Samuel P. Huntington argues in his essay "America's Dead Souls" (in the Spring issue of The National Interest) that American elites and the American populace as a whole differ greatly in what they see as America's role in world. I quote from Huntington at length since the full essay is not available online:
The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability—within acceptable conditions for evolution—of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.
Personally, I'm not willing to drink Huntington's Kool-Aid of diametrical versions of national identity; it contains the same ingredients as Rev. Jim Jones'. According to Huntington's essay, the two groups are rarely, if ever, in sync. This is a dangerous generalization, one that effectively dismisses a large group of Americans who feel as I do - One can actively support our participation in the global economy, support international trade and migration, and yet, still be concerned about our soceietal security. They are in no way dichotomous.
Huntington argues at length about the dangers of "elite imperial impluse," which has been fueled by "beliefs in the supremacy of American power and the universality of American values." He feels that these beliefs lead to the result where "America [loses] its identity as a nation a becomes the dominant component of a supranational empire." Maybe I've got the "elite imperial impulse" bug. I firmly believe in the supremacy of American power. Militarily, economically, and politically there is no nation on Earth that can reasonably compare.
I also believe in the universality of American values. That said, do I really think that all nations want to every American value? No, that's completely unrealistic. However, people the world over long for American freedom of press, thought, religion, etc. It is America's duty as the harbinger of democracy to spread our "little l" liberal democracy to the far reaches of the world.
Finally, Huntington correctly notes that the difference between America and the rest of the world is our "religious commitment and Anglo-Protestant culture." I agree, that does make us different, but whereas Huntington argues this difference goes "hand-in-hand" with nationalism, I feel that it should be the reason to support our participation in the global economy, support international trade and migration. What better way to disseminate Anglo-Protestantism than through the spread of democratic and economic prosperity?
Comments