Of course, some may prefer to think that, say, Andre Glucksmann, who's been a leading French intellectual for more than a generation, is merely being "pretentious" when he joins his co-authors with this observation: To me, this description isn't far off from the "nasty mess" that Bennett (and many others) observed in the peace marches. It seems rather obvious that a rejection of Anglo-American liberalism ties all of these groups together - along with the Islamofascists and their dreams of restoring the 14th Century Caliphate.
Huh? Islam is not the enemy! Terrorists who may or may not be Islamic are. Religion is not the culprit. Man's interpretation is. There are non religious terrorists too. The Unibomber is one. Lest we forget.
Well, that's kind of the point: The fervency of anti-Americanism that we've recently seen, both in the "peace" protests and all the more from the Islamofascists, can't be explained solely by the intrinsic natures of the war in Iraq, of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or, for that matter, of fast-food and women's rights. If it was just a natural response to the evil of warfare, without extraneous influence, then those millions of enraged humanitarians would have been in the streets of Western capitals protesting events in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, or, for that matter, Iraq. If terrorism was just a natural reaction to violence - to seeing an American bomb kill your neighbor or your relative - then we'd still be undergoing waves of suicide bombing by Germans, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese. There'd be so many revenge acts committed worldwide, there'd be no one left alive by now... If the problem was something inherent in Islam, then either the Crusades would have been fought until one or both civilizations were destroyed. There must be other reasons for disagreements with American policy or dislike for American culture to reach such extremes, at this time, in these ways. I think Bennett gets at some of them, and points to others, even if his essay has the defect of explaining too much in too small a space.
I'm afraid. Afraid of where we're going with all these interpretations. Interpretations that make no sense but to ourselves, to fill the void of morally sound judgments. Judgments that will keep us down if we don't start opening up. Up is where we've been going this past century. Down is where we are starting to point. Forget the War, forget Bush's hard talk, why not go back to an admired country instead of a hated one where notions of freedom are so blurred we don't even know what it is anymore. Freedom is not an American word, we chose to embrace it, why not cherish it without having to force ourselves into other countries for fake motives. Iraqi Freedom they call it. They won't even let the IAEA in and they want the UN to lift the ban, how much more BS like that can one stand? (I can already hear the hordes)
The US is still quite an admired country, defensibly the most admired and free country in the world. In fact, if you look at who admires us and compare it to the list of who despises us, it will say quite a lot. The anointed have long despised America as a whole anyway- long before Iraq was even on the radar screen. They have been living in a self-congratulatory echo chamber that was sealed off to the outside world back in the sixties. If you compare what is being said about America now to what was said about America five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, the only real change you will notice is that the volume has been turned up. Cowards talk the loudest and cornered animals fight the hardest. And as far as the UN goes, their track record speaks for itself. Giving them full sway over Iraq now would make about as much sense as reforming the public school system by handing it over to the post office. (But oh wait I forgot, the left is interested in appearances and admiration rather than credible principles and tangible results.)
Darkhorse, I always value your responses. The issue of whether other countries "envy" us or not is left for debate. I think it is something worth hoping for. Could all this hatred and anti americanism be just envy? I don't think so. While you may rely on some countries who are pro American, most of them, and by them I'm talking about both the government and the people, are not pro american. Right now, what is going on is that the Arab world is very much "cornered" and when you are cornered I don't think you have the time to express envy. You're just pissed off. I guess I would be too if your opinion never was heard or you had to report to a country who thinks it is superior. Envy probably does arise in times of peace in economic and possibly social contexts. Right now, most Americans wouldn't feel safe going anywhere overseas. I don't think Brits, French and Germans envy the USA for their culture or economic status to the point of being violently anti american, some like the culture some don't, some have pride in their own culture but I don't think this is what warrants them hating us. Unilateralistic foreign policies, however, are a very good reason to dislike the American regime. Even Clinton says that our policy is extreme. I don't think it's envy, anymore...
I believe that ignorance and fear are the culprit. What one does not understand or relate to is often scary. If a non-westerner does not understand our culture, our freedoms and coupled with our military might he should be scared, not in the name of religion, but in the fear he won't be able to practice his religion or his way of life. Fear that what you know or how you live or your power will be taken away can cause some very extreme reactions in order to protect what we know and like.
Kymar - you make some very good points. and certainly the recent anti-American protests are based on a lot more than the Iraq war. It would be hard to imagine that 10's of millions of people would turn out for peace marches if Jordan had declared war on Iraq instead. the original article cites anti-industrialism, but neglects to address the remainder of the world's industry or social progress. surely one can't argue that the US is more industrialized than japan or canada or germany. are americans more 'socially progressive' than the dutch, or norwegians? or more 'free' than australians or greeks? then why are none of them the subject of global animosity? and why would these industrialized nations express passionate hatred toward the US for doing precisely what they themselves do? an afghan may hate the US for its factories, but a brit, or a german? that makes no sense.
Who has censored Arab opinion? And wouldn't you agree that the cornering is of their own making? These issues go way, way back. Imagine an open, democratic and free middle east where individuals had the right to choose their own belief systems, where hatred was pushed aside in pursuit of personal liberty and prosperity, and where women were equal to men in the eyes of the law. This sounds good to most westerners- in a nutshell it's what most of us enjoy- but to arabs in power, be it religious or political, it's a living nightmare. As for the arab man in the street, he is only now realizing that he has been consistently lied to about a great many things. The shockwave of surprise that ruptured Al Jazeera's credibility over the war in iraq is only the first of many to come, imho.
Bennett is fairly precise: He's not referring to industry per se, but to the Industrial Revolution as advanced especially by Britain and the US, with an emphasis on values of individualism, free markets, and technological and social progress. Though countries other than the US have adopted this "democratic capitalist" socioeconomic model to greater or lesser extents, America very much remains its home, even if the United States is not, by far, a pure embodiment of the idea. Present-day European nations, especially Germany and France, favor what the Germans call a "Social Market Economy" - an attempt to combine socialism and free markets that is typified by very high levels of taxation and regulation, and the maintenance of a large welfare state. Most of the Middle East is classified as "developing" or "undeveloped," with a further division between the oil states and the non-oil states. Bush simplifies things with statements along the lines of "they hate us because they hate freedom" - a statement which elite intellectuals ridiculed. The critical element of truth in the statement is that by pursuing democratic capitalism - by far the most productive of all available socioeconomic models - the free people of the world grow more powerful, and the mere existence of our way of life as a desirable and desired alternative, along with the cultural and material products we export, weakens and endangers all those who depend on subordination to the state, centralized control over national resources and commerce, and resistance to technological and social progress. In other words, I think that "they" hate us mainly because they feel threatened by what we represent - and in that sense Bush's statement is exactly right. Since complete physical annihilation of one side by the other is out of the question, the only way for this situation to change is for us to become more like them, for them to become more like us, or, as is inevitable over the short-term especially, each side to become more like the other. Though we'll have to make compromises, and already have had to while pursuing the most statist project of all - war - I'll put my money on their having to become more like us in the end.