The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World
Some good thoughts from a foreigner. I think some people here who don't ever leave the country should give this a good read and keep an open mind.
The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World
To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance
BY BRIAN ENO
Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascinationand puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups?
I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better.
That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith - the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it.
But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.
Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America.
Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward - courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought - America's real wealth - is squandered.
This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President.
When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it."
But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance.
Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important - civilized, in fact - to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things.
To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got.
Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress."
But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century.
There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea?
EDIT: Fixed some line breaks.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World
To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance
BY BRIAN ENO
Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascinationand puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups?
I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better.
That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith - the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it.
But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.
Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America.
Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward - courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought - America's real wealth - is squandered.
This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President.
When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it."
But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance.
Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important - civilized, in fact - to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things.
To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got.
Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress."
But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century.
There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea?
EDIT: Fixed some line breaks.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
Comments
I'm not sure what to say about it. He's right in some ways. It's one side of things, certainly. Can you blame us for being a tad reactionary after 9/11? It sounds like a case of culture shock as much as anything else.
[added:]
It reads like so many conversations I've had with friends of mine from other parts of the world. The conversation consists of them opnting out a problem in our borders, our culture or something, and I respond with agreement, followed by more questions about our problems. I'm never sure quite what to say when they're surprised that we have our fair share of problems too. If Brian Eno were in front of me, I'd shrug my shoulders and say, "Yeah, it's a problem. I know."
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
It reads like so many conversations I've had with friends.... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Myself as well. In general I think the article is a good representation of our current situation. Makes me think that while Rumsfeld is the right man for a war, Bush was just the absolute wrong man to handle the post 9/11 international political scene.
Even on this Iraq question, where I basically support the Bush policy, this administration has handled it so poorly that now it looks like even the UK is struggling to be with us. I can't believe that this would be happening in a Gore administration, or even a George H. W. Bush administration. These people are just so frackin' incompetent. Let's make the world hate us, the WSJ and the Weekly Standard editorial boards will love it! Yippee, deficits as far as the eye can see! Let's provoke N. Korea again with macho language and then back down like pussies when push comes to shove! It'll be fun!
It reminds me of this prescient Onion piece at Bush's inauguration: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html"; target="_blank">Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.</a>
[/rant]
Brian Eno, huh?
It's one of the biggest mistakes that America will have ever done: it is being driven now almost entirely by the timetables of the military, and the fact that troops have already been deployed . . . we can't have spent that amount and Not Do It.....The timetables are pushing this through even though the so called "proof" has been seen to be flimsy and contrived
I don't disagree entirely with the need for a war, but a war that seemed to grow from this clumsy, idiotic diplomacy by the administration; it's stupid pronouncements, alienating everybody, its lack of plan, its lack of real reconstruction in Afghanistan as a model that it could at least point to in advance, and its increasing lack of support by the world's population . . . this I cannot support
If they step back and start some real sophisticated diplomacy . . .unstead of calling names, paying extortion bribes to so called "allies', and refusing to be clear then I might say ok . . . otherwise it is clearly wrong and I am surprised that you don't recognize it . . .
as it stands the impact will not merely be one of attitudes but one that will truly effect the relationship, materially, of the US to the rest of the world
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
In the end the only thing that would make Europe happy is if they get to vote in US elections and get to pick who they want to be the US president
For Europe is seems that process is so much more important than result. Where as Bush thinks result is more important than process. I'll go with the latter.
In the end it bothers me that Europe can't respect the fact that we are different from them.
What does it mean to "open up" to the world?
I don't get the point.
<strong>What was that about, just a long diatribe combining all the popular generalities into one long form?
What does it mean to "open up" to the world?
I don't get the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It means that in order for us to think of ourselves as one race not just a bunch of seperate little tribes we need to stop beating our breasts so much like some primative ape. It means that we need to hold out our hands a little more to our brothers everywhere on this planet. Like the highly evolved creature we like to think of ourselves as.
Get it?
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
[quote] "My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us." <hr></blockquote>
[quote] "For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."
An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.
<hr></blockquote>
dang, i almost laughed, but was way too frightened...g
[quote] Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.
"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
<hr></blockquote>
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>It means that in order for us to think of ourselves as one race not just a bunch of seperate little tribes we need to stop beating our breasts so much like some primative ape. It means that we need to hold out our hands a little more to our brothers everywhere on this planet. Like the highly evolved creature we like to think of ourselves as.
Get it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You were joking, right? I hope so because it made me laugh pretty hard.
Call me overly-practical... but that makes no sense at all. Where's the content?
Is "being open" code for "listening to Europe"? I don't know, someone please tell me.
<strong>
It means that in order for us to think of ourselves as one race not just a bunch of seperate little tribes we need to stop beating our breasts so much like some primative ape. It means that we need to hold out our hands a little more to our brothers everywhere on this planet. Like the highly evolved creature we like to think of ourselves as.
Get it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do. The only problem is that Mr. Rogers is dead.
Bring this fAcking war on. Let's start the armageddon...I don't have anything planned.
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You were joking, right? I hope so because it made me laugh pretty hard.
Call me overly-practical... but that makes no sense at all. Where's the content?
Is "being open" code for "listening to Europe"? I don't know, someone please tell me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's this attitude that makes our relations with other countries so difficult right now.
<strong>
It's this attitude that makes our relations with other countries so difficult right now.
If you ask me it's their attitude that makes it so difficult. Will they "open up"?
Stick with saving U2's career and shut the **** up.
<strong>
Even on this Iraq question, where I basically support the Bush policy, this administration has handled it so poorly that now it looks like even the UK is struggling to be with us. I can't believe that this would be happening in a Gore administration, or even a George H. W. Bush administration. These people are just so frackin' incompetent. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You are buying into the wrong arguments BRussell. You are letting the coverage of protesters get under your skin. You lose view of the real issue at hand here. WOMD and the killer over there who is not co-operating with the UN. Bush has given the UN a chance to be the method to deal with Iraq but Bush is not limited to the UN. The US will lead a coalition of nations against Iraq if the UN framework fails to act. I do not feel sorry for Saddam as he has not come clean in the least. I do not see Bush as the one bringing on this war I see Saddam as the one who is asking for it. Saddam has had his chances. Saddam is betting on world opinion to back him and that bet will lose in the end.
I listened to Hamid Karzai (Afghan President) give testimony to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the changes in Afghanistan. The Afghan people have a new currency that is stable now, 3,000,000 children are in school now including girls. There is a vast (((FREE)) media in Afghanistan now with over 100 newspapers in Kabul alone. Women now participate in the workplace and in university. A new constitution is being drafted and if ratified will be in place by October 2003. This will establish the new democracy and provide the roadmap for free elections set for 2004. There are still issues of extreme islam groups to be addressed within Afghanistan and when President Bush meets with President Karzai today (02/27/03) He will pledge continuing support to the country. The united states has already allocated three billion $US to Afghanistan and Bush will follow through with US support in the wake of an Iraq mission. Why do I bring up President Hamid Karzai? other than the good news he informed the the committee on he was asked a very specific question.... What was his view of the US stance in Iraq. He said that Iraq is a country of great faithful Muslims and that Afghanistan is a muslim country. However he said that he wishes for the Iraqi people what has happened to his country. He said Saddam has controlled his people and it time for them to be set free. The Taliban and Saddam haved much in common and the people of Iraq need to be set free from such control. Speaking of the Taliban read this story:
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035778281312&call_pag eid=968332188492&col=968705899037" target="_blank">Link 01</a>
The war on terrorism is ongoing and likewise with Iraq. The world must act on these evil people who lead terror movements because if they had WOMD they would not think twice to use them on us. This reality is true no matter who is in the White House. These people of hate could care less Democrat, Republican, etc. they hate America for what America is. They want to blow things up to get attention. The world can not afford this freak show the radical islamic terrorists want. We MUST act.
Fellowship
<strong>Eno...first on the left...
Stick with saving U2's career and shut the **** up.
If being one of most influential musicians of the 20th century's last half makes his opinion invalid, it mean yours is, well, not even worth energy it takes to display it.
<strong>"Look BRussell, I ordinarily respect your ability to think clearly"
"idiotic diplomacy by the administration; it's stupid pronouncements, alienating everybody, its lack of plan," </strong><hr></blockquote>
Here is a left wing nut liberal at the best. I agree with you except when you disagree with me. Even better,,,, I realize that you can "think clearly" when you think like me but when you think diffrerent (apple trademark) then you are ignroant.
Notice the 2nd quote by Pfflam... Typical liberal has to just as BRussell did in his rant use name calling to make some kind of flawed point.
Name calling. COME ON YOU LIBERAL SLUTS GET A REAL TACTIC.
Fellowship
<strong>
If you ask me it's their attitude that makes it so difficult. Will they "open up"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on surely since we like to play the lead in this all the time we can afford to take the plunge first.
it's called politics. Maybe once the ice clears up you can leave your house and learn a thing or two.
<a href="http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/recent2.htm"; target="_blank">RAWA</a>
Are you completely unaware that there is still heavy fighting in Afghanistan? Did you just completely ignore the fact that we needed to get more carriers in the gulf because the planes already positioned there are still doing constant sorties to afghanistan. An, no, this fighting is not against the taliban, it is supporting our 'allied' warlords against others. Hell, did you ever think to check who controls each of the major cities or how they gained that control?
You are so uninformed I wonder how you get through the day without hurting yourself.
<strong>Look BRussell, I ordinarily respect your ability to think clearly, as I do Groverat's, though he is a bit unnecessarily aggressive . . . but you need to rethink this support of the war</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm trying to separate my evaluation of the Bush administration from this particular policy.
My view is that we should have an imminent threat of force to put pressure on Iraq to comply with post-Gulf-War disarmament requirements. In my view, it's clear he hasn't and isn't meeting those requirements, and so the war is the outcome that Sodom has chosen, given the contingencies provided to him.
I just think Bush has bungled it so badly that people who might normally support the policy are instead disagreeing with Bush himself and the way the policy has been pursued, rather than the actual policy itself. When people see this policy, they think of that preemptive force National Security Strategy, and they think of the pre-9/11 unilateralist rhetoric, and they think of the initial Iraq policy which appeared to make war with Iraq an end in search of a means, rather than a means itself, and we think of Bush the oil man, and the son making up for the father's unfinished business, etc. So we perceive it in a context that makes us question the motives of those who are currently pursuing this strategy.
But IMO, we can't judge a policy based on the perceived motivations of those who pursue it, we have to judge it on its own merits.