[lit-ideas] Re: America Against the World
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:43:20 -0500
LH:
Perhaps we could get a coalition of the willing together,...
This IS meant as a joke, isn't it?
Forget it, Lawrence. Iran as much as has a nuke right now. Get over it. Your
boy Bush painted himself in a corner in Iraq -- despite the whole world telling
him not to paint there -- and now there's nothing he can do that won't destroy
the last vestiges of American honor in the world. Learn to speak Farsi, that's
all I can suggest.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] America Against the World
The following review by Walter Russell Mead makes this as yet unpublished
book sound interesting:
America Against the World: How We are Different and Why We Are Disliked by
Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes. "Using a Wealth of domestic and international
polling data, Kohut and Stokes ask just how exceptional Americans are and
examine the impact of this exceptionalism on world opinion. Overall, they find
that Americans are unique but not uniquely unique - that is, the differences of
opinion between Americans and others on the range of topics (happiness,
religious conviction, and individualism, among others) are striking but not
shocking. Because liberal and democratic values have been in the ascendancy
since the nineteenth century, Kohut and Stokes argue, Americans are less out of
step with the global mainstream than they were a century ago. The most
significant differences between Americans and others have to do with
individualism: whether from red or blue states, Americans tend to be more
optimistic than most people about their ability to shape their own lives and
more pessimistic about both the propriety and efficacy of using government
action to solve social problems. As individualists, Americans tend to be
skeptical of organizations like the United Nations; as optimists, they
underestimate the dangers and obstacles that lie ahead. These attitudes, Kohut
and Stokes suggest, are likely to create enduring problems as long as the most
individualistic people on the planet continue to bear the greatest
responsibility for solving problems that demand united global action. Kohut
and Stokes make a strong case for this central contention, and the results of
their global surveys and their interpretative essays make for interesting and
enlightening reading."
Comment: I can't see that this sheds light on matters like whether we should
or should not take out Iran's nuclear facilities, but it implies that whatever
we do of a military nature we are going to get flack from 1) those who don't
want us to do anything, and 2) those who don't want us to do anything unless
our military action is controlled or agreed to by others in the West.
I have gotten support for Kohut and Stokes' thesis from the articles and
books I've read recently about Iran. The authors of these articles and books
don't expect any useful help from our Western allies. If we waited for them,
we would do nothing and Iran would develop their nukes. So if Iran's having
nukes is truly unacceptable, we are going to have to deal with the matter on
our own because we can expect no help from most of the other nations in the
West. but the big names that we seem to hold over ourselves and need for
self-justification, France and Germany, won't be with us. Chirac is making
noises that that might change, but the authors I've read are pessimistic about
that.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
