Daniel Pipes has an article drawing from the latest work of Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We : The Challenges to America's National Identity. In his article, Pipes says that there are three basic lenses through which an American will see their home and the world:

Cosmopolitan: America ?welcomes the world, its ideas, its goods, and, most importantly, its people.? In this vision, the country strives to become multiethnic, multiracial, and multicultural. The United Nations and other international organizations increasingly influence American life. Diversity is an end in itself; national identity declines in importance. In brief, the world reshapes America.

Imperial: America reshapes the world. This impulse is fueled by a belief in ?the supremacy of American power and the universality of American values.? America?s unique military, economic, and cultural might bestows on it the responsibility to confront evil and to order the world. Other peoples are assumed basically to share the same values as Americans; Americans should help them attain those values. America is less a nation than ?the dominant component of a supranational empire.?

National: ?America is different? and its people recognize and accept what distinguishes them from others. That difference results in large part from the country?s religious commitment and its Anglo-Protestant culture. The nationalist outlook preserves and enhances those qualities that have defined America from its inception. As for people who are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, they ?become Americans by adopting its Anglo-Protestant culture and political values.?

Mr. Pipes notes also that, "The left tends to the cosmopolitan vision; the right divides among imperialists and nationalists." He states that he wavers between the "imperialist" and "nationalist" modes, because he sometimes "want[s] the United States to export its humane political message and at other times [is] fearful that such efforts, however desirable, will overextend the American reach and end in disaster." (At the same time, Pipes notes that Huntington is strongly nationalist.) For what it's worth, the esteemable Rev. Donald Sensing considers himself to be one of the bilateralists, like Pipes.

This has bearing on peoples' opinions towards the Iraqi situation as well. Applied, these worldviews lead to the following:

Cosmopolitans reject the unilateralism of the Iraq campaign, despise the notion of guiding the Iraqis to ?a free and peaceful? country, and deeply suspect the Bush administration?s motives. They demonstrate on the streets and hurl invectives from television studios.

Imperialists are guiding U.S. policy toward Iraq, where they see a unique opportunity not just to rehabilitate that country but to spread American ways through the Middle East.

And nationalists find themselves, as usual, somewhere in between. They sympathize with the imperial vision but worry about its practicalities and consequences. As patriots, they take pride in American accomplishments and hope U.S. influence will spread. But they have two worries: that the outside world is not ready to Americanize and Americans are unwilling to spend the blood and treasure to carry off an imperial mission.

Now, let me say this about that: I consider myself to be a strong, strong nationalist. I do believe, and was lambasted by a professor in college, that America is somehow different than the rest of the world.¹ I also doubt the exportability of our particular system of republican government to anyone other than similar countries. Before the multiculturalists raise their brickbats, hear me: Our political system and way of life has evolved starting with the earliest representative forms of government, which probably date back to the days of the Greeks. We have had over two thousand years of development for this system, and it is the product of numerous unique events in history. Under normal circumstances, it is probably sheer fantasy to think that any other fully-developed culture will readily take to our system.

I do not say that others are inferior; indeed, they are different through evolution. and history. This difference makes it very difficult for them to readily accept a transplanted system such as ours (or anyone's).² It's like asking a Macintosh computer to run Windows '98 and be happy about it. Likewise, we would be hard pressed to accept the state Shinto system that propelled Japan into the Second World War.

I also believe that we do, despite the best efforts of certain groups in this country, have a largely Anglo-Protestant culture. This is shifting somewhat in recent years, what with the large influxes of immigration. I do not have control over this and I cannot realistically boot out the immigrants, so it appears that I will one day get sale papers in my mailbox for things such as the birth of Benito Juarez, or Cinco de Mayo. I would rather the Mexicans celebrate Cinco de Mayo in their homeland instead of mine, but there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about that. Coupled with this is an influx of the Jacksonian model; the practical effect is that I think our unique national culture can be adopted by anyone who chooses to subscribe to it. For anyone who does so, "Hail and well met" is my greeting to them. I don't particularly care if their name is Paul, Pedro, Pavel, Hikaru, Rajiv, or Abdul, but I do care if they believe like I do on some basics.

Coming to the question of Iraq, I fall clearly within the scope of the nationalist again. I sympathize with the notion of bringing (or giving the old college try) freedom and liberation to the oppressed peoples of the Middle East. I do, however, worry at length over its practicalities and consequences. I do take pride in the martial accomplishments of our forces; I am alternatively saddened and enraged when the flower of our youth dies at the hands of Baathist remnants or al-Qaeda fanatics. As a calculating Nixonian realist, I welcome with a curt nod the sustainable expansion of "hard" or "soft" American influence.

I share the nationalist concern: The world is unwilling (I say unable) to "Americanize" and I'm uncertain that the American people will support an imperial mission, should the security requirements of this nation ever require it. I hope that the question never gets asked.

If there is any cinematic model for my reaction overall, it is a disturbing one, drawn from Star Wars: "I'm taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work." That is not a heartening image; Grand Moff Wilhuf Tarkin would not be high on my list of people to emulate. We have taken an awful risk, but we have the luxury, I think, of being able to make it work. We do not have to destroy Yavin IV, either; our task is limited to obliterating, in the words of an old song, "a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world." Our job is simple and is summed up by another stanza in that same song: "[N]ever give up...stay 'til the fight's done".

The problem for me is this: I can have no effect on the war effort. I do not have vast sums of money with which to fund the war. I probably wouldn't make much of a soldier; I don't often ask myself if I could do what Pat Tillman did. I'm only one man in graduate school, a simple believer in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus, my contribution to the war effort and to our nation at this time consists of two things:

1. An attempt to make it through law school so that I can keep the machinery of America, its economy, its system of justice, and its very fabric operational by my small contribution in the small town that will be my home once I return.

2. The inclusion of the following language in the evening prayer: "Bless our troops in the field. Bring them home safely, quickly, and victoriously. Help us to end this war as quickly as possible, and help us to do the right things for the Afghanis and the Iraqis."

I know from past experience that the Almighty hears and answers prayers; I can only hope that this one will be answered soon.

¹ Of course there are nations closer to our own experience which will be very similar; the "Anglosphere" is probably the best descriptor of the countries most similar in terms of development and commonality of governmental model.
² The exception here is Communism, the history of which shows that any system of government is portable so long as you kill enough people.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Donald Sensing for this interesting piece. When I started writing my response, I didn't intend for it to turn out this way, but it seems more proper that it did.

UPDATE: Rich Lowry has a column on this; read it here.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1458 words, total size 9 kb.