Interesting that both Fareed Zakaria and Robert Kagan were pondering the same subject as me on Tuesday. Both of them see the world from an extremely narrow point of view in both time and space. It is "the world America made" from Kagan's side and a "post-American" world from Zakaria's.
They both speak some truth, but they both lack perspective... more so Kagan than Zakaria. Zakaria's vision represents the more intelligent leadership path toward the future (though surely humanity will find a more constructive term for that future than "post-American"). Kagan's vision is that of the fearful tyrant clinging to outdated Superpower status.
Read their articles here:
Fareed Zakaria, How America can thrive in a post-American world, CNN.com
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/zakaria-how-america-can-thrive-in-a-post-american-world/
Robert Kagan, America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier, CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/14/opinion/kagan-world-america-made
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
American Exceptionalism for the 21st Century
Another way in which the 2012 election is about the very definition of America has a much, much broader context. From a World Historical point of view - the distant bird's-eye picture through time and space - the United States has a unique role in what we consider to be the Modern era, or the Modern world. Our world. It is difficult, if not impossible, for those of us who live in the United States today to look at our place in this world objectively.
World Historians attempt to "periodize" the human past, to divide it into logical eras in order to facilitate study. The periods, or eras, that make sense to a given generation of historians are naturally going to change over time as we gain perspective and insight into the past, and as research agendas evolve. Most current World Historians writing in the English language divide human history into something like this:
Paleolithic Era (from the evolution of homo sapiens to about 8,000 BC)
Neolithic Era (about 8,000 - 3,500 BC)
Ancient Era (about 3,500-500 BC)
Classical Era (about 500 BC - 1500 AD)
Modern Era (about 1500-2000 AD)
Of these divisions, the two eras whose dates are least agreed-upon from a World Historical point of view are the Classical and the Modern. We'll leave the Classical Era up in the air for the moment and focus on the Modern.
What is debatable about the Modern Era is whether we are, in fact, still in it. For several decades scholars, artists and others have been sensing a major shift in human identity which has raised many questions... they can be summed up as: "are we reaching or have we reached the end of the Modern era?" To answer that question requires an exploration of what it means to be Modern in the first place. And one explanation of what it means to be Modern begins in the late 1400s with the aggressive outbound explorations of various Western European powers.
Other regions of the world, by the 1400s, had developed thriving commerce (Indian Ocean trade, Silk Roads), and had experienced major scientific and cultural achievements (China, Islamic Empires). Starting in the 15th century, it was Western Europe's turn to flourish... the historical phenomena we know as the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment helped define the mindset of Modern Western society. The core values of the United States - freedom, democracy, capitalism, equality of opportunity - were articulated during this early Modern period and ultimately transferred from Western Europe to the United States in its very infancy. The founding values of America were largely developed as part of the Western European Enlightenment. Together, the American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution represent, in this sense, a profound culmination of European Enlightenment thinking.
One way in which Western Europe's flourishing took a different turn from the flourishing of other World Historical powers was in the aggressive and hugely successful manner in which it engaged in empire-building. If Western Europe had merely experienced a period of regional dominance, our contemporary world would look a lot different. That the founding values of a country located in North America, for example, should be Western European in origin was not the least bit inevitable. Starting in the 1400s, Western European powers engaged in aggressive campaigns of exploration and empire-building. The eventual result was not only a controlling physical presence of Western Europeans, to some degree, on all continents of the world except Antarctica but, importantly, the exportation of Western European political, economic and cultural values to those regions.
The initial part of this process of exporting Western European values to other parts of the world was completed by force. In the Americas and Australia, for example, the vast majority of native people either died (current estimates are about 90% in the Americas) or adpated to the new European realities. Force was applied differently in Africa and Asia. Those continents did not experience the near-total demographic shifts that have permanently changed the Americas and Australia.
Later, however, non-Western European people from various parts of the world began to find themselves wooed by some Western European values. Democracy was appealing, as were the high standards of living that seemed to be facilitated by capitalist economies. The political and economic success of the United States, in particular, came to be admired and emulated by many in the non-Western European world. The notion that the United States was "exceptional," an emulable model for "developing" countries, took hold. You could argue that the Modern Era has been a progression from aggressive European expansion in the early Modern era, through forced and unforced Eurocentrism as Modernity matured and the Western world's center of power shifted to the new United States, merging into American exceptionalism in the late Modern period of the 20th century.
Where does that leave us in Century 21?
The notion of "American Exceptionalism" is near and dear to the hearts of many, many Americans. We're Number One... how else should it be? But keep in mind that American Exceptionalism is a culmination of a long progression of historical circumstances that are intimately tied to the rise, and perhaps the fall, of the Modern Era itself. There are many indications that the Modern Era is waning, or that it has already waned. One of those indications is that Western-style capitalism is going through the kinds of challenges we see unfolding around us. The values that undergird Western economies are being seriously questioned both within the Western nations and from without. Another indication is that fewer non-Western countries are choosing to emulate American-style political foundations. More on that later. These shifts in global thinking should not make us fearful. We should not take them personally as anti-Americanism. We should take them for what they are - evolving realities. Opportunities to lead.
The United States will almost certainly play an important role in whatever World Historical era lies ahead of us next. But how important? How central? How exceptional? And, critically, will we as a country lead this change or fight it? That, I think, is what finally brings us back to the election season of 2012. Some claim that it is unpatriotic to even suggest that the United States might not hold onto its "exceptional" status forever. On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that the increasingly global dynamics of the 21st century call for a more universal approach, an approach that reflects, even celebrates, the rich diversity of human experience around the globe... more balance, less bravado.
Allusions to American exceptionalism have peppered the 2012 primary race so far and will, no doubt, come up in the Presidential race once a Rebublican nominee has been chosen. The Republican nominee, whoever he is, will argue that President Obama does not believe the United States is exceptional and that he therefore presents a threat to the core of our very existence. All three of the remaining likely nominees - Romney, Santorum and Gingrich - agree about this. The race for President, from their point of view, really is a fight for the very existence of the America we know and love.
It may be, however, that the real exceptionalism of the United States will lie in the way it negotiates what is certain to be a challenging transition from the Modern world we know to whatever comes next. Perhaps we will come to play a key role in the global leadership that evolves over the next 50 years. Or perhaps we will cling to an outdated Superpower status until our better days are firmly behind us. Hopefully, whoever wins the race for President in 2012 will, once in office, leave the rhetoric behind and move forward with vision, intelligence and respect for the realities of the new and evolving era we find ourselves entering.
World Historians attempt to "periodize" the human past, to divide it into logical eras in order to facilitate study. The periods, or eras, that make sense to a given generation of historians are naturally going to change over time as we gain perspective and insight into the past, and as research agendas evolve. Most current World Historians writing in the English language divide human history into something like this:
Paleolithic Era (from the evolution of homo sapiens to about 8,000 BC)
Neolithic Era (about 8,000 - 3,500 BC)
Ancient Era (about 3,500-500 BC)
Classical Era (about 500 BC - 1500 AD)
Modern Era (about 1500-2000 AD)
Of these divisions, the two eras whose dates are least agreed-upon from a World Historical point of view are the Classical and the Modern. We'll leave the Classical Era up in the air for the moment and focus on the Modern.
What is debatable about the Modern Era is whether we are, in fact, still in it. For several decades scholars, artists and others have been sensing a major shift in human identity which has raised many questions... they can be summed up as: "are we reaching or have we reached the end of the Modern era?" To answer that question requires an exploration of what it means to be Modern in the first place. And one explanation of what it means to be Modern begins in the late 1400s with the aggressive outbound explorations of various Western European powers.
Other regions of the world, by the 1400s, had developed thriving commerce (Indian Ocean trade, Silk Roads), and had experienced major scientific and cultural achievements (China, Islamic Empires). Starting in the 15th century, it was Western Europe's turn to flourish... the historical phenomena we know as the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment helped define the mindset of Modern Western society. The core values of the United States - freedom, democracy, capitalism, equality of opportunity - were articulated during this early Modern period and ultimately transferred from Western Europe to the United States in its very infancy. The founding values of America were largely developed as part of the Western European Enlightenment. Together, the American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution represent, in this sense, a profound culmination of European Enlightenment thinking.
One way in which Western Europe's flourishing took a different turn from the flourishing of other World Historical powers was in the aggressive and hugely successful manner in which it engaged in empire-building. If Western Europe had merely experienced a period of regional dominance, our contemporary world would look a lot different. That the founding values of a country located in North America, for example, should be Western European in origin was not the least bit inevitable. Starting in the 1400s, Western European powers engaged in aggressive campaigns of exploration and empire-building. The eventual result was not only a controlling physical presence of Western Europeans, to some degree, on all continents of the world except Antarctica but, importantly, the exportation of Western European political, economic and cultural values to those regions.
The initial part of this process of exporting Western European values to other parts of the world was completed by force. In the Americas and Australia, for example, the vast majority of native people either died (current estimates are about 90% in the Americas) or adpated to the new European realities. Force was applied differently in Africa and Asia. Those continents did not experience the near-total demographic shifts that have permanently changed the Americas and Australia.
Later, however, non-Western European people from various parts of the world began to find themselves wooed by some Western European values. Democracy was appealing, as were the high standards of living that seemed to be facilitated by capitalist economies. The political and economic success of the United States, in particular, came to be admired and emulated by many in the non-Western European world. The notion that the United States was "exceptional," an emulable model for "developing" countries, took hold. You could argue that the Modern Era has been a progression from aggressive European expansion in the early Modern era, through forced and unforced Eurocentrism as Modernity matured and the Western world's center of power shifted to the new United States, merging into American exceptionalism in the late Modern period of the 20th century.
Where does that leave us in Century 21?
The notion of "American Exceptionalism" is near and dear to the hearts of many, many Americans. We're Number One... how else should it be? But keep in mind that American Exceptionalism is a culmination of a long progression of historical circumstances that are intimately tied to the rise, and perhaps the fall, of the Modern Era itself. There are many indications that the Modern Era is waning, or that it has already waned. One of those indications is that Western-style capitalism is going through the kinds of challenges we see unfolding around us. The values that undergird Western economies are being seriously questioned both within the Western nations and from without. Another indication is that fewer non-Western countries are choosing to emulate American-style political foundations. More on that later. These shifts in global thinking should not make us fearful. We should not take them personally as anti-Americanism. We should take them for what they are - evolving realities. Opportunities to lead.
The United States will almost certainly play an important role in whatever World Historical era lies ahead of us next. But how important? How central? How exceptional? And, critically, will we as a country lead this change or fight it? That, I think, is what finally brings us back to the election season of 2012. Some claim that it is unpatriotic to even suggest that the United States might not hold onto its "exceptional" status forever. On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that the increasingly global dynamics of the 21st century call for a more universal approach, an approach that reflects, even celebrates, the rich diversity of human experience around the globe... more balance, less bravado.
Allusions to American exceptionalism have peppered the 2012 primary race so far and will, no doubt, come up in the Presidential race once a Rebublican nominee has been chosen. The Republican nominee, whoever he is, will argue that President Obama does not believe the United States is exceptional and that he therefore presents a threat to the core of our very existence. All three of the remaining likely nominees - Romney, Santorum and Gingrich - agree about this. The race for President, from their point of view, really is a fight for the very existence of the America we know and love.
It may be, however, that the real exceptionalism of the United States will lie in the way it negotiates what is certain to be a challenging transition from the Modern world we know to whatever comes next. Perhaps we will come to play a key role in the global leadership that evolves over the next 50 years. Or perhaps we will cling to an outdated Superpower status until our better days are firmly behind us. Hopefully, whoever wins the race for President in 2012 will, once in office, leave the rhetoric behind and move forward with vision, intelligence and respect for the realities of the new and evolving era we find ourselves entering.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Why would it be a bad thing for democracy if a new Not-Romney swept in on the Republican convention, captivating the delegates and capturing a majority of their votes?
The most important reason is that anyone who jumps in at that point will have bypassed six months' worth of opportunities to meet voters and be chosen or rejected by them. The voters are speaking primary by primary, caucus by caucus and, like it or not, the party brass must listen to them. Party leaders can't just set aside the will of the people just because they don't like the result. You expect that sort of tactic in places like North Korea, Belarus, Moldova, Burma, maybe Laos, but not the United States, paragon of democracy.
A dark horse candidate might generate excitement for a while, certainly at the convention and in the media, but when the excitement wears off, all those people who voted for Mitt, Rick, Ron or Newt will mull it over and start feeling a bit resentful. Anyone who donated to their campaigns will feel resentful. And surely some of those resentful people will feel that their democracy has failed them and, when election day arrives, decide not to vote at all.
Other important qualities of a candidate are tested by the rigor of a primary campaign as well. We've seen a series of Not-Romneys bite the dust so far this season. If a candidate has skeletons in his or her closet, they are quickly exhumed and brought out for public inspection. If they are found to be unbecoming of a President, that person is out. A dark horse candidate would ride in so quickly that there would be no time to poke around in his closet... by the time the dust clears he'd be the nominee and it would be too late.
If a candidate does not have the requisite mental agility to hold his or her own in conversation, that person is out too. The debate skills of a dark horse candidate would not be tested until he or she came face to face with Obama in the real race. And not only mental agility is revealed by debates, but mental content as well... candidates likely don't even have all their views on every issue thought through at the beginning of a primary season, but by the time they've been through a series of debates, their own ideas have crystallized, their style matured, the voters seen them grow into the role of a real contender. Those things aren't just niceties - they matter.
On a larger scale, the fact that the Republican party is having so much trouble rallying around a candidate this year means something. You can't just cover that up with a band-aid and hope it goes away. They need to sort out what their own identity is - one party or two? Maybe three? Does being "conservative" mean they can't adapt to the changing demographic realities of the United States? The factions within the party must either be resolved or, perhaps, marginalized into a new party of their own, in order for the party as a whole to continue to evolve for the 21st century. A dark horse candidate would certainly speed up that process, but in doing so would bring us to the brink of betrayal of the very principles of democracty that our country is founded upon.
The most important reason is that anyone who jumps in at that point will have bypassed six months' worth of opportunities to meet voters and be chosen or rejected by them. The voters are speaking primary by primary, caucus by caucus and, like it or not, the party brass must listen to them. Party leaders can't just set aside the will of the people just because they don't like the result. You expect that sort of tactic in places like North Korea, Belarus, Moldova, Burma, maybe Laos, but not the United States, paragon of democracy.
A dark horse candidate might generate excitement for a while, certainly at the convention and in the media, but when the excitement wears off, all those people who voted for Mitt, Rick, Ron or Newt will mull it over and start feeling a bit resentful. Anyone who donated to their campaigns will feel resentful. And surely some of those resentful people will feel that their democracy has failed them and, when election day arrives, decide not to vote at all.
Other important qualities of a candidate are tested by the rigor of a primary campaign as well. We've seen a series of Not-Romneys bite the dust so far this season. If a candidate has skeletons in his or her closet, they are quickly exhumed and brought out for public inspection. If they are found to be unbecoming of a President, that person is out. A dark horse candidate would ride in so quickly that there would be no time to poke around in his closet... by the time the dust clears he'd be the nominee and it would be too late.
If a candidate does not have the requisite mental agility to hold his or her own in conversation, that person is out too. The debate skills of a dark horse candidate would not be tested until he or she came face to face with Obama in the real race. And not only mental agility is revealed by debates, but mental content as well... candidates likely don't even have all their views on every issue thought through at the beginning of a primary season, but by the time they've been through a series of debates, their own ideas have crystallized, their style matured, the voters seen them grow into the role of a real contender. Those things aren't just niceties - they matter.
On a larger scale, the fact that the Republican party is having so much trouble rallying around a candidate this year means something. You can't just cover that up with a band-aid and hope it goes away. They need to sort out what their own identity is - one party or two? Maybe three? Does being "conservative" mean they can't adapt to the changing demographic realities of the United States? The factions within the party must either be resolved or, perhaps, marginalized into a new party of their own, in order for the party as a whole to continue to evolve for the 21st century. A dark horse candidate would certainly speed up that process, but in doing so would bring us to the brink of betrayal of the very principles of democracty that our country is founded upon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)