The next time you hear some elitist spout rhetoric about American imperialism or American empire, don't trust him. It's the same charge leveled against Athens 2,500 years ago, and it wasn't true then and it's not true now.
It's a charged leveled by people who want the power for themselves and their kind. In Athens, it was the oligarchy, displaced by the democrats who trumped up the imperialism charge, then conspired with Sparta to war against Athens. Today, it's a wide swath of liberals and a few conservatives (mostly paleos like Pat Buchanan) who blame western liberalism for all the evils of the world. Such people are uncomfortable with the uncertainty an open society engenders, and either consciously or unconsciously they seek more order and centralized control.
The charge of imperialism has nothing to do with any actual fault of the United States, and more to do with a fear that America's model, the open society, will take hold in more regions of the world. When ever and where ever the west seeks to expand open society principles, look for the elite classes (intellectuals, elite media, and such in this country) to accuse the U.S. of empire building. Never mind that the U.S. program is intended to develop self-rule in these regions, the elite will ignore the facts and trump up wonderful phrases like "cultural imperialism" or "economic imperialism," phrases with imprecise meaning better aimed at deceiving people not paying close attention.
In ancient Athens, the democrats were winning the day, and the elite saw their power slipping throughout the region. As more and more surrounding cities followed Athens example and threw off the chains of tyranny, the elite became more afraid. Athens did not need to conquer its neighbors to bring more democracies into its league; success was its own propaganda. Athens grew in power and stature and developed defenses (the long walls) and a navy to help it grow and prosper. Athens became a clear threat, then, to Sparta and the other oligarchy-run cities. The imperialism charge was trumped up as a pretext to war.
The United States isn't interested in empire. It never has been. We believe in self rule. We do not conquer countries and demand control, and no amount of wishing from the elites is going to make it so. We will continue to push for self rule the world over because it is in our self-interest and national security interest to do so, especially in this post 9/11 world. Democracies do not attack democracies, and if we want to live in a safer world, we need more democracies around us. That isn't imperialism. That's freedom.
And, this is my last post (I think) inspired by my reading of Karl Popper. I'm done with the book and will now start The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ben
What about non-elitists who criticize American Imperialism? Herve Bove, who led the French movement, was hardly some left bank pipe-smoking fop. He was an ordinary farmer.
A lot of Anti-American criticism is sour grapes, often older generations berating the fact that their youngers are leaving behind traditional ways, or impotent citizens venting anger at their own dictatorships to foreign governments westwards.
But some of the US' harshest critics come from countries with as open societies as the US and their views can't simply be attributed to dislike of open society. (See corruption, quality of life (beware pop-ups), and press freedom. It's misleading to equate "criticism of America" with "elitist assault on democracy." For starters, of the 18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy. Secondly, some of the same criticisms about, for example, the corruption of big business are equally made by Americans within the system.
It's this kind of simplistic approach on both sides - making out that the differences between the US and its critics are uniformly ideological or cultural rather than political - that obscures the valid points each has to make.
2 - Howard Owens
You wrote: "But some of the US' harshest critics come from countries with as open societies as the US and their views can't simply be attributed to dislike of open society."
Sure you can. There are fifth columners all over the place, just as there was in Athens.
I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to criticize the United States. I'm saying the charge of imperialism is without foundation and a clue to the true intentions of the people leveling the charge.
3 - Howard Owens
BTW: Looked at your links -- looks impressive, and I'm sure you've been happily duped by it all ... but it's all subjective and of dubious value. Talk about simplistic ...
And I've seen these links pop-up in various anti-American outlets and commentaries ... the implication always being because A, B, C, or D is bad/wrong, then the whole American system is corrupt and evil. Again, it's a veiled attack on open society by those who fear a dynamic (hence riskier) society. They need to crawl back into their caves.
4 - Phillip Winn
I'm cautious about assigning motives to critics of America's policies as a group. I'm not shy about assigning motives to individuals, but I'm not convinced that we can paint "America's enemies" with such broad brush strokes.
Specifically, I'm not convinced that all those who criticize America's current war on terror are seeking power for themselves. While I'm sure that is true of some notable figures, it surely doesn't explain the behaviors of all, right?
That the criticism is broad enough to include members of the "Christian right" like Pat Buchanan as well as committed leftists seems like it ought to be the first clue that some refinement is in order. I have no doubt that there are many in the world who fear what an open society might bring. Any reasonable person has to realize that there might be some issues on which they are in the minority view. In a truly democratic society, where majority rule is the basis for order, the complacency of the many can trump the passion of the few.
Anyway, I believe that your diagnosis is almost certainly correct when it comes to interpreting editorials from many news publications in the Arab world right now, but I don't really see how it can adequately explain American leftists. In my experience, most American leftists have generally been convinced that if it were not for the rule of the few rich white privileged men, the country and the world would see things their way. Despite some evidence to the contrary, they seem to believe that a truly open society would benefit them. It is a belief in the inherent goodness of humanity that I do not share, but it would seem to counter your theory, I think.
Anyway, I've added Popper's book to my queue. To really understand your position, I must read the source on which it is largely based. After all, I don't want to be so ignorant as to completely ignore one side of the story. 8^)
5 - Ben
Either you've looked at different links to the ones I posted or you are being deliberately obtuse. The three links come from three separate, non-linked non-governmental, non-partisan sources and show broadly the same thing.
I struggle to see how the methodologies of the UN (which takes straight socio-economic data) and Reporters Without Borders (which looks at state involvement in media, imprisonment of journalists and media monopolies) are subjective in the slightest. They're not Anti-American, either: the US scores consistently highly. Just not as highly as countries like Finland, Norway and Canada. More importantly, the data directly supports the ideas that some of the US' harshest critics have morally bankrupt governments with no press freedom. Perhaps you could explain your criticism of these sources in more detail.
Your comments and post display a keen desire to argue with strawmen and construct a vast anti-American conspiracy. If you feel the need to appraise information so lazily, and defend your comments only using a tenuous historical parallel, go ahead.
6 - Ben
My post above is intended to reply to Howard Owens.
7 - Brian Flemming
Howard,
You wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to criticize the United States. I'm saying the charge of imperialism is without foundation and a clue to the true intentions of the people leveling the charge.
It seems like you're saying, "I don't have any worthwhile evidence to back up my charge that all critics of U.S. foreign policy are treasonous, but I'm making this charge anyway."
BTW: Looked at your links -- looks impressive, and I'm sure you've been happily duped by it all ... but it's all subjective and of dubious value. Talk about simplistic .
Ah, I see. Even presented with serious evidence to the contrary (which is clearly credible, and not from the left-wing media), you can just call it names and it disappears from your radar.
Interesting process.
But I don't understand why you bother presenting an argument at all. Why not just say: "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fool who hates freedom, and I intend to believe this no matter what." It would save a lot of time.
I mean, Ben actually thought you were interested in facts and open to a POV outside your own, and he took the trouble to point you to some solid research. It would be a lot more clear if you would say in advance that there is no evidence on Earth you will consider, unless it confirms the position you already have.
8 - Howard Owens
Any time you start ranking one country against another as to livability, press freedom, or what not, you are entering into an inherently subjective process. It can be no other way. The criteria you select is selected according to personal subjective standards, the weigh the criteria is weighted is based on subjective standards, on down the line. There is no way to compare data as complex involved in these rankings without making subjective decisions.
Reporters Without Borders has been roundly criticized, and rightly so, for its double standards. And I would not identify any of them as non-partisan, regardless of where the U.S. is ranked. For God Sakes, Ben even admits one comes from the U.N. -- how unbiased is that!!??
What I'm attacking is the tendency to broadbrush the United States as corrupt and evil through such statements as "18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy." The implication is that because we have made mistakes, liberal democracy is of no value. To me, that is a line of thinking is a veiled attack on open societies. It is the kind of thinking that led to Bolshivism and Nazism ... "liberal civilization has made all of these mistakes, so we need to bring order and control to the world."
Instead of marshalling all of the past mistakes as some kind of indictment against liberal democracies, it would be far more productive to analyize each mistake individually and how they might be compared and contrested against current circumstances in order to arrive at some useful conclusion about how best to address current issues.
9 - Ben
Howard,
Under your facile definition of "subjective" you can reject almost any fact you like. All research has a subjective element. The issue is whether the criteria have been selected and applied uniformly across countries, which they have. The indices on quality of life and press freedom are among the best measures there are for gauging open societies. You don't give any objective definition for an open society. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that criticizes the production of this data specifically, rather than throwing unsupported smears about.
Essentially, you disagree with the data because it shows your arguments for the falsehoods they are. Plenty of countries are as open, if not more so than the US. Within those countries, there are strong critics of US policy. Those critics are not motivated by envy of the US' open society. They actually disagree with US policy.
The point about the US having a poor record of fostering democracy, which seems to have entirely bypassed you, is that critics of the US actually might have good reason for opposing US interventions on the basis that they only have a success rate of about 28% in bringing about open societies. You then go off on some tangent of your own making, extrapolating opinions that support your view of an anti-US conspiracy, complete with your own little quotes, but which have no basis in what I actually wrote.
In terms of analysis of mistakes it's this simple. The US still supports countries that patently do not have open societies (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) because it is politically expedient to do so. It has done so in the past. During the Cold War, an anti-Communist dictatorship was much more useful than a Communist or Pro-Russian democracy. The US is not alone in this. The UK, France and countless others have skeletons in their closets too. But in the past 50 years, as the dominant world power, the US has been much more prolific than any other country, hence why it attracts the most criticism.
10 - Howard Owens
You wrote:
"The issue is whether the criteria have been selected and applied uniformly across countries, which they have."
Are you sure? How do you know that? Were you on the committees drawing up the data?
"Essentially, you disagree with the data because it shows your arguments for the falsehoods they are."
I never said I disagreed with the data. I said it is not relevant to this discussion. The data does have some use within the confines it was intended, but to be used to prove that the US is an imperial power is absurd.
The arguement that we wouldn't fix Iraq because country XYZ is broken is one I've heard before and it doesn't hold water. If a child needs to clean his room, he can't straigthen his closet and make his bed at the same time. The neocon position, which seems to be the position of the current administration, is let's clean up one mess at a time.
I've got to laugh when you write about "communist pro-russian democrcy" ... you're joking, of course, right?
But again, what Popper's book is about, and what I'm writing about is the tendency to broadbrush criticism of the United States (or open societies, in Popper's case, since he doesn't discuss the US at all) as an indictiment of the entire sweep of liberal civilization. To call liberal societies a fraud and a lie because this or that U.S. policy has been wrong previously is a false comparison. To call the U.S. an imperial power because this or that previous policy was a mistake or failed is a false comparison. It seems you don't want to understand that one simple, basic point. And rather than deal with that point, you want to prove it by using the same broadbrush method I'm saying is a mistake.
Very sad.
11 - Ben
What's sad is that you are so fond of the idea of an open society but reject that the term could apply to valid critics of US policy.
It's sad that even though you talk about it, you are unable to define an open society. When presented with well-accepted facts that define it for you, you reject them because they don't fit your argument, which itself rested on a parallel with an empire of 2,500 years ago.
It's sad that whereas a tenuous historical parallel is good enough to justify your construction of a strawman who broadbrushes the US, actually holding the US record from the past 50 years to the light proves nothing because each situation is different, right?
It's sad that I've addressed your specific point that the US is not criticized out of some envy of its open society numerous times, but you still don't get it. Even people with open societies criticise the US, and its record on promoting democracy is poor. Even Americans, who live in an open society, criticize American policy.
It's sad that while the data on press freedom etc was used to show that critics of the US also came from open societies, in your addled reasoning this becomes "used to prove that the US is an imperial power."
It's sad that though I specifically mention the poor foreign policies of other countries, acknowledge the unfounded prejudice against the US and explain why the US has come in for criticism due to its foreign policy record and global prominence, you still see fit to trot out some line that I'm broadbrushing the US.
Oh, and a democratic, Communist government? That'll be Chile, 1973. The US (and UK) backed the military coup of Pinochet, the right wing dictator later indicted as a criminal for his genocidal policies. It's sad that you don't have a basic grasp of modern history.
12 - Brian
Is it bad to be elite? If I play with Maxfli Elites, should I switch to Titleists?
13 - Eric Olsen
Fascinating Howard, you have become our classical philosophy scholar. I too have concerns about painting with too broad a brush, as Phillip menioned, but that doesn't detract from the importance of the large swath to which this theory does seem to apply.
14 - Ben
No, smacking elites about with a large club is just fine..
15 - Howard Owens
I never said that nor implied that.
How about if I define for you what a "day" is or a "shoe" is ... do you need that much help?
Where or where have you presented facts that DEFINE an open society? Where????
Please make sense.
Are you saying that there is NO criticism of the US, absolutely NONE that is not also or primarily or even at all ALSO an attack on liberal civilizaiton? Are you saying that ALL critics of the United States, both inside and outside the West, are staunch defenders of open societies?
As for me, I have NEVER said, not once, that ALL criticism of the US is also, even in part, a criticism of liberal civilization. And I never voiced ANY complaint with criticizing the United States. NONE WHATSOEVER. But you want to keep painting me into this corner because YOU DO NOT WANT TO CONFRONT WHAT I'M REALLY SAYING. Don't you think you should ask yourself WHY???
Read again, please, my post and the numerous times I have talked about people who use a very specific and disengenous argument against the United States -- calling the US an Imperial Power. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you get it?
You made the arguement, not me. In order to counter my position that there is something amiss in calling the U.S. an Imperial Power, you try to marshall facts that you think PROVES the U.S. is flawed beyond repair and is THEREFORE is an Imperial Power. I mean, while else bring up past misdeeds in this thread unless your objective was to counter my main point? I say, "It is flawed to say the U.S. is an imperial power." You say, "But the U.S. has done these bad things." The implication, then, is that you are saying the U.S. is an imperial power. Whether that criticism comes from open societies is irrelevant. People within open societies, just with the case of Athens, can be against those societies. If you don't want to discuss the main issue at hand, fine, but then say so and introduce whatever irrelevancies you like.
In what way have you said anything about "unfounded prejudieces against the US?" Uh? You have tried, rather pathetically, to argue that it is valid to call the U.S. an Imperial Power.
Let's see, we're going to convisicate your property, but oh, we're a democracy. Yeah, right. It's called one man, one vote, one time.
16 - Jabba the Nutt
Brian wrote: "Oh, and a democratic, Communist government? That'll be Chile, 1973. The US (and UK) backed the military coup of Pinochet, the right wing dictator later indicted as a criminal for his genocidal policies. It's sad that you don't have a basic grasp of modern history."
I wouldn't accuse others of not knowing history with the pasta you're throwing against the wall. Allende got around 35% of the vote. He misused his powers as President and tried to enforce his agenda against the vast majority of the country. Allende's actions lead to the Chilean military stepping in and tossing him and his Castroite gang out. Yes, Pinochet and the military killed people. The test is, how many would have been killed if Allende had been successful in installing a Castroite regime. Just the past week, Castro was murdering people and that's 40 years after he took power.
Today Chile is free. Pinochet was arrested under the orders of a leftwing Spanish judge. The Left never forgets and never learns. When are they going to arrest Castro?
Allende destroyed Chilean democracy. He's the responsible party. Pinochet left a free and democratic Chile after him. Name one Commie, who's done that?
17 - Howard Owens
"Pinochet left a free and democratic Chile after him. Name one Commie, who's done that?"
Gorbachev?
If you consider Russia a democracy.
Personally, I think the jury's still out on that one, especially have some of the recent murders and such in Moscow.
18 - Howard Owens
Looking back at this post, Ben wrote:
"When presented with well-accepted facts that define it for you, you reject them because they don't fit your argument, which itself rested on a parallel with an empire of 2,500 years ago."
Um, that's the point ... Athens WASN'T an empire. And neither is the United States. But both are accused of it. Thanks for proving my point.
19 - Ben
Howard,
Try actually reading the posts. See if I mention imperialism once. I don't. So when you assert that I've made some comment on imperialism ("You made the arguement, not me. In order to counter my position that there is something amiss in calling the U.S. an Imperial Power, you try to marshall facts that you think PROVES the U.S. is flawed beyond repair and is THEREFORE is an Imperial Power"). Once again, the points I've shown are that a) the US is no more open than some of the societies that criticise it b) the US has a poor record of promoting democracy and therefore discussion of its foreign policy is entirely valid.
""The charge of imperialism has nothing to do with any actual fault of the United States". Untrue. It's an explicit criticism of US foreign policy.
It's in your first post: "Never mind that the U.S. program is intended to develop self-rule in these regions." The US has consistently failed (5/18) to do just that. Its foreign policy, especially during the cold war years was pretty execrable. Particular highlights might be choosing to train and fund the mujahadeen, direct precursor of Al-Qaeda, and the Iran-Contra scandal.
It's ironic that you ascribe your words, "imperialism" and the characterisation of the US as "flawed beyond repair" to me but whine about being misread. To repeat about strawmen: it will make your argument easier to simply make up all these views I'm supposed to have, but I don't have them. I offer no forecast on the future of US democracy, say nothing of imperialism, or beyond repair.
Your first line was "The next time you hear some elitist spout rhetoric about American imperialism or American empire, don't trust him"
Your point was "It's a charged leveled by people who want the power for themselves and their kind".
The charge didn't stick to numerous other people. Quite simply, lots of people make the charge of Imperialism but neither envy the power nor are elitist. You disputed the sources, somehow requiring that I had to be on the committee of an international, well-respected journalist organisation for their methodology to be acceptable. ????
In my first post, I listed two ways in which unfounded attacks were made on Americanism. You've simply ignored this. I've also specifically written "some of the US' harshest critics have morally bankrupt governments with no press freedom" but you've ignored this too.
You wanted proof that the US had knocked out a communist democracy: you had it. It seems a stunning revision of history to have preferred Pinochet over Allende. This point goes to Jabba too. Pinochet was a dictator who caused catastrophic genocide. It's pointless to make the assertion that he left democracy (at some price!) and that Allende might, could have, maybe killed people. Allende was voted in. He was killed in a brutal coup that ended up causing mass genocide. Pinochet is simply indefensible. "Democracies do not attack democracies." The US did, through support for a coup.
Your premises are basically false. "The charge of imperialism has nothing to do with any actual fault of the United States" is false. Some, not all, critics have entirely valid points. The US has a poor record of promoting democracy through intervention. Some of its closest allies in the Middle East (e.g. Saudi, Pakistan) are not democracies. "We will continue to push for self rule the world over" is simply not true. The US does not push for it where it disrupts strategic alliances. It's that simple.
As for your tenuous historical parallels (Athens - modern US, neither as an imperial power) if you can't see that you are making the parallel ("please make sense") then you must have written a half of your original post on autopilot. This would help explain why it is so badly argued.
20 - Howard Owens
We're going in circles. You have no interest in what I have to say, so what's the point. Goodbye.
21 - Don Williams
FYI, When I saw Howard Owens' comments re ancient Athens over on Instapundit, I sent
Glenn Reynolds the following response.
**************
1) Re Howard Owen's comment about ancient Athens: "In Athens, it was the oligarchy, displaced by
the democrats who trumped up the imperialism charge, then conspired with Sparta to war against Athens"
-- Mr Owens is very much error, as was recorded by the Athenian historian Thucydides who lived
during the Peloponnesian War.
Let's not emulate Bellesiles and make things up. Let's look at the historical sources.
2) In Chapter One,section 24 of "The Peloponnesian War"[Crawley translation], Thucycides notes that
"The real cause [of the war] I consider to be the one which was formally most kept out of sight. The
growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon[Sparta] made war inevitable".
3) The nature of Athens was described in Chapter XVII, concerning the fate of the island Melos. Thucydides
notes that Melos wished to remain neutral in the war and argued with Athenian envoys that it had a right to be left alone.
The Athenians replied: "...we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did
not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what
is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the
world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak
suffer what they must."
Thucydides then goes on to note that ,when the Melians refused to submit, the Athenians laid seige to their
city, took it, and that the Athenians then "put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women
and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves."
As a result of the Athenian aggression, the other city states allied with Sparta and ultimately conquered Athens.
Athens was so weakened that she remained the subject of Sparta, then Macedonia, later Rome, and then others
for the next 2400 years.
4) I argue for historical accuracy because, as Jared Diamond noted in "Guns, Germs, and Steel"; everyone
has theories about political questions but history provides evidence on what actually happened when
similar policies/governments were tried in the past.
When our Founding Fathers created our Republic, they depended heavily on the Greek and
Roman classical historians for guidance. See Carl Richards' "The Founders and the Classics". The Founders
had to look to the experience of ancient Greece and Rome because (a) Republics have been very rare in 7000
years of history --most have not lasted for very long -- and (b) after the Roman Republic fell to Augustus
Caesar circa 25 BC, most of humanity lived under one form of dictatorship or another for the next 1800 years
-- until the geography of North America allowed the colonists to cast off the chains of George III.
22 - Howard Owens
Thucydides is regarded, rightly so, as a great historian, but his history must be read in context for what it was -- a history written by a man who favored Sparta in the war. He came from the ruling families of Athens and sided with them against the Democrats. When he speaks of this or that group as opposing Athens, he is not necessarily speaking of "the demos" but rather of the ruling class, of which he had been a part.
I happen to agree with this interpretation, but it is also the interpretation put forth by Popper.
23 - Howard Owens
Oh, and I should mention, that Thucydides himself says that Athens own oligarchy conspired with Sparta to defeat the democrats in Athens.
24 - Don Williams
My understanding is that the Peloponnesian War began circa 431 BC, that Thucydides was ELECTED to be be one of 10 Athenian generals for the year of 424 BC, that he failed to prevent the capture of the city of Amphipolis by the Spartans, that as a result he was condemmed to 20 years exile from Athens, and that he was accepted back into Athens after the war (404 BC). In his defense, note that Athens was harsh in action against generals who lost battles. In his history, Thucydides tried to set a high standard of truth because of what he saw as the importance of history -- and most modern historians I've read believe that he largely met that standard.
Thucydides was correct in noting that: a)Athens set up a system during the war with Persia whereby she built/operated a Navy and her allies contributed money
b) That Athens continued to demand tribute from her allies AFTER the war with Persia ended and that she exacted those taxes by force. The tribute money was used by Pericles to build the Partheon as a public works project -- to relieve unemployment (as was noted by Plutarch in his biography of Pericles)
The allies were unable to resist because Athens controlled the Navy they had funded --something our European Allies are starting to remember
25 - Howard Owens
I would not disagree that Thucydides set a high standard for truth, but all historians retell history according to their own prejudices. If Thucydides thought democracy was bad, wouldn't that color his interpretation of events?
When Thucydides returned to Athens, after the war, after the Athenian defeat, Athens was ruled by the 30 tyrants -- democracy had fallen.
Athens, as Popper notes, was far from perfect, and left much to be desired as a liberal society (they still maintained slaves, for example). I'm merely saying, Thucydides should be read as an acknowledge opponent of Athenian democracy. Where he is harsh on Athens should not just merely be accepted as fact.