Will the U.S. Squander Its 2nd Chance?

After the 2001 assaults on the United States, then French President Jacques Chirac proclaimed: “We are all Americans.’’ In a heartbeat, the sympathy of the world was squandered by a feral U. S. administration that embraced a lone wolf, unilateral strategy in pursuit of the goal—the endgame-- that had eluded two earlier presidents: to globally entrench capitalism with ‘’American’’ liberal values, i.e., liberty, equality and freedom.

According to this thesis ably developed by Neil Smith in The Endgame of Globalisation, such a global society would interweave the twin intellectual aspirations of Adam Smith—the invisible hand of the market maximizes profits in the most mutually beneficial manner --and John Locke—‘’sacred juridical politics guarantee private property and indefeasible individual rights.’’ Certainly these two philosophers influenced the U.S. founding fathers.

Neil Smith argues that in pursuit of the endgame, successive U.S. administrations, whether following neoliberal convictions under Clinton or neoconservative impulses under Bush, stalked the ultimate expression of 18th century liberalism that defined the U.S. For George Bush, “liberty is universal.” In economic terms, globalisation is the capitalist expression of that liberal universalism.

Why pursue globalisation? With a global marketplace of hungry consumers, clearly business wins. The ardent internationalist Woodrow Wilson inveighed: “We must broaden our borders,’’ i.e., we must dismantle any barriers to trade. With free trade, the rising tide of prosperity will lift all boats and income inequalities will disappear, according to the free marketers. As Neil Smith observed, those proponents believe that when “individual property owners, free and independent before the law and with equal recourse to it” are able to pursue their own self-interest unashamedly at the ballot box and to compete freely in the marketplace, the best outcome for everyone will result.

To the contrary, we learn that stark income inequality persists. In summary, a 2006 U.N. report indicates that ‘’the richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth.’’ [‘’Pioneering Study Shows Richest Two Percent Own Half World Wealth.’’ World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University. www.unu.edu

While the academics debate the technical minutia of the measures of income inequality, more people slide into poverty. Meanwhile, the number of obscenely wealthy people has escalated exponentially. Consider that in 1985, there were 13 US billionaires. According to Wall Street Journal reporter Frank Rich, more than 1000 now belong to this exclusive club. Indeed, he argues that there are “ as many millionaires in North Carolina as in India.” [ Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich. 2007]

Recent World Bank figures [http://web.worldbank.org] provide an estimate of 1.4 billion people who subsist in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.25/day. Thus, 25% of the world’s population wallows in extreme poverty while 2% luxuriates in extreme wealth. Apparently the grossly overcrowded boats of the poor were swamped in the wake of the yachts of the hyper wealthy.

Thus it is clear that globalization does not benefit all. It is also clear that all do not have equal recourse to law and justice, nor of course to education, health care, housing, the internet, etc.

Neil Smith argues that in addition to this altruistic thrust the U.S. exports capitalism as an expression of excessive nationalism. The term nationalism, a four-letter word to many, is usually used to disparage Latin American and other nations that dare to express national pride. In the U.S., the preferred term is patriotism. Is there a difference? It seems that the only difference is in spelling/orthography.

He maintains that this export phenomenon is not new. Indeed, he argues that since the 1898 Spanish American War, the U.S. has sought to impose its liberal values on the world. That first failed attempt was under President Woodrow Wilson. The second dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Although the term nationalism is viewed pejoratively in the U.S., it was rated #1 in national pride followed by Venezuela in a 2006 University of Chicago survey. [‘’Americans are World’s Most Patriotic People,’’ National Opinion Research Center] Here we see that ‘’patriotism’’ is the proxy for the politically incorrect term ‘’nationalism.’’

From poll results prior to the 9/11/01 attacks,we learn that90percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement “I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world;’’ and 38 percent endorsed the view that “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Americans.” When the same survey was conducted after the 9/11/01 attacks, the figures surged to 97% and 49% respectively.

Not only do those patriots extol the superiority of American values at home, they advocate their application to the world. In her Foreign Policy journal article, Minxin Pei cites a startling statistic: of those polled, 79% agreed that “It’s good that American ideas and customs are spreading around the world.” Apparently, there is some disagreement among the rest of the world. In that same poll, less than 40 % of Western Europeans surveyed endorse the ”spread of American ideas and customs and less than 50% like American ideas about democracy.” [“The Paradoxes of American Nationalism.” May/June 2003]

Dr. Pei concludes that American nationalism provokes controversy abroad. While some admire U.S. universalism, optimism and idealism, others regard such nationalism as the “expression of an overbearing, self-righteous, and misguided bully’’. When that nationalism fuels U.S. foreign policy, it provokes anti-U.S. sentiment.

Following years of negative U.S. perceptions abroad—a backlash against the extreme nationalism that was fanned after the 9/11/01 attacks-- voters there confounded the world with the election of Barack Obama. In doing so, they vociferously rejected what some writers perceive as the greatest threat of a unanimous ‘’Americanism,’’ i.e., the loss of effective dissent.

Thus for the second moment in this young 21st century, the worldview of the U.S. is cautiously sanguine. Perhaps this is fueled by the hope that under Obama the U.S. may reign in some of its neo-imperial pretensions in order to focus on its domestic problems. Will this second opportunity be squandered?

Certainly the echoes of France 2001 reverberated here in Wellington following the U.S. election. For the 0600 A.M. inauguration brunch, the fare featured: strawberries, croissants and champagne! Chirac would cheer.

ENDS

© Scoop Media