Saturday, February 24, 2007
It's lonely at the top
Niall Ferguson, who is a very smart guy, examines the roots of anti-Americanism. His theory also explains why so many people hate the New York Yankees.
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Feb 24, 11:18:00 PM:
Some liberals dont like the names of predators for sport teams such as PHILIDALPHIA EAGLES they would rather have them called THE CHICKENS
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Sun Feb 25, 02:18:00 AM:
they don't hate so much as envy
By , at
Sun Feb 25, 09:58:00 AM:
I try to read everything Niall Ferguson writes. He is a really bright guy, writes well and is not an insane ideologue.
By , at
Sun Feb 25, 11:21:00 AM:
they don't hate so much as envy
Arrogant (and frightenly naive) comments such as that is one of the reasons "they" do hate us, and our foreign policy is in shatters.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Feb 25, 12:09:00 PM:
one of the reasons "they" do hate us, and our foreign policy is in shatters.
For a nation so despised and hated as you claim, isn't it amazing how many want to move here and invest billiona and billions in America?
why is this?
By The Mechanical Eye, at
Sun Feb 25, 02:16:00 PM:
Oh come off it.
For a nation so despised and hated as you claim, isn't it amazing how many want to move here and invest billiona and billions in America?
Do not confuse love for America for love for its government.
Also, it's comforting to smirk and say "we're hated because we're just so damn good" as the NY Yankees' theme song plays along. Those losers just have to get over it, you think.
The more honest and less self-satisfied answer is that we've had this tendency as of late to want to "fix" things overseas that don't necessarily need fixing, at least not by a blundering Coalition Provisional Authority, as in Iraq.
In a way, the left is right to point out we had the world's sympathy right after 9/11 but messed it up later. The Bush Administration mistook our initial successes in Afghanistan for a mandate to bring democracy by the barrel of a gun in Iraq.
Not every human heart yearns for democracy, and those that do may not work for America's best interest, as Ferguson points out in the article.
We could be a hyperpower and still be thought of as benign if we were a little smarter and used the "soft power" of culture and diplomacy, and didn't think of the military as an all-purpose democracy-builder like in Iraq.
Sure, a lot of anti-Americanism can be chaulked up to irrational fear or even envy. But some of it is based on reasonable critique. We treat it as sore loserdom to our peril.
DU
By , at
Sun Feb 25, 04:37:00 PM:
Not every human heart yearns for democracy
What sickness is it in your heart that makes you say such a thing? All men and women want to make the most of their lives. We can't do so without freedom. We can't have freedom without democracy.
You are right that not _all_ hearts yearn for democracy. Many wish to hold onto power over others. For them, democracy is a bad thing.
Shame on you for talking down democracy. It is one of our greatest values.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Feb 25, 05:22:00 PM:
"we had the world's sympathy right after 9/11 but messed it up later"
The world was only on board for about two weeks after 9/11. Don't kid yourself.
As soon as any heavy lifting was indicated, our circle of new "friends" thinned out considerably as did the so called bipartisan democratic support.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Feb 25, 05:25:00 PM:
if we were a little smarter and used the "soft power" of culture
BTW, that "culture" you speak of is a big part of the reason the islamists hate us.
By , at
Sun Feb 25, 08:53:00 PM:
There are a lot of different reasons for the religion of anti-Americanism but without a doubt the top three are: hatred of Jews, envy, and fear/hatred of capitalism. Take those away and there wouldn't be much left.
By , at
Sun Feb 25, 10:18:00 PM:
Purple Avenger,
Your comments are why apologists for the Bush administration should never be allowed near a forum for discussing our future. Your 'facts' are obliterated by reality and thus serve as the disastrous basis for such stupidities as the war in Iraq. Plenty of people still want to come here because it is so bad in other places not necessarily because it is so good here, and because the EU and most places in Asia severely restrict immigration. Money is actually not flowing into this country at the moment, people are recognizing the train wreck of an economy on which we currently ride, including many of the wealthy in our own country. If you actually understood complexity a bit better, and if our leaders did as well, we would not be in the bad shape we currently our with fewer and fewer friends on the world stage.
It is going to be a sad reckoning for all of us if the Dems prove so spineless as to not stop Bush by, at the very least, severely restricting his margin for independent action.
By , at
Sun Feb 25, 10:19:00 PM:
Same goes for Anonymous immediately following PA's inanity.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Feb 25, 11:23:00 PM:
I will not fisk or deconstruct anon's comments too thoroughly. Fish. Barrel. I will make several general observations, as I have heard and read comments like this many times. First, he assumes his own reasons for disliking the current administration must naturally be the reasons that others do. Try applying that to situations in your daily life, anon, and let me know how that works out for you. Second, the assumption that Americans who like their country and approve of its foreign policy in at least a general way must obviously be self-satisfied and unreflective is simply silly. I am sure you can find examples of self-satisfied people on any subject - this means zero. I have read many, perhaps hundreds or even thousands over the last six years, who are aware of American shortcomings, yet still find most criticism of us unreasoning. For anon to blithely assume that he and his friends are clear-sighted and judicious while those who disagree must needs be arrogant jingoists strikes me as, well, self-satisfied. To believe that we should fall before your parrotted arguments simply because you condescend and assure us that intelligent people know better is to confuse us with liberals. Politics is an intellectual endeavor with us, not a means of proving one "gets it" socially.
It is certainly wise for Americans to not automatically assume that all dislike is based on envy. If I encounter anyone with that idea, I will make an effort to remind him.
To the original point. My sons' highschool rival in soccer was a private school, very well-coached, which worked hard year-round (and on their own) to field a superior team. They had won nine championships in a row. Everyone else in the league not only hated them, but accused them of cheating, of being favored by the refs, and of being nancy-boys. They were just rich kids, and good, and virtually any accusation would be believed. When my sons played them, I was susceptible to it myself, and had to continually hold myself in check.
When Tree Rollins bit Danny Ainge in a game, within a year I kept hearing that it was Ainge who had done the biting. People just hated the Celtics, especially Ainge because he was mouthy. So they believed any evil about him.
Envy and resentment are particularly common in those who feel embarrassed about being beholden to someone who gives you a gift unreciprocated - military defense, for example. See also, New Zealand - Australia. I comment on several UK-American and German-American sites. When I encounter Europeans who are willing to at least acknowledge the possibility of envy, I am far more amenable to discussing what might be America's real faults. Europeans who cannot even entertain the idea are seldom worth discussing things with.
By , at
Mon Feb 26, 08:06:00 AM:
Okay, AVI, no fish in the barrel. Your scratched, cracked lens provides way too much impact on your viewpoint. It is certainly true that the Bush administration, and the people who up to this day support it, have a dangerous lack of understanding for the world around them.
Envy certainly plays its part in diplomacy but not in actual threats to us. Given that this administration only sees threats and attributes it simply to envy, e.g., they hate us for our freedom, means that we will continue to attempt to bludgeon people who are not an actual threat to us, e.g., Iraq.
People who have done us harm and would do so in the future are much more complex than that and they use our history and their own history, they use religion, they use their own abysmal situations (poverty, lack of progress, lack of resources, abusive governments - whom we all too often prop up, lack of opportunity, et alii), inter alia to go after the biggest target on the block. The fact that we have responded in such simplistic, violent fashion, and couch so much in religious terminology - specifically christian, only serves to feed their own propaganda and provide additional cause for hating us.
Envy plays its part in rhetorical bashing not actual attacks. And it is the inability to differentiate between these that has led us down the path we are on and made us much more alone in the world.
And, please don't try to hide your anti-intellectual talking points in pseudo-intellectual jargon, e.g., hinting that those who support the administration are those that like America. If we didn't love our country, we wouldn't care so much and would cheer on this administration and its buffoonery as it will, unchecked, surely continue to lessen our standing in the world.
By , at
Mon Feb 26, 03:51:00 PM:
And IRAN is still part of the United Nations and notice no one ever was threatening to cut off all of IRANS money or supplies while they held those americans hostage and why should we have any thing more to do with the wretched UN. NUKE IRAN
By Coach Morgan, at
Mon Feb 26, 07:56:00 PM:
I propose the hypothesis of growing world hostility be tested by the objective measure of whether, since 2001 or 2003, democratic nations have tended to elect governments more or less sympathetic to our own, where sympathetic means dedicated to public policies more similar to the US' than the government they are replacing.
The answer is clear: Canada, Germany, Japan*, France (coming soon; N. Sarkozy is the clear front runner), Poland and other East European nations, Australia*, India, have all elected or reelected (*) governments sympathetic to our administration in the last few years.
Against this list put Spain, in which the left was elected days after the Madrid bomb attacks in an election the right was expected to win, and Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi barely lost to Romano Prodi.
In the UK, Tony Blair's Labor is the left wing party. If Labor loses the next election, the normally more pro-American Conservatives will take power.
Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia have elected governments less sympathetic, but Hugo Chavez is the common factor there.
It seems to me that the thesis that anti americanism is growing around the world is strongly refuted by the most direct reflection of public opinion, the ballot, in almost all major democracies.
