tended to continue to be a bit more aloof regarding geopolitics and view themselves as a bit "apart" from the rest of the world. But just listen carefully to what John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have been saying of late regarding the future of transatlantic relations, and pay close attention to increasing American political alignment with European Union policy, and you will see what we're getting at.
And look at the increasingly unified positions of the Chinese/Russians vs. the increasingly unified positions of the North Americans/Europeans regarding broad policies (though not always in regards to exact, specific policies...at least not yet) in the energy-rich Middle East.... That may be one of the fronts in a coming New Cold War between those two camps.
So where does that leave us "Yanks," as the Brits often call us Americans (regardless of where in the U.S. we are from)? If necessity dictates that we become more interdependent with our old allies--and it does--what does that suggest about the notion of "American Exceptionalism," which argues that we are at root very unique, even when compared to Western Europe, in our underlying values and social patterns? Does it mean that it will fade?
No. It will simply adapt where it needs to, as suggested in a wonderful new article from The Economist magazine (an international publication dedicated to financial, political, and cultural discussion), published in its "Lexington" section, which deals with American topics. I will provide bits of the article here as a snippet into what our American mindset in the not-too-distant-future may look like, at the end of which I will provide a link to the full article for those who are interested.
The only thing that I would say as a qualifier is that this article deals heavily with the coming U.S. presidential election, whereas what it has to say could very well be indicative of overall trends in the U.S., regardless of who is elected in any one election. I think the idea that American "values" will be utilized to alter certain operating procedures in the U.S. towards a more Western European norm, but one that is still distinctly American-unique, is accurate. And let's not forget that though Americans will most likely become slightly more "European" in the coming years, Europeans have become a lot more "American" over the past several decades....
It's food for thought, anyway.
Only in America
Apr 24th 2008
The Economist
America's Particularities Will Survive George Bush
...All countries are exceptional. But America likes to think of itself as exceptionally exceptional, different from other advanced industrial countries not just in its social arrangements but also in its underlying values....
...The current Bush administration, with its commitment to conservative values at home and assertiveness abroad, is the most exceptional administration in recent years. But [a new book] raises a new question: is a new cycle, dominated by a rejection of conservatism and a convergence with West European norms, about to dawn?
...Americans strongly favour the introduction of universal health care. They are also desperate to improve their global image. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to introduce the former. All three candidates have promised to improve the latter. The next administration will undoubtedly see significant moves, such as the closing of Guantánamo Bay or the adoption of stronger environmental regulations, that will be intended to make America less of an outlier.
But look at the 2008 election—the one that is supposed to be changing the direction of the country—and American exceptionalism seems to be as strong as ever. Where else do primary elections go on for well over a year? Where else do candidates raise tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? And where else do the party rank-and-file (as well as some non-party people) get a chance to choose the candidate for the top job? Gordon Brown became Britain's prime minister without a single ordinary Briton casting a vote. John McCain won his party's nomination despite the opposition of a large chunk of his party. Mr Obama is leading an uprising against his party's old establishment.
The various campaigns have often invoked American exceptionalism, especially the strength of its religious feeling. Mrs Clinton has stressed her credentials as a cradle Methodist who once thought of becoming a minister. Even before the Jeremiah Wright affair, Mr Obama spoke at length about how he found purpose in life when he discovered God. The only odd thing about this election is the fact that the Democratic candidates both seem more comfortable with God-talk than Mr McCain.
All three candidates preach a peculiarly American style of patriotism. Mr McCain invokes his military service in Vietnam, when he learnt to depend on something greater than himself. Mr Obama argues that there is not a red America or a blue America but one America united by common values. All three candidates wax lyrical about the American dream. And by European standards all three candidates are strikingly willing to sanction the use of force....
More Liberal Is Not Less American
...A Democratic hat-trick in November would certainly produce a more liberal America, with more government involvement in providing health care and protecting the environment. But it will be a liberal America of an exceptionally American kind, not a facsimile of Europe. Both candidates have rejected the “single-payer” health-care model popular in Canada and Europe. Instead they advocate a very American solution—allowing people who are happy with their private health coverage to keep what they have but then using a mixture of mandates and subsidies to extend coverage. And even modest changes will be endlessly diluted. The world may be transfixed by the presidential campaign. But the president's powers...are remarkably limited, qualified not just by Congress and the courts but also by the states and the localities.
The big change coming is not the end of American exceptionalism but the end of American triumphalism. Winning the cold war left many Americans intoxicated with power. Even Bill Clinton boasted about America as the “indispensable nation”—a country that stood taller and saw farther than its rivals. The mood is very different today. The main challenge facing the next president will not be to blunt American exceptionalism, but to make sure that American triumphalism is not replaced by a grumpy and irresponsible isolationism.
No comments:
Post a Comment