Customer Reviews

America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is one of the best non-academic treatments of American history, culture, and foreign policy I have ever read. I can't recommend this book enough. Lieven does a great job interweaving American history, politics, and culture and its relationship to globalization and international relations. There is no better book for understanding America's current "anatomy" than this one.

Lieven's perspective is critical, although not overly so. (in other words, "liberal" by American standards, "centrist" by non-US standards) For those around the world looking to understand what seems to many "outsiders" an inexplicable "right turn" in the trajectory of the American nation, this is the place to start.

Once every five or ten years a brilliant synthesis of the published literature comes along and mixes it with profound analyses and insights to describe courageously diplomatic and political realities in such manner that its truth becomes a work of aesthetics and self-sustaining persuasion. Lieven's book bids for this accolade.

Starting with an excellent summary of America's nationalistic mood resulting from 9/11, Lieven summarizes the nature and types of nationalisms and then rapidly connects many of the negative aspects of America's nationalism to the ones pulsating through Europe before World War I. While doing so, he never loses balance and does not neglect the commendable civilizing aspects of America's Creed. Balance and proportion are quite well sustained throughout the book. Weaving smoothly back and forth between current events and the positions of pundits and politicians and historical ones, even beyond Europe, he brilliantly connects disparate events into a meaningful whole and then extracts meaning. As only one of many examples, Jacksonian nationalism and its brutal manifestations of the ethnic cleansing of the Creeks, etc. is presumably derived from the religio-ethnically inspired Scot-Irish "extermination" of the Gaelic-Irish. While there are incontestable civilizing elements to America's nationalism, there are also dangerous and destructive ingredients, a sort of Hegelian thesis and antithesis theme which places a strong question mark in America's historical theme of exceptionalism.

Unlike in other post-World War II nations, America's nationalism is permeated by values and religious elements derived mostly from the South and the Southern Baptists, though the fears and panics of the embittered heartland provide additional fuel.

While discussing "Jacobin Internationalism", "Wolfy Wilsonians", Nativism, racism in the South, Irish Catholics, the Christian Right, Fundamentalists, Millenarians, etc. Lieven expertly brings historical facts and figures into contact with current ones to illuminate and paint the grand tapestry of America's contemporary nationalism.

Lieven's book, among other elements, is also a summation of lots of minor observations--even personal ones he made as a student in the small town of Troy, Alabama--and historical details which reflect the grand evolution of America's nationalism. When he says that "an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism," then he has the support of Mark Twain who said something to the effect that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one! Ditto when he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American.

Lieven continues with the impact of the Cold War on America's nationalism and then, having always expanded the theme of Bush's foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examines with commendable perspective the complex and very much unadmitted current aspects of the U.S.'s relationships with the Moslems, the Iraq War and the impact of the pro-Israeli lobby. It is the sort of assessment one rarely finds in the U.S. media. He exposes the alienation the U.S. caused among allies and, in particular, the Arabs and the EU.

Lieven wrote this book with passion and commendable sincerity. Though it comes from a foreigner, its advice would without question serve not only America's interest but also provide a substantial basis for a detached and objective approach to solving the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the satisfaction of all involved before worse deeds and more burdens materialize.

What this book suggests is that a significant number of Americans have an outlook similar to European countries around 1904. A sense of identification with an idea of nation and a dismissive approach to other countries and cultures. Whilst in Europe the experience of the first and second world wars put paid to nationalism in America it is going strong. In fact Europeans see themselves less as Germans or Frenchmen today than they ever have.

The reason for American nationalism springs from a pride in American institutions but it also contains a deep resentment that gives it its dynamism. Whilst America as a nation has not lost a war there are a number of reasons for resentment. The South feels that its values are not taken seriously and it is subject to ridicule by the seaboard states. Conservative Christians are concerned about modernism. The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterises American nationalism.

Of course these things alone are not sufficient. Europeans live in countries that are small geographically. They travel see other countries and are multilingual. Most Americans do not travel and the education they do is strong in ideology and weak in history. It is thus easier for some Americans to develop a rather simple minded view of the world.

The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities.

The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq.

The book is quite good and repeats the message of a number of other books such as "What is wrong with America". Probably there is something to be said for the books central message.

Anatol Lieven has written an exceptional book that should be read by anyone concerned with the direction this country is going in, and more importantly, why it is going in such a radically conservative one.

Lieven focuses his book on the American Thesis and Antithesis. The American Thesis, also called the American Creed, is the quasi-religious belief in democracy, freedom and individuality, and the universality of those beliefs. In other words, America is a special country, the shining "City on the Hill," and the "New Israel." And anyone who wants to come to this country, works hard, and strives to succeed will almost certainly be able to.

The Antithesis is just that, the opposite of the American Creed. The Antithesis is the irrational fear of others, paranoia, and overt aggression and violence that grip many Americans when they are under attack, real or perceived. This view is often viewed through the lense of an idealized, often mythic, American past, before foreigners were allowed to come into the country and pollute its land. Whether it was Irish Catholics 100 years ago or Muslim American today, the paranoid fear of others could have ugly manifestations.

The one weakness of this book, in his discussion of Israel's place in America, Lieven spends too much time discussing the details of the Israel/Palestine conflict. While valuable, it does not fit with the flow of the rest of the book.

This book should be read by all who are curious about American nationalism and its relation to the rest of the world. This is an important book, and should be widely read.

On international treaties right wing pundit Phyllis Schlafly wrote:
"The principles of life, liberty and property must not be joined with the principles of genocide, totalitarianism, socialism and religious persecution. We cannot trust agreements or treaties with infidels".

Here Phyllis borrows the language of Muslim extremists but the sentiment is pure American Conservativism for the new century. The message is fueled by a belief in a messianic roll for America in world affairs and an exceptionalism of its people. The only good foreigner is one who accepts, without question, the American system of free-market Capitalism. Believing in the superiority of the United States lends itself to a belief in the inferiority of the rest of the world. On this level the author draws a frightening parallel between America today and Europe circa 1914 prior to World War I. It is out of control nationalism.

History shows observable signs of growing imperialism. There is a heightened level of nationalism and a belief in the superiority of the people as well as a feeling of persecution and emphasis on ignorance over knowledge. The author traces the anger back to the civil war and southern states humiliation after their defeat at the hands of the north. The Cold War only served to briefly constrain the seething anger towards Communists and perceived sympathizers but with the fall of the Soviet Union the floodgates of hatred crashed open. The anger has broadened to include all but the most subservient foreign nations while the core hatred is aimed directly at other Americans who are seen as illegitimate or abnormal. The feelings are amplified and justified by religious fundamentalism and its inherent intolerance towards diversity. Phyllis Schlafly is a perfect example of the rage that Conservatives feel towards everyone outside their narrow spectrum. Perhaps the most bizarre aspect is the right wings hatred of government combined with extreme nationalism.

The match that ignites it all is our own government gleefully throwing gasoline on the fire of intolerance. Conservatives have been working to foment a hatred of foreigners for decades (see `Freedom Fries') and now Americans are being encouraged to support imperialism under the guise of preemptive strikes and spreading Democracy. There is a tradition, in Conservativism, of venerating authority and a belief that often the `Truth' must be protected by a `Bodyguard of Lies'. The WMD argument in Iraq was the initial smokescreen followed by the tale of spreading Democracy. Meanwhile, Republican's lace their speeches with what the author calls `Black Magic' words like `Traitor' and `Freedom' with the intention of chilling debate.

The quality that has traditionally restrained the United States is a strong loathing of imperialism across the political spectrum. Morality maven William Bennett has advocated complete subservience to conservative leadership. As the author points out, people like Bennett move beyond even `my country right or wrong' into `my country is always right'. This kind of thinking creates a complete chill on international negotiations.

I wouldn't say I found anything completely new in `America: Right or Wrong' but I found it to be an engaging synthesis of the direction America has been moving. The author even suggests that some areas of the world like the Middle East could use more nationalism in order to bind the disparate groups and ethnicities within countries. The problem is when a fully mature and militarily powerful country like the U.S. gets in its collective mind a desire to reshape the world. In the end the author is betting on the self correcting nature of American democracy to regain balance. Hopefully he is correct.

This is an excellent short survey of America and it's problems with the world. Author notes a more then passing resemblance between us and Germany prior to WWI (powerful nation looking for an excuse to shoot someone, absence of dialogue about national aims and purpose). This isn't the first time America has gone nutty, and in the past it's corrected itself. Author's fear is what happens if it doesn't, particularly given the likelyhood of another 9/11. History suggests a poor fate for countries unwilling to live with everyone else.

Anatol Lieven is a Washington-based British journalist of considerable intellectual talent. In his new book, he gives us a well-written and extensively researched account of the sources of American nationalism. The term nationalism - like empire - never quite seemed to apply to America as it did to, say, the British Empire or Dutch Empire; however, Lieven makes his case from an outsider's point of view.

Working along the same lines as Samuel Huntington in "Who Are We," Lieven defines American national identity as consisting of two major trends: one is the "American Creed," or the high idealism of American civic nationalism; and the other is the darker, angrier Anglo-Protestant core culture. The Amercian Creed cherishes the ideals of liberty, democracy, individualism, rule of law, and the separation of church and state. These ideals are what other countries admire about America and what immigrants embrace when they settle here. The other trend is what Walter Russell Mead would call the Jacksonian traditon. This strain derives from the poor white Southerners who felt victimized by having lost the Civil War. They are populist, pugnacious, sometimes racist, and often paranoid or dismissive about foreigners and foreign countries. Also, Lieven points out that the fundamentalist and evangelical sector of American religion finds its home in the Jacksonian tradition.

After the events of 9/11, these two opposing traditions manifested themselves in a unique way in the Bush administration's response to terrorism. The president's foreign policy team seemed to draw from some of the worst aspects each tradition. On the one hand, our civic-minded enlightened selves would now go overseas to convert foreigners to the American Creed; and on the other hand, the Jacksonians among found themselves going abroad to fight and kill.

This might be an oversimplification of the argument Lieven makes, but basically he sees these two forces at work behind our foreign policy. Another point that he makes concerns the fundamentalist and evangelical side of the Jacksonian march abroad. Lieven believes that one of the main things that separates America from other countries is its uncritical support of Israel, which, he believes, comes at the urging people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and other members of the Christian Right. In fact, the Christian Zionist movement is headed by Tom DeLay. They, along with certain key members of the Bush administration, supported the view that Israel - according to their interpretation of the Bible - was entitled to all of the occupied territories. This is phenomenon that leaves our European allies shaking their heads.

Granted the Bush team lacks finesse when it comes to diplomacy. However, with all of Lieven's criticisms of America's foreign policy, one would wonder why it was so successful during the last century - after all it was the American Century. The riposte - the one that Americans traditionally make - is that Lieven entertains many of the attitudes and myths held by politically correct Europeans. The current European penchant for endless negotiation and failure to back diplomacy with military force is not accomplishing anything as far as international terrorism or securing energy resources is concerned.

In all fairness, the criticisms expressed in this work have been taken into account in Bush's second term. After setbacks in establishing democracy and wiping out terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Jacksonian impulse, not to mention the fundamentalist rhetoric of good and evil, has been greatly subdued. America is now working with Europe to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions and endorsing the Six Party talks to do the same with North Korea. It seems that the pugnacious American nationalism is giving way to the liberal internationalism of earlier times. This book was a good read in that it gave many insights into the American character from a British and European point of view.

Nationalism was always a volative mixture, witness its history, yet the American variety was granted the good fortune of benign realizations in a civic creed that might show an example to the world in a mood of universalism. Yet as the author of this cogent diagnosis of current ills notes there is a shadow side to the American brand, and this has been evoked into the open by the precipitous and unthinking actions of the new century. And the result has been the opposite of what was intended as the squandered reputation of a flagship democracy is denounced almost universally for its imperialism. This acute diagnostic history also broaches the soured relationship of this to the American-Israeli nexus where the tone of ethnic nationalism doubly braided in both has soured altogether the prospect of America's world leadership. In the tradition of French commentators since Tocqueville, Lieven proceeds with tact to try to wake the situation up, and the result is better than the usual op-ed fare. A wake-up call.
Cf. NY Review of Books revoew, Feb 2005

Foreigners, from de Tocqueville and Lord Bryce to Hugh Brogan and The Economist's John Micklethwait and Adrian Woodridge, often see America more clearly than do Americans. In the post-World War II period, R. L. Bruckberger's IMAGES OF AMERICA (1958) and Jean -Jacques Servan-Schreiber's THE AMERICAN CHALLENGE (1967) presented an uplifting picture of America. Two generations later, Englishman Anatol Lieven paints a troubling picture of a country that is a far cry from John Winthrop's' "city upon a hill."

Has America changed so profoundly over the past fifty years or is Mr. Lieven simply highlighting historical cycles that, at least for the moment, had resulted in a near `perfect storm?' His 2004 book has prompted both praise [see Brian Urquhart's Extreme Makeover in the New York Review of Books (February 24, 2005)] and brick bats. This book is not a polemic. Rather, it is a scholarly analysis by a highly regarded author and former The Times (London) correspondent who has lived in various American locales. He has a journalist's acquaintance of many prominent Americans and his source materials are excellent.

I applaud his courage for exploring the dark cross currents in modern-day America. In the tradition of the Delphic oracle and Socrates, he urges that Americans `know thy self.' The picture he paints should cause thoughtful Americans to shudder. Personally, I found his book of a genre similar to Cullen Murphy's ARE WE ROME? THE FALL OF AN EMPIRE AND THE FATE OF AMERICA.

I do not consider Mr. Lieven anti-American in his extensive critique of American cross currents. That he wrote this in the full flush of the Bush/Cheney post-9/11 era suggests that he might temper some of his assessments after the course corrections of the Obama administration. My sense is that Mr. Lieven admires many of America's core qualities and that this `tough love' essay is his effort to guide Americans back to their more admirable qualities.

Mr. Lieven boldly sets forth his book's message in a broad-ranging introduction:

* "The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;"
* "Aspects of American nationalism imperil both the nation's global leadership and its success in the struggle against Islamic terror and revolution;"
* "Insofar as American nationalism has become mixed up with a chauvinist version of Israeli nationalism, it also plays an absolutely disastrous role in U. S. relations with the Muslim world and in fueling terrorism;"
* "American imperialists trail America's coat across the whole world while most ordinary Americans are not looking and rely on those same Americans to react with `don't tread on me' nationalist fury when the coat is trodden on;"
* "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past;"
* "America is the home of by far the most deep, widespread and conservative religious belief in the Western world;"
* "The relationship between the traditional White Protestant world on one hand and the forces of American economic, demographic, social and cultural change on the other may be compared to the genesis of a hurricane;"
* "The religious Right has allied itself solidly with extreme free market forces in the Republican Party although it is precisely the workings of unrestricted American capitalism which are eroding the world the religious conservatives wish to defend;"
* "American nationalism is beginning to conflict very seriously with any enlightened, viable or even rational version of American imperialism;"
* "[George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests;"
* "Nationalism therefore risks undermining precisely those American values which make the nation most admired in the world;" and
* "This book...is intended as a reminder of the catastrophes into which nationalism and national messianism led other great countries in the past."

Mr. Lieven addressed the above points in six well-crafted and thought-provoking chapters that I find persuasive. For some readers Chapter 6, Nationalism, Israel, and the Middle East, may be the most controversial. I am the only living person who has lunched with Gamal Abdel Nasser and David Ben-Gurion in the same week. I have maintained an interest in Arab-Israeli matters ever since. I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U. S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do.

In 1955 American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote, "The most prominent and persuasive failing [of political culture] is a certain proneness to fits of moral crusading that would be fatal if they were not sooner or later tempered with a measure of apathy and common sense." I am confident that Professor Hofstadter would agree with me that AMERICA RIGHT OR WRONG is a timely and important book.

Lieven's dissection of the cultural and historical antecedents of present-day America is always brilliant, often original, and extremely enlightening. I understand my country now as never before, and have a much clearer idea of how to move forward. It is the best analysis since Tocqueville, and should occupy a place next to it on every serious library.