Anti-Americanism lite?
In this months online Foreign Policy there is a commentary column entitled Perils of Lite Anti-Americanism. I was not inspired to read it at first. Political discussions with Budweiser spellings are usually tiresome. Also the theme his title suggested reminded me too much of the all too easy charges of desiring-America's-downfall, which were lobbed about like so many balls at a tennis camp in the previous season. I clicked through the link anyway to glance it, noting that the biography squib at the bottom indicated the author, Moises Naim, was the editor of FP I committed to reading it. Afterward I read through it again. I sometimes have a hard time understanding what people are trying to say.
He is, he says, talking about two things: murderous anti-americans -- "terrorists who hate the U.S. - its power, values, & policies", and "those who take to the streets and media to rant against the country, but not seek its destruction." Both Lite Anti-Americans, and U.S. Policy makers (and here he is introducing a third category) share the illusion that his activity carries few costs. Even that global pushback serves to inhibit unilateral excess. Somewhere along the line though as the specific gives way to broad denunciations and strident attacks, deeper animosities and suspicions allow assumptions of dark motivations and hidden agenda's [all these lovely phrases are his, I've quoted him only where I feared to distort him]. With an earlier line that reads "...they will tell you that they love the us, but despise its policies and the that criticizing its government is indeed healthy." Naim creates a further distinction between a democratic critical voice in an open society, and simple antagonism. It is a problem that he offers little in the way of distinguishing the two; though he seems to believe that earnest criticism will be more particular in nature. Otherwise it takes a destructive form and serves to undermine the values (the values structure) they profess to share.
Now in a bit of a turn, he arrives at the reason he has written this column. Several months ago a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts gathered to discuss this emergent anti Americanism and draft a letter to the President it. The cabinet officer they desired to present this letter to the president reviewed it and largely responded - what concern is this to us. To this Naim responds the use of political power depends on a certain good will. Good will depends heavily on the mood and attitudes of domestic constituencies at home and around the globe... legitimacy flows from the acceptance of others who not only allow, but welcome the use of that influence. Military prowess may be a necessary condition for radical regime change, but good will is the sufficient condition.
Even in today's news I see commentators remarking on how disinclined this administration is to acknowledge those disagreeing with them, let alone listen. It is the hallmark of this Whitehouse to maintain they are never wrong, to spin and continue to spin even when others have stopped. To control information to such degree that they are rarely confronted with ambiguities for long. Except for a few patches the American press has given them a pass on this.
At the beginning of the war I had written up some observations on this, largely due to my dissatisfaction with the Washington Post - the big city daily I spend my quarters on.
This was in March and April, the center of it was some columns written by the Post's Ombudsman. By the time I had written much , the war was over, the anti war protests stopped, and the media pitched themselves into a wholly triumphant mode. I shelved what I had written, and turned back to making the donuts. I'm going to place it up in a essay page now which is radio userland's place for such things. It represents too much furrowed discontent not too. The links to news articles probably lead to articles that have scampered behind the Posts pay for view archives, but the Ombudsman columns remain public I believe.
2:11:25 AM  ;
|
|
