Unnecessary Illusions

[justinsb]

I started off on this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x26930
talking about the cost of maintaining the illusion of US global dominance, but I'm about to take a detour (and a somewhat long winded one) so I thought I'd start a new thread.

As I said on the other thread I'm a dual (US / Canadian) citizen, living on the northern side of the border. I have studied US and international political science, history and economics on both sides of the border, in school and on my own. There are many things about the US that people who are in the US simply don't see (it is something of a bubble - watch the news and see how much time they dedicate to international news that does not directly impact the US.)

It seems to me that two key components of the current rot in US politics are a misunderstanding of history and a misunderstanding of countries outside the U.S.

First of all, the tea bagger/ repuke problem is that they look at the US golden age (1945-1960 ish) as the goal post. That is the time they want to get back to. What they do not understand about that time is why the US prospered. If they understood that they would understand that it will never happen again (hopefully).

In 1945 the US had just come out of WWII, successfully. The economy boomed like it never has before and never will again. Defense spending was high and the New Deal was still in full force, the G.I. bill produced the highest per-capita number of university graduates ever (before or since) and taxes were actually much higher than they currently are. None of that though was responsible for the 'good times' (as long as you were a staight, white male.)

Coming out of WWII the US was the last man standing. Eastern and Western Europe had been through one world war (on home soil), then the great depression, then a second world war (on home soil) and were in tatters - their currencies were worthless, their infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities were at zero and their populations were dramatically reduced. Much of Asia was in the same boat, along with North Africa and the Middle East.

That meant that the US was the sole remaining military and economic power. The resources of the world (oil, gas, food, metals) were America's for the asking. The US could even set the price. Not only that but the US did most of the re-building, loaning foreign powers the money so that US contractors could do the re-building. On top of all of that, because factories were a prime target in all military operations - the US was the sole supplier of manufactured goods to the world. Jobs were plentiful, university graduates were everywhere and, because of the war, the work pool had been reduced by half a million people. That meant that even with a high school diploma and no real skills you could earn a middle class salary (with benefits.)

Things changed afterward, not because of big government, or regulations or taxes or a decline in moral values but because the rest of the world (starting with Europe and moving east) began to slowly get back on its feet. Competition for resources increased, other countries saw their cities come back, experienced their own baby booms and returned to domestic production of agricultural and manufactured goods, re-building contracts dried up, and US influence slowly eroded.

That is how the 'golden age' happened and that is how it ended. Hopefully those days will never return because it would take an unprecedented global catastrophe - one which the US likely wouldn't escape this time.

The second illusion, largely growing out of the same time period, is that Americans are 'the greatest' of the worlds people. Americans, especially on the right, believe that they are superior to the rest of the world's people in terms of morality, values and most especially patriotism and dedication to their country. This is also false.

I'll just offer one glaring example of this:

In US mythology the US won WWII virtually single handedly and saved Europe from the Nazis. I do not intend to diminish the US role, but it was the Soviets who were the real heros of WWII.

The Story of Russia (USSR) in the 20th century is truly remarkable. They, like the rest of Europe, survived WWI and the great depression (they also experienced an extremely bloody and destructive civil war.) In World War II they suffered more than any other country by far. In addition to the destruction of their cities the USSR suffered an estimated 26 million casualties, 1 out of every 3 deaths suffered by any country in the war, 4-5x the number lost by Germany and 52x the number lost by the US. Were it not for the Russian efforts on the eastern front the D-Day invasion would have failed.

Now, I'm certainly not a communist nor do I condone the Soviet human rights record but, what happened after that was even more remarkable. After surviving the revolution, WWI, the great depression and WWII - the Russians/USSR bounced right back and matched US defense spending almost dollar for dollar for the next 45 years, they played their way to superpowerdom and although they never made it to the moon they did get to space before the US did, within 15 years of the end of the war.

So, US patriotism, dedication and willingness to suffer for the good of the country is hardly unique. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about who is greater in that area as it really doesn't matter but in terms of illusions, the US really has to stop underestimating the rest of the world.

I think that if Americans, especially the Tea Party Republicans, could grasp that the post war years were not 'the natural state of things' and that Americans are neither unique in the world, nor superior to it it would go a long way in improving the debate over what to do next.

[pbca]

1. K & R n/t

[Martin Eden]

2. American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism was the product of being in the right place at the right time, and this attitude has been sustained mostly by pride based on ignorance.

K&R -- your post is a spot-on summation of the relevant history.

[zipplewrath]

3. A bit of Zinn

I understand what you are saying, and in some sense I don't disagree. I would quibble a bit on some issues. America is "unique". That in no way equates to superior, and doesn't negate that other countries are "unique" as well. As for "winning" WWII, yes there is an under appreciation for the accomplishments of other nations in that war. However, for all of the accomplishments of Russia, much of their industrial equipment was western made and provided. We couldn't have won without them, and they probably couldn't have prevailed without us, or at least the west. Furthermore, we were fighting in essence "two wars" at the time, albeit radically different wars. And I would be careful about quoting russian casualties since their treatment of their own people, and the combat tactics they were willing to use tended to result in much higher casualty rates.

Same way with their "accomplishments" after WWII. Their space program was based upon much of the same work as ours, which is basically to say that they captured german rocket scientists too. To say that they "bounced back" is to ignore the massive suffering that was foisted upon those people for several generations. They had priorities which allowed them to maintain parity in certain areas, while falling woefully behind in many of the more "humanitarian" areas. (Something the US is in danger of doing on the basics of a social safety net while we continue to pursue wars and a military capacity unjustified by the threats we face).

Our uniqueness is overstated in many ways, but what isn't overstated is that we have been one of the most successful (so far) countries to be "self governing". It is hard to find comparable countries, on this scale, that have managed to remain a democratic based government as we have. Of course, we are only 200+ years old. What is often overstated about this though is that it is somehow a unique outcome of our "character". The forces towards democratic forms of government were already in place. England, at least on the island itself, was well along the way towards a democratic form of government by the time of the revolution. France was to be not that far behind us, and really inspired much of our formation. The native american tribes had structures that guided people like Franklin in setting up some of the early structures we had.

The conclusion I draw is that, if grading "on a curve" the US does very well in comparison to the rest of the world. It's a big test and some nations get some answer right that we get wrong, and the converse is true as well. The mistake is presuming that we get A+'s and everyone else is getting C's. We may be good, but it isn't clear we are always at the "top of our class". We do very well, but every day brings another "pop quiz" so we need to study all the time.

[justinsb]

4. Russia

It wasn't my intention to say Russians are far superior, or that the US did not play a great role.

This was more aimed at the perception among many Americans that they are unique in their patriotism, devotion or willingness to sacrifice for their beliefs and their country. I do not think that there is a single nation on Earth whose people do not meet those criteria (or at least a large portion of their population.)

It is, in large part, the U.S. feeling of superiority and underestimation of people elsewhere in the world that has lead to many of its foreign policy blunders and its staggering debt.

[zipplewrath]

6. The origins are important

"It is, in large part, the U.S. feeling of superiority and underestimation of people elsewhere in the world that has lead to many of its foreign policy blunders and its staggering debt."

I agree, but the source of that feeling needs to be well understood in order to be modified. Our physical isolation, and our immigrant history is deeply connected to that perception. The fact that war, many of them, have brought us to where we are today, means that our culture has an emotional connection to war, and its value in their self identity.

[justinsb]

7. I understand that...but

The US is definitely the most warlike state in modern history. I'm sure that over the last 235 ish years that the US has been involved in at least twice as many wars as it's nearest rival.

The thing is that the face of war has changed dramatically. There is no more victory. No one 'surrenders' anymore - there is just conflict that drags on until it escalates to the point that one side or the other backs down but (with the exception of Iraq I) no one surrenders - Vietnam, Korea, dozens of regional conflicts - it either goes on indefinitely or someone walks away but you can no longer "win" a war.

[AMouse]

5. Kick & R

:kick:

[pbca]

8. Going to...

bump this again because more people need to read it.