We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers.The writer makes a connection between our old Constitution and our willingness to fight wars. Do you see that connection?
ADDED: There is the converse notion, expressed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Missouri v. Holland:
[W]hen we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of out whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.So instead of seeing the Constitution as providing the foundation for the wars fought after it was ratified, one can also see these subsequent wars as giving meaning to the Constitution. These two views aren't contradictory, but mutually reinforcing.
Posts
43 comments:
Victor Hanson in his book "Carnage and Culture" expands on the thesis that a free people fight large wars more slowly, but when we do we come out swinging hard and fight to win.
We have a lot to lose and that "lot" is embodied and protected in our Constitution as well as the investment of blood put into it. I see the connection -- especially in our large wars.
That does sound a tad corny, ,but that says more about the age than the idea.
The limitation on our willingness to fight is that we are not willing to commit suicide for freedom. Committing suicide for freedom makes no sense at all. This is why we are at a disadvantage with fighting the islamic fascists.
One of the common cliches you hear is that Iraqis won't get freedom until they are ready to fight and die for it. I think they are. They appear ready to fight and die for freedom. But, are they willing to commit suicide for freedom? I don't think so. This is why we need to help them, because we are the only ones strong enough at the moment to counter the power the other side has with their willingness to commit suicide for jihad. If we leave, the Iraqis and other parts of the arab world will succomb to jihad.
Ross... If you think republics
fight more wars than democracies you need to study the ancient Greeks. Pure democracy is little more than mob rule -- a much more dangerous circumstance, though pure republicanism is oligarchy which of course can also breed war-mongering.
Congress -- the most democratic of our institutions funds these excursions/wars/adventures and last time I checked it has been mostly bi-partisan check writing. If "the people" really cared deeply about most of these wars then Congress would -- despite gerrymandering -- have more turnover. This year's election is interesting for precisely that reason. The primary Democrats in Connecticut are angry about the war presumably. Will the people of Connecticut at large be so anti-Iraq? We'll find out in November.
Tissues.
....And the comments are very stirring:
"When a nation's citizens decide that liberty isn't worth dying for they soon lose their liberty. If you doubt the validity of this statement take a good hard look at Europe these days."
Posted by Richard T. Ketchum on August 11, 2006 4:08 PM
"Give me liberty or give me death"
(I have no idea who said that, me---the clueless American, was it Patrick Henry?---who ever that is.)
"Shining City on the Hill"---
(I have no idea where that came from either, only that President Reagan said it. Don't know where he got it from, but I like it.)
Me, clueless and lazy American, but willing to fight nonetheless.
Peace, Maxine
What editorials aren't tendentious?
Ann asks: "The writer makes a connection between our old Constitution and our willingness to fight wars. Do you see that connection?"
Only loosely, at best. The sad fact is that few Americans are familiar with the contents of the Constitution, and many would have trouble distinguishing it from the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, it is something of a parlor game for pollsters to ask random samples of Americans whether they support some particular standard -- without disclosing that the pollster is quoting or paraphrasing something in the Bill of Rights -- and get a response showing a large proportion of respondents are opposed.
I suspect that the willingness to fight to protect the "American way of life" is rooted in the more general conviction that the US embodies the principle of "one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all," and that it is exceptional among all other nations in its commitment to freedom, liberty and equality. Reagan particularly often captured that idea, and its religious subtext, by using the Puritan metaphor of a "shining City on a Hill." In contrast, Europeans have largely abandoned any connection to the religious roots of the political values that we share with them, and along with that have lost the fervor, conviction and belief in the rightness of those values that makes so many Americans willing to fight for them. In that sense, the American willingness to fight for the "American way of life" highlights the several senses in which the cliche "no atheists in a fox hole" captures a fundamental reality. The point is not that only religious people are willing to fight, but rather that one must believe in something deeply in order to be willing to die for it. Post-Christian Europe has long since stopped believing in traditional religion, yet has found nothing to substitute for it. Gimson's point about the European search for "novelty" is a bit far off the mark when he links it to the number of "constitutions" the Europeans have gone through. As an historical matter, his point is not even true for Britain, and with respect to continental Europe, the corrosive search for "novelty" runs far deeper than the French habit of changing constitutions and "republics" every 50 years or so.
'"no atheists in a fox hole" captures a fundamental reality': that'll be a fundamental reality as distinct from a real reality, I take it? Anyway, as for your Constitution: I admire it, but wonder why your Supreme Court doesn't.
" the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers." Tack onto that, "kill some of them and they will become angry, threaten their oil and they will destroy you and your children."
I too am a Brit who admires America, and I liked this piece.
In fact, IMO most Brits like the USA above all other nations, and the spontaneous out-welling of sympathy post 9/11 was beautiful and affecting.
But the leftish elites (who dominate the media, universities, teaching and the public sector) tend to be anti-American, and always have been.
I find an interesting parallel between the US now and the Britain in the 19th century, in terms of being prepared for a long fight to establish a better world. The British Empire were responsible for the abolition of world slavery (either directly or indirectly) - and this required use of military force over many decades -
Why is nobody interested in how the British Empire abolished slavery worldwide? - http://modernizationimperative.blogspot.com/
The US is just beginning a similar mission to impose democracy worldwide (with help from the UK). I regard this as the most noble, and potentially beneficial, aspiration since abolition. Let's hope they are able to sustain the confidence, cost and effort for the half century necessary to see this through.
Maxine:
Indeed, it was Patrick Henry who said, Give me liberty or give me death, as the last line of a speech which, in re-reading it just now, resonates powerfully across the centuries.
"City upon a hill" comes from John Winthrop's "A Modell of Christian Charity" (not personally one of my favorite writings from the colonial era):
For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God's sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing.
I understand why people are fond of the phrase shining "city upon a hill," but I must say that I'm uncomfortable with its modern day usage to evoke some sort of special destiny on our part with regard to the world, given the nature and intent of the speech from which comes.
How ironic, if one thinks about it, that we should evoke this particular point of view (explicitly religious, and of a particular kind) as a banner under which battle the forces of Islamism--that is, a particularly fundamentalist and militant from of Islam.
Federson wrote:
Because the sins and arrogance of British imperialism were as bad or worse than the sins of slavery?
Besides although the British didn't want their hands stained with slavery in their own lands, they were quite willing to trade with countries that practiced slavery and even overtly supported the south in the American Civil War because of the importance of cotton trade to the mills in England.
This is highly misleading. Why is it that British colonies have fared so much better in the world than the former colonies of other European countries?
Jim Lindgren
"Shining City on the Hill"---
IIRC, Reagan (well, his speech writers) adapted it from Matthew 5:14, talking about Israel.
"5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid."
As for the being an 18th Country, we are conservative, no? (At least compared to the rest of the world...)
Shining City on the Hill also references Jerusalem as depicted in Revelation 21:10 - "And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem..." and Revelation 21:23 - "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
(Sorry, all I have handy is a KJV, or I'd give you a more modern rendering.)
Freder is right. Nothing is worth fighting for.
Except the socialist revolution.
We just don't know what suffering is, so we think we are invinceable and don't think about the consequences. We are like reckless teenagers who think nothing bad can happen to us because we are immortal.
Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshall Dillon?
Freder Frederson said... the sins and arrogance of British imperialism were as bad or worse than the sins of slavery? Besides although the British didn't want their hands stained with slavery in their own lands, they were quite willing to trade with countries that practiced slavery and even overtly supported the south in the American Civil War because of the importance of cotton trade to the mills in England.
I say... I used to think this as well - and like you, I also used to think that the British Empire ex-colonies had suffered especially badly. But the historical facts are against these opinions. If you don't know the story of how the British Empire abolished slavery - you should. Slavery was perhaps the most unmitigated evil in world history, and a feature of all large societies; and we should not be blase about the amazing moral transformation involved in recognizing its evil, and the massive sustained effort it took to abolish it. I can't think of any comparable moral advance in the history of humankind.
The fact that abolishing slavery cost so many lives and so much money for so many years, and involved so many moral compromizes, should make us reflect on the tough choices involved in taking action and actually working to improve the world.
You mean like Bangledesh, Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma?
Or are you referring to the former colonies where the native peoples were practically wiped out and replaced with white people and former slaves like Australia, the Bahamas and Canada?
How about like Hong Kong? An incredible country with great opportunity and phenomenal contemporary cultural achievement and influence through film.
Ann,
I think the key point the writer makes is that "The Americans are prepared to use force in pursuit of what they regard as noble aims."
There's a saying that violence never solved anything, but historically, it's not entirely clear that anything else ever has. It was Washington's armies in the war of independece, not Jefferson's words in the declaration of independence that made independence a reality; it was Grant's armies, not Lincoln's words that transformed the emancipation proclamation from an empty promise into an operative fact. It was FDR's war that finally put rest to Europe, not Wilson's league of nations, and it was nuclear standoff which kept the world from a shooting war for forty years, not the United Nations. Ideas are important, and force should be avoided except as a last resort, but sometimes it is unavoidable and necessary.
(Incidentally, r.e. Freder's comment - no one who supports what judges, of both liberal and conservative stripes, under the guise of substantive due process and a flawed conception of equal protection, have done to the American constitution can seriously make the charge that "[t]his president and congress has gone further in shredding the Constitution than possibly any other in the history of the U.S.," even allowing, arguendo, that such a statement were true. To appeal to the sacrosanct Constitution is to reject a half-century of liberal precedent-making - something I fully agree should be done, but is a peculiar argument for a liberal to advance).
Ann asked: The writer makes a connection between our old Constitution and our willingness to fight wars. Do you see that connection?
Of course, but there is an obvious intermediate linkage:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Our willingness to fight for our freedoms comes from the recognition that we need to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
The Old Navy Chief let an interesting part out of our Oath of Office, taken in some form by the Military and Civilians in Federal service. I offer the rest of the sentence.
"support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" from all enemies foreign and domestic
maxine...
Patrick Henry:
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
The whole speach is fabulous.
"Have you ever considered that the Europeans, after having their continent torn apart twice in the last century, and that after a millenium of almost constant war, have maybe come to believe that there must be a better way?"
The real lesson is to prevent oppresive, nihilist ideologies and governments a chance to push the civilized world to the point where destructive wars are necessary for survival. The real lesson is to recognize real threats and deal with them before they reach such a cataclysmic point as was reached in WWII. Remember: The Munich Agreement was an attempt at a "better way". It failed miserably.
I understand the laudable desire to avoid the death and extreme suffering that war brings. But sometimes the choice is not between war and peace, it's between war and casualties now, or much larger war with many more casualties and God knows what other consequences later.
"Because the sins and arrogance of British imperialism were as bad or worse than the sins of slavery"
That is the single stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. Congrats Fred!
or as Fred might say: give me slavery or give me death, but for the love of god keep your imperialism away!!!
I read this just yesterday, by a man who was an ambulance driver in France in World War 1, fought against the fascists in Spain, and was a US journalist in WW2. This he wrote at the dawn of the Cold War:
"Every generation rewrites the past. In easy times history is more or less of an ornamental art, but in times of danger we are driven to the written record by a pressing need to find answers to the riddles of today. We need to know what kind of firm ground other men found to stand on. In spite of changing conditions of life they were not very different from ourselves, their thoughts were the grandfathers of our thoughts, they managed to meet them sometimes lightheartedly, and in some measure to make their hopes prevail. We need to know how they did it.
In times of change and danger when there is a quicksand of fear under men's reasoning, a sense of continuity with generations gone before can stretch like a lifeline across the scary present and get us past that idiot delusion of the exceptional Now that blocks good thinking.
In our past we have the hope that kept Washington's army together the winter at Valley Forge. That was the world view of 1776. It still has meaning today."
John Dos Passos
The Theme Is Freedom
1956 pp.153, 159
Freder Frederson said...
"Because the sins and arrogance of British imperialism were as bad or worse than the sins of slavery"
It seems to me that most of the suns and arrogance of British anti-imperialism were far worse than anything perpetuated during the British empire. Somehow, I find it hard to justify calling "arrogant" Britain's attempts to reign in some of the more horrific barbarities of pre-imperial Indian "culture". Is it "arrogant" to end a practise whereby widows were burned alive on their dead husband's funeral pyre? Would it be arrogant for us today to stamp out female genital mutilation? I think not. You have been addled by and infected with multiculturalism - a belief that all cultures must be considered to be equal, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary.
Indeed, I would argue that their [the British Empire's] single biggest failure was refusing to do more to civilize their charges before bugging out - something accomplished, by the way, at the behest of a leftist government. If you want someone to personally pin the blame for the strife endured through much of Africa in the last half-century, Clement Atlee is your man.
Human beings are innately a violent species. I'm not sure that Patton was precisely correct in asserting that Americans love to fight, although my experience teaches me that many do. The Brits, too, have a long history or martial prowess, as do the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Mongolians. Humans are adept at slaughtering one another.
We become especially adept when opportunity, technology, and resources combine to make a perfect storm. The British Empire resulted from good soldiers, good rifles, good leadership and lots of money.
Our Constitution, uniquely I think, helps us balance the sometimes divergent pulls of liberty and society. It's, for the most part, worth it to behave yourself in America. We're free enough, and blessed enough with natural resources, that most do very well. So well that we find it worth fighting for.
Something worth fighting for, good fighters, the best technology in the world, and plenty of dough--a formiddable combination.
In contrast, the French (or at least their chief news agency) seem ambivalent.
Maybe you missed this. It's sort of fun -- if you can call it that. Agence France Press ran two different stories about Buschco and the new airline terror alert. One was a scathing critique of Bush, Cheney, et al. The second, later story made it seem both parties were equally guilty of exploiting the foiled plot for partisan political gain. The headlines were as different as the stories:
Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot
Bush, foes seek political gains from foiled plot
What a difference a word makes! Play the game of Compare and Contrast by checking out the two different versions of AFP story for yourself. And speculate on what the significance is, if any.
Whoever it was: You mean like Bangledesh, Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma?
Or are you referring to the former colonies where the native peoples were practically wiped out and replaced with white people and former slaves like Australia, the Bahamas and Canada?
No, I think he meant Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa - the four most prosperous nations in Africa. Or Hong Kong and Singapore, both of which have a per capita income greater than England. Or India. Seriously, why set yourself up to be smacked down?
Editor Theorist:
I agree with your comments - the British Empire helped create the current world order, and the US and the world owes a great debt to Britain. I believe the US will essentially continue with the legacy of the British empire, drawing more nations into the fold of liberal capitalist democracies.
'I believe the US will essentially continue with the legacy of the British empire, drawing more nations into the fold of liberal capitalist democracies.'
You left out 'whether they want to or not.'
I'm gonna say it, freder.
So?
Seriously. You list this stuff like it matters.
It's a common error, knowing just enough history to feel like you know what you're talking about but not enough to be able to put anything into perspective. Or else being unwilling to put it into perspective. Is it enough to list the sins? Some people would think so.
But you're wrong and so are they.
So I'll ask you. Is any one or any nation without sin? Is any one or any nation not guilty of tresspass against their neighbor?
I put it in religious terms because what you're attacking is a position of religious righteousness that no one has claimed exists. What I'm unsure of is if you're making an alternate claim, that without the colonial period that occupied nations would have been *better* somehow?
That's where perspective comes in. The sins of the British Empire are compared against some standard of ultimate righteousness rather than the world it inhabited. It's pointless to do that because ultimate righteousness doesn't exist.
But a fact remains. The mere *concept* of human dignity didn't exist not so long ago. Where did it come from? Who looked at the world and said that the poor deserved compassion? That slavery was wrong?
British christians. Probably, more specifically, Protestants. Under Protestant doctrine every human being no matter how low was a complete spiritual agent, equal to anyone.
The *idea* of equality came from somewhere. The idea that all people have dignity and value came from somewhere.
Just recently someone was tried for slavery in the US (or is being tried, the wife was convicted but I think the husband hasn't been yet.) They did nothing that their CULTURE doesn't allow. There are still cultures and societies that treat human beings as though they are property, as though they can be owned. We aren't going to allow that on our soil.
The fact that the US (or England) haven't always been and are even now not PURE is beyond irrelevant. Way beyond irrelevant.
Why even bring it up?
You left out 'whether they want to or not.'
Oh, they want to. Why do you think they're beating down our doors wanting to immigrate to the US, Europe.
Freder Frederson:
With regards to various comments about former African colonies of Britain. If imperialism screwed everything up, than Ethiopia should be a shining beacon of civilzation - having never been conquered by a European power. But it's not, is it? No, it's poorer that all four colonies I mentioned.
With regards to East Asian colonization. Trust me, as a Chinese, I assure you that the historical outrages visited on the motherland have not been forgotten. They will be repaid ten-fold, perhaps not in my generation, but perhaps by my grandchildren's generation. But I am not blinded to the many virtues of Western civilization, nor have I lost sight of US generosity. Of the eight nations which have invaded China, only the US returned, in full, the indemnities China was forced to pay, and the money was used to found one of the top universities in China.
If you believe that native civilizations before colonizations were some kind of drum-circle kumbaya, please note that local wars routinely destroyed 10% of the population at a time. Imperialism will inevitably cause some atrocites borne of unchecked power, but it also has many benefits. Modern medicine, sanitation, transportation. Like most in Taiwan, I am aware of both the good and bad brought by Japanese colonization.
As you liberals like to say, the truth is more nuanced.
Synova put matters beautifully, for me - calm and wise words.
My feeling, nowadays, is that we need to study something which we find morally admirable and find out how it was actually achieved. My example was abolition of slavery: it is mostly a noble and inspiring story - but it also involved all kinds of violence, suffering, hypocrisy, exploitation - not to mention fanaticism.
But this was how slavery was abolished.
I really would like to hear of any comparable moral advance which was wholly good, which lacked the sinister side that we see for abolition.
If there are none, then we have to distinguish between a kind of parlour game/ ethical grandstanding (which we have all indulged in, especially during youth) to make us feel morally pure and superior; and, on the other hand, the morally-compromized business of taking action to improve the world.
I see parallels with the evolving mission of the west (mainly the USA and UK at present) to introduce liberal democracy everywhere. I think this is a morally justified goal - approaching abolition in its virtue. And I think it is a sufficient benefit to 'fight' for, in the same way that abolition was fought for.
But if world democracy is to be achieved, it will not happen without the same kind of compromizes, and short-term disadvantages - not to mention hypocrisy and incompetence - that accompanied abolitionism.
The British Empire was accused of all kinds of self-interest and hypocricy in its mission to abolish slavery - no doubt that was perfectly true. Nonetheless, these were (inevitable) blemishes in an amazingly virtuous endeavor. I think we should have the same attitude nowadays to the attempts to create democracies an Afghanistan, Iraq and (I hope) elsewhere, and to defend democracy in Israel.
We must remember the big picture even while criticizing the details. We should not be blinded by flaws and errors in execution, the imperfection of humans, and the presence of evil people on the side of good, to the greatness of the cause.
British, because they had empire at the time which gave them more global influence than any other single nation, and Protestant because of the doctrine of direct access to God for every person. It's not that Catholicism didn't include value for the smallest or lowest person, only that it was particularly set out in Protestant doctrine. Luther or Calvin or Wycliff.
And here, again, the inhumanity and failures existing at the same time are sort of irrelevant. We can point to them and say that was wrong, we shouldn't do that, but beyond that the past is past. Lessons to be learned, certainly. Clubs to flog people or nations or religions with today? What's the point?
There seems to be this idea that without the moral creds a person, or nation, isn't allowed to speak. So people come with lists of grievances as though those grievances cancel something out. About all I can see that they cancel out is the need to make judgements and take action.
Excuses.
I'm responding to you Altoid because you've quoted me though you are obviously really responding to Freder.
Althouse blogg is on my 'every time I open Firefox visit list'. Mostly because of our host and her penchant for eclectic postings. What is annoying however, is posters like yourself endlessly referencing 'as you liberals', 'you liberals', ad nauseum. I don't see the need. Argue you point but quit with the 'you liberal' and 'you on the right' shit. Not everyone who comes here and posts such as myself is even from the US so your labeling of me is dumb as neither of these definitions applies to me....
'The internet doesn't have any wheels in it, after all.'
True, but I hear it's a series of tubes, though.
Okay, so I know no one is reading this anymore but...
"His rival, Admundsen, who adopted Inuit transportation, food, and clothing, not only beat him to the the pole by a month, but returned safely without losing a single man."
Which, of course, had not a single thing to do with the fact that Admundsen was Norwegian. It wasn't that he had a unique background that gave him an edge in understanding what was necessary to survive an Arctic environment it was that he was *humble* and willing to learn from the natives?
All Inuit... no Lap? Really?
Norwegians did uncommonly well during the period of great exploration and I *really* don't think that it was because they were any less bigotted than anyone else at the time.
Freder, not sure if you're still reading this, but -
"Estimates vary widely, but Native populations north of Mexico may have been as high as 20 million prior to European contact."
You will admit the overwhelming majority of deaths in North America were due to diseases the Native Americans had no immune system for, right? I'll cite stuff if you insist (not sure if you'd argue it or not), but this really isn't a debatable point.
If you are going down this route, Europe might as well hold Asians accountable for the Black Death.
Re: Australia:
What you're writing is conventional wisdom.
when you get a chance pour over this:
http://www.sydneyline.com/NSW%20HSC%20extension%202004.htm
Claims along these lines about Australian history have been under attack for a while and even what is out there doesn't actually go as far as saying what's often bandied about on this.
Post a Comment