The nexus of culture and foreign policy (good read)

[igloo]

The nexus of culture and foreign policy

Herbert London

December 1, 2003

In policy disputes culture – however ambiguously defined – trumps most other characteristics including money, enthusiasm, even courage. By culture I’m referring to the habits of mind that are cultivated by the institutions in a given society.

If one relies on a Tocquevillian interpretation of national character, the U.S. he observed was a nation that encouraged liberty and individualism, but it also fostered associations and communal ties. More recently, David Putman argued that Americans have been so seduced by television viewing they are accustomed to watching alone and “bowling aloneâ€. The venerated historian David Potter maintained that affluence permitted the expression of liberty. Obviously America means different things to different people.

One condition however, is increasingly apparent in the national profile: impatience. This is a cultural trait borne of affluence and enhanced by freedom. The ability to move quickly from place to place and the exchange of ideas from one side of the globe to the other in real time have given Americans the sense that if it isn’t happening instantly, it isn’t happening at all.

There simply is not time for reflection. Americans are on the move literally and figuratively. Channel surfing is a national sport; a television producer must capture an audience in the first ten seconds. A newspaper story must grab the reader in the first paragraph.

If you deliver information on a computer, impatience is what you cater to. But even hackers grow impatient if broadband and speedy DSL aren’t available. Computer users demand speed; the faster, the better.

Yet there is a downside to impatience. Americans may have lost staying power. Although President Bush made it clear after 9/11 that the war on terrorism would take years, after several months the American people are starting to stir.

The relatively rapid success in the Iraq war led inexorably to a belief in a relatively rapid peaceful withdrawal. Democratic presidential candidates have engaged in a continual drumbeat for the departure of American troops. And, as one might guess, the American people are jumping to the beat.

Since the economy is growing at a rate faster than most analysts predicted, Iraq is the only issue Democratic hopefuls have left. They also realize that implicit appeals to impatience may pay off. Clearly the president’s popularity is waning and most of this decline is related to his handling of events in Iraq.

If one were to consider conditions dispassionately, what is most needed at the moment is patience, an awareness that staying the course is necessary. Terrorists in Iraq are counting on American impatience. They assume that casualties and bombing will weaken American resolve. They assume as well that political considerations militate against sustained commitment.

In fact, there is now a test of wills. President Bush contends U.S. forces will not be forced to leave Iraq. Conversely, several Democratic candidates have called for immediate withdrawal and others have come close to suggesting this as well.

Should impatience prevail, the consequences would be disastrous for American interests. The terrorists would be emboldened; the U.S. would be seen as “a paper tiger: - a claim often used by the terrorists. Clearly the advocates for withdrawal are playing with fire. But do they realize a condition the president overlooks?

Perhaps Americans cannot stay the course. Perhaps the culture of affluence has produced an impatience for anything but immediate success.

I would hope that these suppositions are wrong, but I wonder. Already the vision of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has faded from the national memory. I hear students asking why we have detained suspected terrorists in Guantanano so long. The New York Times, a bell weather of liberal opinion, editorializes about the need for Iraqi withdrawal.

There appears to be a nexus between impatience and the demands on America foreign policy. With luck, the U.S. may be able to withdraw and seamlessly transfer authority to a stable Iraqi government. After all, one should hope for the best.

Realism, however, dictates consideration of another scenario in which cultural imperatives insist on premature departure. I earnestly hope I am wrong; yet there is a nagging suspicion that a nation accustomed to instant coffee, quick acting drugs, immediate gratification may not be ready for a long drawn out war. Patience is a virtue, but impatience may now be an overarching national characteristic.

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and John M. Olin professor of humanities of the New York University, publisher of American Outlook and author of "Decade of Denial," recently published by Lexington Books. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

[marksimons]

Tocqueville's analysis of America was an interesting one.

One of the main aspects of his work was the prospect of a 'tyranny of the majority', or as it were a subjicated nation where there is the pretence of 'democracy' but where things are in reality controlled by elites who have control of economics, government and media.

"I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny [of the majority]."

"Tocqueville's warning, made long before "mass communication" had entered the lexicon, is powerfully relevant, now more than ever. Because mass media is more a shaper of public opinion than an expression of it, the threat of "majority" tyranny stems from big-brother-type programming and from the unbridled rule of a few, oversized corporations."

well said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-crawford030102.shtml

Have you read Tocqueville Igloo? I'd reccomend it.

For my university course one of my modules is on International history, 1900 - 1945 and it's interesting looking at the start of the first world war in a little more depth again, the number of politicians who got themselves into a war, thinking it would be one type and utterly not expecting the carnage that followed. lies, deception, patriotism, national interest and international order, stubborn generals and weak democracy. we lost the best of a generation, and for what? Well it seems that Marx's observation that war, and its inevitability in capitalist societies, seems to be a very pertinent one.

With regards to America's attention span, I'm sure that the Bush administration are hoping that the American republic are goldfish like, with a skewed up perspective, docile expression and a forgetfull nature. then they might forget the lies of Bush and all sense of right, wrong and what is in the long term national interest. Sure that'd suit george bush down to a t.

Here's some stuff from more smart Americans, whom I guess Igloo would disagree with on some issues... Wonder who is more of the patriot...

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.

Thomas Jefferson

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

James Madison

The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.

James Madison

Fear is the foundation of most governments.

John Adams

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.

George Washington

Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!

Thomas Jefferson

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds - Samuel Adams

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

James Madison

One man with courage is a majority.

Thomas Jefferson

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

Thomas Jefferson

- wonder what he'd think of Guantanamo...

The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty

John Adams

Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.

Thomas Jefferson

- wonder what he'd think of Murdoch, Clear Channel 'embedded' press et al

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

- would he vote for the patriot act?

When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

Thomas Jefferson

I know America's attention span is short, but surely you remember these guys...

[jamiroguy1]

mark... you beat me to it.. I was going to point out as well that Tocqueville would have loathed how unindividual the US has become.

Good job.