According to the head of the Arab league, Amr Moussa, American nationalism is becoming a serious problem...

Link.

At the same time, anti American sentiments are now wide spread across the world, especially in the middle east, but also in Europe, South America and even in nations which are traditional allies of the USA. In England for example, more and more popular music describes America (under GW Bush) to be a dangerous nation gripped by nationalists/terrorists. Some artists are so sure of this sentiment they openly champion the imminent fall of the USA to Islamic terrorism.

The example of Amr Moussa in particular made me blink a few times and I felt compelled to put these questions to this forum, but of late I have seen numerous examples of accusations of American nationalism being made in the European media.

Is American nationalism a genuine threat to non Americans?

Does American nationalism even exist in the way Amr Moussa describes?

What is the eventual cause of the antipathy towards America if not for this perception of American nationalism?

I have to question this Amr Moussa guy's sanity.



Really? Who were those guys in those 737's about 5 years ago? How come the madmen that came up with that plot have not been turned over to face justice? Somebody hates America.



Ah, so there it is. The US is handcuffed by its Zionist masters. Until it sheds the shackles of the Israelis, there cannot be peace.

When is the last time Bush mentioned Palestine or Israel? The roadmap was shredded long ago. Hamas controls Palestine.



Oh really? Has it even been demonstrated that Israel has nuclear weapons? If Israel does have these weapons, it has had them for decades and not used them. We have no such confidence in a nuclear Iran which is headed by a zealot President who participated in the burning of the American embassy there.



Seriously, is this guy an idiot? Our allowing Iran to get the bomb will lead to less of an arms race? Does he really believe that??

Is American nationalism a genuine threat to non Americans?

Does American nationalism even exist in the way Amr Moussa describes?

What is the eventual cause of the antipathy towards America if not for this perception of American nationalism?

Where is this nationalism? Has anyone heard a prominent American figure call for death to infidels? Call for other nations to be pushed into the sea? Behead anyone on a webcast?

The Palestinian conflict is heating up again. Although there does appear to be more moderates appearing in the Palestinian side--forwarding a two state solution and <gasp> actually recognizing Israel's right to exist-- more conflict is in the cards. This seems to be a preemptive move to keep the US from backing Israel.

The Palestinians should release Gilad Shalit. Otherwise, this conflict is going to escalate in a hurry.

Back to the questions: the antipathy comes from two sources. In the Arab community, it is religiously driven. The US are the distant crusaders provided aid and supplies to the occupying Kingdom of Jerusalem. In Europe, it is more economically driven: the US is a rival that must be checked.

I wonder if critics that see the cause as American nationalism (imperialism?) want to see us return to the isolationist policies of pre-World War 2. That would be scary indeed for many of the hotspots around the globe.

I would say American Nationalism is not only a threat to non Americans but a factor in the erosion of civil rights at home. If you think about it nationalism has greater potential to disrupt trade than a terrorist attack by raising the number of standing armies in foreign lands. None of this is particularly good for stability or trade.



Over the last years I’ve seen the word ‘nationalism’ replaced with exceptionalism or when speaking of foreign policy, unilateralism. All three share the viewpoint of a belief in the supremacy of their actions which is conducted to the benefit of all.

Wikipedia

While not so much said it is heavily implied democracy from an American perspective is superior to that of any other democracy. One could insert nationalism into the global supercop debate with ease.


Nationalizing of existing resources. Russia and Bolivia come to mind here. Impetus for new trade blocks or unions similar to what Venezuela is attempting to do with Argentina and Bolivia. A gradual fall in standing from the accepted international circles though the spin will articulated to the public as being irrelevant.

Just what precisely do you mean by, "a belief in the supremacy of their actions"? If you mean that we think our actions are ipso facto morally superior to the actions of other countries, then that's not what unilateralism is about. Unilateralism simply means that if we've decided we need to take action for the preservation of our security, we don't feel compelled to go before a committee for approval. As long as we allow the same degree latitude to other countries (at least the ones with responsible governments), there's nothing inherently wrong with unilateralism.

As for whether nationalism is a good thing, I don't think it is. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a mighty fine thing. The difference between the two: Nationalism says, "We're great, and you better believe it or else." Patriotism says, "I love my country. Don't tread on me."

And for the record, I don't think the U.S. is too nationalistic. If we were, Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have sovereign, independent governments right now.

To what extent? The question is kinda general. I don't think that American nationalism is very pervasive in America to be honest. I do find it hilarious that a spokeman for the Arab community is saying that our fervor is a danger to the rest of the world; he's casting stones from the top floor of a glass castle. But again, to answer the question, no, we aren't really very nationalistic in the way he describes.


He doesn't describe it. He just says that it's there and then starts complaining about our policy with Israel. There is absolutely no substance to what he's claiming, there really isn't much more that I can say.

Why do people hate us if not for a perception of nationalism? Because we're rich, free, secular[ish], and clash with the view of other people among dozens of other reasons. I don't think that there are many groups, especially in the Islamic world who hate us because they think we're nationalistic. This guy's statements are really a joke. He throws around generalizations with really no substance and then goes back to the same old song and dance, Middle East policy and our position with Israel.


I'm curious Trouble, how is this nationalism a threat to non-Americans, specifically?

CP

In my perception of the current mood amongst Europe's left wing (I can' t speak for the Middle East, but I suspect a similarity of view) there is no real difference between patriotism and nationalism.
I myself make no great distinction between them either. Patriotism is a love of one's country and nationalism is a political manifestation of such an emotion. The extent to which one allows a nationalist sentiment to become a threat unto others then is a question of how far one is willing to go. Many countries have legitimate nationalist parties (my own included) but these (usually) operate within the legal and moral codex of the nation.

The real problem of nationalism must be when one people's moral code no longer corresponds to that of most other people. A large number of people obviously believe this is the case with the USA today and they have a wide range of arguments, some valid, others less so, to support their view.


A devils advocate might point out though, that most of these critics of the USA, both in Arabia, Europa and else where do not perceive the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to be sovereign or independent. That many of the accusations are based on a perception that see's Iraq and Afghanistan as de facto vassals of the USA.


To the extent where people outside of American perceive the USA to be a serious threat to world peace.

It cannot be over looked that vast numbers of people, who share no overriding political, cultural or historical ties, now regard the USA as a threat. The extent to which this notion has spread can be disputed of course, and the notion can also be discarded as a misunderstanding brought about by opponents to the USA, but the fact of the perception remains and cannot be so eaily dismissed for if the USA is indeed a nationalist country which threatens global stability. Such a perception deserves scrutiny lest it become a self fulfilling profecy. No nation or political system is immune to corruption.

Gotcha. Well, in my opinion moif, whether or not you think we are a global peace threat varies directly with whether or not you agree with our foreign policy. If you believe that the Iraq war was a mistake, you may also see it as an example of an enraged, out of control American monster swinging wildly and indescriminately at countries it says are a threat. But if you belive the Iraq war was not a mistake you don't. It's all a matter of perspective, and because people will always have serious problems with our foreign policy, people will always think we are a threat to global security, trying convince people otherwise is an excercise in futility. As for how this misconception [in my opinion] is being spread is a mystery to me. As I said, it's all a matter of whether or not you agree with our foreign policy.

CP

OK, we have different definitions, but regardless of what words you want to use, I really see two distinct phenomena at work, not just the same phenomenon taken to different extents.


It's really only a concern if that different moral code affects other countries. For example, the U.S. is one of the least "social" countries in the Western world (that is, no nationalized health care system, and comparatively few other safety-net-type government programs and laws), which might put our political values at variance with those of other peoples, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to be bothered by it.


I figured that was probably the case in much of the Middle East, but I wasn't aware that most of Europe thought that way also, especially considering the way the UN was so heavily involved in the initial formation of the post-Saddam Iraqi government.

To answer your last debate question more directly, I don't think it's the perception of American nationalism that's the reason for dislike of us in the Arab world. I think it's more the perception of American imperialism, that is, the perception that the bigwigs in American politics simply want to control the world. In fact if I remember correctly, bin Laden said in one of his early post-9/11 tapes that Americans should be more "nationalistic" (I don't know how accurate the translation was), as if to suggest that our foreign policy was not being conducted to the benefit of the American people, but only of certain elite classes.

I wonder if the EU nations thought they were too nationalistic when we created a new German state after WW2. In Japan, it was much worse: we actually rejected their first few attempts at a Constitution and practically wrote it for them.

But hey: Japan is now a vassal state to the US, supplying us with cost effective, fuel efficient cars!

Germany fills our other needs: more expensive, cars!!

I never realized how our involvement in WW2 was so selfish! It's all about getting us alternative sources for our passion in life: our cars!



Seriously, any dispassionate observer can point out why the US needs to "prop up" these nascent governments.

Is American nationalism a genuine threat to non Americans?
Yes, but not it the sense Moussa and most folks generally consider. Rather, it is a threat because it defends a social system that succeeds, that attracts millions of people to abandon being "non-Americans" and become Americans.

Give us enough time, and the post-9/11 sentiment "we are all Americans" won't be simply sympathetic rhetoric, but reality.

We didn't merely dream up the Borg for Star Trek, we are the Borg. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated, one Big Mac and Coke at a time.

Does American nationalism even exist in the way Amr Moussa describes?
Not in any meaningful sense, if it did, then Arab nationalism and Islamism would be as signficant on the world scene today as Indian (Native American) nationalism. Amr Moussa can yak his fiction all he wants, but woe unto him when our children start playing Cowboys and Arabs...

What is the eventual cause of the antipathy towards America if not for this perception of American nationalism?
European antipathy is primarily rooted in socialism vs. capitalism, European elitism vs. the "vulgar Americans" (remember, it was mostly European working class folks who emigrated, leaving their "betters" behind in Europe), and the aggressively anti-spiritual aspect of European intellectualism. Arab anti-Americanism is rooted in Islam and their massive inferiority complex.

Above all else though, it is envy and fear of America's success that is the root of the antipathy.

********************************************************************************
******

Now, the perception that America is the greatest threat to world stability is both accurate, and woefully mistaken. It is accurate in the sense that, being the world's only hyperpower, America has the unique ability to wreak havoc throughout the world on a scale never before witnessed. This is a simple, stark fact, and it scares the bajeezus out of a lot of people. If the United States decided to, we could economically, culturally, or militarily destroy any country or peoples in the world, and the vast majority of them couldn't do anything meaningful against us. For many folks, they look at the enormous power the US has, and then subconsciously consider "how would my country behave with that sort of power"? Historically, non-American nationalism would likely have inflicted millions of deaths in the Islamic world since 9/11. Such power makes folks nervous, and nervous people become hostile.

Another aspect of this is the fact that the US is foundation of global stability. The lynchpin of the world economy is the US economy. World trade flows over the seas under the protective umbrella of the US Navy, the world financial system trades primarily in dollars, etc. The selection of no other nation's leaders matters nearly as much to the rest of the world, nor attracts as much attention from the world's media.

However, its woefuly mistaken because, except perhaps for Japan, no nation in the world has as great a stake in global stability as the United States, both from the pragmatic and ideological standpoint. Its woefully mistaken because everytime there's a natural disaster, or a need for peacekeepers, or some other crisis, its almost automatic to call for American aid.

What happens to global stability if American nationalism takes an isolationist turn?

Any form of disapproval may come back as tariffs, sanctions, or new attempts at subversion. Long time neighbours which normally get along may find normal relations disrupted simply because they disagree on one point. The problem begins when the thinking is projected onto the actions of another country.

In Canada's case the debate for the global war on terror never happened. The order to take on the situation in Afghanistan was given and no debate occurred within the country. Publicly I haven't seen much support but it means little because the senate held closed sessions on the fly. So in some respects the highly contentious war on terror was simply adopted as default and the issue of participation never voiced.

So my point of contention is, these ideas may simply be adopted later on without having an open dialog with the people. The Senlis Report describes the difficulties encountered for allied countries who have inherited a bad situation and the ethical implications of taking over a destablilized country. Naturally the report was ignored. Afghanistan may be the first of many places should we continue to support pre-emptive invasions. The pressure to cooperate may distort traditional alliances especially as the money runs out.



I was trying to establish a trait common to all three terms. Walter Cronkite captured a unilateral moment in his '03 essay. The concern many feel stems from the argument that if america does not feel compelled to go before a committee for approval Blackstone, they may not feel compelled to explain their actions to their own people. (Insert domestic spy issues here.) Latitude is a very subjective Blackstone and may differ from one adminstration to the next. If a law wasn't in writing it has little chance of success. Unwritten laws don't hold up well in court lol.

That's not a concern I share. In fact from my observations, U.S. Presidents and diplomats have often said that approval by the "committee" (the UN Security Council) obviates the need to go before the American people's deputies in Congress for a declaration of war. We saw that attitude put on display most recently in the first Gulf War. Congress ended up having a vote anyway on an "authorization" resolution, but President Bush insisted at the time that such a vote was not necessary, and that even if it failed it wouldn't affect his plans.