Posted on 11/18/2003 4:16:07 AM PST by William McKinley
Not to mention articles by John Parker of The Economist.
American exceptionalism bump! Thanks, William.
This is a very bad and very dangerous policy, and not the duty, obligation, or in the best interest of American citizens, or the safety of the US, or the global community.
America, it is said, can live together because Americans live apart. The two cultures occupy different worlds. Traditionalists are concentrated in a great L-shape on the map, the spine of the Rockies forming its vertical arm, its horizontal one cutting a swathe through the South. With a couple of exceptions, all these “red states” voted for Mr Bush in 2000.I tend to agree with this analysis, but when I look at the map, my eyes are drawn to those parts of the map which are changing, and I see two areas that fit that bill.The rest of the country is more secular. This includes the Pacific coast and the square outlined by the big L, consisting of the north-eastern and upper mid-western states. With a few exceptions, these “blue states” voted for Mr Gore in 2000.
Their differences are deeply entrenched. Traditionalists are heavily concentrated in smaller towns and rural areas. Secularists dominate big cities. Southerners tend to be a bit more religious, a bit more socially conservative and more supportive of a strong military stance than the rest of the country. Intriguingly, black southerners are more conservative than blacks elsewhere, though less conservative than their white neighbours.
The political effect of these differences is increasing. For historical reasons (Republicans having been the anti-slavery party in the civil war), white southerners were part of the Democratic coalition, circumscribing for many years the political impact of southern conservatism. Now, as the region becomes more Republican, that conservatism is getting noisier.
In contrast, multiculturalism is deeply entrenched in blue states. The states with the highest levels of immigration of Latinos and Asians include New York, New Jersey, New Mexico and California—what Mr Frey calls America's new melting-pots. Mr Gore won all of them, except Texas and Florida. These were special cases: both had governors called Bush; both had seen the largest inflow from other parts of America of white immigrants, who tend to be more conservative.
The differences between the two Americas seem to be getting sharper. A new survey of American values by Pew finds greater social and sexual tolerance, yet also more strictness on matters of personal morality. The number of people saying they completely agree that there are clear and universal guidelines about good and evil has risen from one-third to two-fifths in the space of 15 years.
One of America's characteristic features is its sunny optimism, the sense that anything is possible. Yet there is an 18-point gap between the number of Democrats and Republicans who agree with the statement “I don't believe there are any real limits to growth in this country today.” Democrats are usually keener than Republicans to urge the administration to pay attention to domestic issues. This gap has widened from three points in 1997 to 16 points now. On America's role in the world, the importance of military strength and patriotism itself, the gap between the parties has never been wider.
So if there is a revival of exceptionalism—in the sense both of greater divergence from other countries, and of policies based on it—it will be controversial. Red states are likely to welcome it. Blue states probably will not.
The south has been changing from Democrat to Republican, but in reality the south has not changed in the traditionalist/exceptionalist direction. Rather, the change has been in the Democrats who have moved far away from it and as such away from southern appeal.
The other area is the rust belt, which is currently in a state of flux. Pennsylvania is becoming stronger for the Democrats. Illinois is even further along. Ohio was dangerously close last Presidential race for a state barely contested. Meanwhile, Wisconsin and Minnesota, normally Democrat states, have been drifting rightward. This is the real battelground, and I think Mr. Parker has hit on how this battle can be engaged by the Republicans. It has to be engaged using American Exceptionalism, to revive the positive feelings of the traditionalists in the suburbs who are being swayed to the Democrats. We must do this before the nature of the region changes.
The song that came to mind was one which came, naturally, from the South, and it came during the first revival of American Exceptionalism- the Reagan Revolution.
Well the eagle's been flyin' slowI had not heard that song in ages here in western Pennsylvania, until 9/11. I hear it regularly now. We can tap into the optimistic feelings and pride that come with the boastful side of American Exceptionalism and try to win back the parts of the rust belt which are slipping away from us. We can do it using the calls for unity, tradition, and pro-America feelings which are the strength of the south; we can tap into Reagan nostalgia. And if Howard Dean is the nominee, we will have almost the perfect candidates for us to fight this partisan battle. George Bush, the amiable, likable, optimistic individualist American, and Howard Dean, the angry, belligerent, self-proclaimed-metrosexual, Eurocentrist. The only thing that could be better is if Dean chooses a southern VP nominee, mistakenly assuming that the south is the battleground and not the midwest.
And the flag's been flyin' low
And a lotta people sayin' that America's
fixin' to fall
Well speakin' just for me
And some people from Tennessee
We've got a thing or two to tell you all
This lady may have stumbled
But she aint never failed
And if the Russians don't believe that
They can all go straight to hell
We're gonna put her feet back
On the path of righteousness and then
God bless America again
And you never did think
That it ever would happen again
( In America, did you )
You never did think
That we'd ever get together again
( We damn sure could )
Yeah, we're walkng real proud
And we're talkin' real loud again
( In America )
You never did think
That it ever would happen again
From The Sound up in Long Island
Out to San Francisco Bay
And everthing that's in between them
Is our own
And we may have done a little bit
Of fightin' amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
'Cause we'll all stick together
And you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies
And the rebels and and the yanks
You just go and lay your hand
On a Pittsburgh Steelers' fan
And I think you're gonna finally
understand
And you never did think
That it ever would happen again
( In America, did you )
You never did think
That we'd ever get together again
( We damn sure could )
Yeah, we're walkng real proud
And we're talkin' real loud again
( In America )
You never did think
That it ever would happen again
This is a very bad and very dangerous policy"
Am I getting you correctly?
Right now the US GDP is about a fourth that of the entire world's. In 1950, it was more like half. There are many who'd rather we turned back the clock to the days when Europe was rubble and Japan was radioactive, but I don't.
Relative parity ain't worth a bucket of spit. The whiners in the third world may gripe about how rich Americans are, but their doers join us so they can get rich too. The doers know that they're better off when their neighbors are rich. That's also why the American movers and shakers want the rest of the world better off, because generally, when the rest of the world is better off, we are too.
The big question is this: would you be willing to accept a doubling of your income even though your neighbor's income tripled? My preference is that I will work to better my loved ones' well being even if it (horrors) makes others better off too.
But there are many who suffer from covetousness so badly that they'd rather starve than see their neighbor benefit. That's not your position is it?
The two kinds of religious exceptionalism are connected. Rather as in the economic sphere competing private companies tend to produce wealth and activity, whereas monopoly firms have the opposite effect, so in the religious sphere competing sects generate a ferment of activity and increased levels of belief, whereas state churches produce indifference.For your consideration.
Europeans have long been bothered by this feature of American life. De Tocqueville again: “There is nothing more annoying...than this irritable patriotism of the Americans.” But since September 11th the Europeans have become even more disturbed. They associate patriotism with militarism, intolerance and ethnic strife. No wonder they consider it an alarming quality in the world's most powerful country.I love this passage.Yet European and American patriotism are different. Patriotic Europeans take pride in a nation, a tract of land or a language they are born into. You cannot become un-French. In contrast, patriotic Americans have a dual loyalty: both to their country and to the ideas it embodies. “He loved his country,” said Lincoln of Henry Clay, “partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country.” As the English writer G.K. Chesterton said in 1922, America is the only country based on a creed, enshrined in its constitution and declaration of independence. People become American by adopting the creed, regardless of their own place of birth, parentage or language. And you can become un-American—by rejecting the creed.
But long-term trends were helping Republicans anyway. The defection of the South—America's most populous region—broke up the old Democratic coalition. In 2002, Republicans won the South by an even larger margin than in their landslide victory of 1994. The rise of an investor class (half of Americans own shares) benefits the party, because middle-class shareholders tend to back Republican causes such as privatising Social Security, the federal pensions system.I think there is another mechanism at work. The article points out how, over time, our nation's wealth is growing. The stereotype that the Republicans are the party of and for the rich and the Democrats are the party of and for the poor has one true aspect, namely that the Republicans benefit when there are more rich and the Democrats benefit when there are more poor. One who is cynical about the Democrats (like me) might suggest that each party works in its own self-interest, and as such the Democrats have a vested interest in destroying wealth and creating more poor. But they are bucking the trend; our country continues to get wealthier and more comfortable. And the fewer poor there are, the worse it is going to get for them. This is the emerging Republican majority. Democrats have long thought that demographics pointed in their favor. They are wrong.
There is one passage in it which is pretty anti-Bush, where I find the author makes what I consider a key mistake that he does not make elsewhere in the article. Before I get to the passage (with comments) I want to explain what I consider the mistake.
Throughout the article (up until the point where he discusses the President), the author notes consistently that 9/11 greatly impacted things, but it's effects might not be permanent and are, in fact, likely to diminish over time. This is a correct view. But when it comes to the President (other than his popularity), the author forgets this.
In some areas of domestic policy, Mr Bush has been almost as far-reaching. The best example is tax. As Bill Galston of the University of Maryland puts it, “Ronald Reagan thought government was the problem. George Bush thinks tax is the problem.” Mr Bush is in fact more radical, or more determined, than his Republican predecessor. Mr Reagan cut taxes in his first year but increased them later in the face of widening budget deficits. Mr Bush cut them in each of his first three years, despite the prospect, by the third year, of deficits as far as the eye can see.When the author speaks of the deficit, there is the first sign that he is forgetting selectively about 9/11 and its impacts. People forget how devastating an economic hit that was. We were already in an economic downturn inherited from the Clinton administration, and then, whammo. The economic downturn has as much, if not more, to do with deficits than anything else. And the tax cuts were, in part, a measure to help correct the downturn. They are starting to work now.This year, total federal revenues stood at 17% of GDP, the lowest level since 1959, which was long before Medicare, Medicaid, federal education programmes and today's defence build-up. Mr Bush's tax policy is consistent with the “exceptionalist” view that, in a twist on Thomas Jefferson's words, “the government that governs best, taxes least.” It has heightened differences in the tax burden between the two sides of the Atlantic.
What about the other George Bush? This is the one who created the biggest new bureaucracy since Harry Truman: the Department of Homeland Security. This is the Bush who has pushed the powers of the federal government into education, hitherto a state preserve, by requiring annual testing of students and raising federal spending to supervise those tests. It is the one who has allowed the Justice Department to detain suspected terrorists for longer periods and with less judicial review.Sounds very critical, but he later makes a very astute observation regarding the nature of this 'growth' of government.This is the Bush who is trying to set up a national energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil; who slapped protectionist barriers on steel; who signed a farm bill costing $180 billion over ten years; who set up a White House office to promote marriage (surely the last thing a conservative government should be poking its nose into). And this is the one urging Congress to expand state health care for the elderly to cover some of the costs of prescription drugs—an action President Clinton's Medicare adviser says would be “the biggest expansion of government health benefits since the Great Society.”
In all, the Bush administration in its first three years increased government spending by 21%. It will rise even higher if the president wins a second term and fulfils his promise to reform Social Security, because of the huge transition costs. In contrast, during the Clinton administration government spending fell as a share of GDP. “Appalling,” says Ed Crane, the head of the libertarian Cato Institute which campaigns for small government.
This rise in the scope and cost of government seems to contradict the idea that American exceptionalism is increasing on Mr Bush's watch. Clearly, he is not an exceptionalist in the small-government, Reagan mould. He does not believe government is part of the problem. This qualifies, but does not rebut, the notion that exceptionalism is growing. Still less does it mean Mr Bush is making America's government more “European”.Again, the author still is not recognizing the economic impacts of 9/11, and the fact that when the economy starts growing impressively again and the GDP starts growing impressively again that the receipts will go up again, even though the tax burden as a percentage of GDP is lower. I think the author must be a deficit hawk, which blinds him to that mitigating factor. But continuing...The combination of large tax cuts and increased spending has turned a budget surplus of 2.4% ofGDP in 2000 into a 3.5% deficit in 2003—one of the fastest fiscal deteriorations in history. With more spending pressure, the proposed expansion of Medicare and the desire to make “temporary” tax cuts permanent, the deficit is likely to rise yet further, to around 5% of GDP by 2004-05, near the record post-war deficit set in 1983. This would almost certainly be unsustainable, so Mr Bush's economic policy must be counted a work in progress at best, a shambles at worst.
And even though Mr Bush is no small-government exceptionalist, he is no European-style welfare statist either. As Jonathan Rauch has argued in National Journal, a magazine for Washington insiders, the thread running through his non-defence government expansion is increased choice rather than increased government. Higher spending on school tests enables parents to assess the quality of schools and choose between them. Health-care reform as originally proposed is supposed to let private health providers compete with Medicare. Social Security reform, if it happens, would allow people to save for their own retirement through individual accounts that would compete with the existing pay-as-you-go system.This is an important observation regarding the policies the administration has persued. Throughout the article, there are mentions about how the decentralized nature of America allows for choices to be made, with market forces acting to cause exceptional vigor and strength. Government stifles when it removes choice and institutes standardization (see the passage about state churches in Europe). But Bush's governmental growth tends to increase choice.
These two Bushes coexist uneasily. Neither is likely to dominate the other, because of the way the president runs his administration. Mr Bush has an MBA, and it shows. He sets overall goals but lets his lieutenants work out how to meet them and goes with the policy that best pleases him. Different policies, therefore, reflect different strands of Republicanism. Sometimes neo-conservatives have the president's ear; sometimes traditional realists do. Sometimes corporate barons seem uppermost; at other times, supply-siders. This fluidity makes for a dizzy, sometimes invigorating, often incoherent mixture.Sort of like America itself, no? Isn't this one of the core features of American Exceptionalism?
What happens when the playing field is level and what is laughingly called our allies and friends can mount just as good a military machine as we can and we find ourselves on opposing sides of a war, like is going to happen in Israel for instance?
I don't consider it my duty or obligation to build the economies and power of what has proven, without a doubt, to be a world full of ingrate nations. France and Germany could still be standing in rubble and it would certainly be to our benefit as they have both proven to be ungreatful, back stabbers. Germany sending it's minister of defense to China to whisper in each other's ears about how to stop us from putting up a missile defense system.
What makes you think for a second that an economically equal Germany will not join forces with China? Are you naive enough to really think, after starting two world wars, that Germany's spots have changed? To pump up Germany's economy we contracted out our sub building to them, when we wanted to sell subs to Tiwan, Germany said no way. So now we have no control over who's military we choose to build up? We attempt to protect our steel industry and the World Trade Organization rules against it's own laws to unfairly slap us with sanctions and fines.
Have you ever heard ONE SINGLE WORD of gratitude out of any of them? My hearing is not bad, I have yet to hear anything out of Europe and the rest of the world other than we are evil and we never do enough and will never be able to do enough to satisfy them other than suicide. The suicide of leveling the playing field and placing ourselves in a position of weakness in a world full of anti-Americans.
They can all root hog or die as far as I am concerned. In fact I prefer they do, it builds character not to have everything handed to you. It's time to cast off the false duty and obligation placed on the American taxpayer that is no where contained in the Consititution. It's time for Americans to be compassionate to America and Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.