I did a posting here a few days ago about how political debates are, at any rate in Europe, and most especially here in Britain and in England, becoming more about who we are, and not just about who is right. It was the one about the Renault TV car advert.
There were many commenters, one of whom said that in the USA, things were different. Who we are, he said, is not an issue in the USA, because we know who we are. And in the sense that in the USA, unlike here, or for that matter here, there is no debate about what country they should be, what continent they should be a part of, and so on, that’s true.
But now take a read of this bit, from a Sunday Times article by Andrew Sullivan, on the subject of Hillary Clinton. Hillary C, says Sullivan, is the most divisive US politician since Nixon, and she doesn’t just divide at the level of opinion, she divides at the level of “identity”. (Equals: who we are.)
Mention her name in some contexts and what you get is an irrational, near-hysterical tirade. Even now, rumors spread the instant she puts her head above the parapet. She didn’t write her own book; she swears like a soldier at the Democratic Senatorial meetings; she holds grudges. Conservatives – especially in her own baby-boomer generation – froth at the mouth when discussing her. They despise her even more than Bill, who could be dismissed, in Bob Dole’s words, as a “likable rogue.” But whatever else Hillary is, she sure isn’t likable. Frosty, arrogant, self-righteous, imperial, convinced of her own rectitude and of the evil that all Republicans represent, for many she incarnates her own generation’s insufferable post-Watergate piety. If the deepest divide in American culture is still that between those who protested the Vietnam War and those who fought it, Hillary looms as the symbol of one side and one side only. She can never transcend this. From her early days as a junior prosecutor in Nixon’s impeachment to her dismissal of women who “stay home and bake cookies” in the 1990s, she evokes opposition and, yes, hatred, like no-one else in American culture.
Here’s what I think is going on. The world’s various countries have always been divided about the “who we are” question. This is not new. What is new is that the people in one country who want us to be some particular thing can now get together with all the people in another country who want their “us” to be that same thing, and form an international coalition. Samizdata, for example, is part of an Anglosphere rather than merely British tendency of thought. This increases the relative importance of the “who we are” thing, and diminishes the capacity of countries to unite around one national agenda. The global power struggle ceases to be a struggle between nation states and becomes instead a struggle between global coalitions of attitude. There is now more to be gained, career-wise, from sticking to your ideological and “who we are” guns, than in “reaching out”. Reaching out (to your local opponents) could lose you your international support group out there.
In Britain you constantly hear, from those opposing George Bush for example, the entirely true claim that there is “another America” over there which detests George Bush just as much as “we” do here, and for the same reasons. He’s a mad nuclear-armed cowboy from Texas, etc. etc. And now, such debaters can copy and paste just the stuff they need to reinforce their point, from fraternal internet sites and internetted articles in other countries rather then merely relying on local material.
Changing the subject somewhat, but less than you might think, I have recently become a culture blogger. Every day, if I can. (And apologies that the aesthetics of my culture blog are still such a mess – although it doesn’t show yet I am working on it.) And I can already sense that there are international coalitions forming on such subjects as the “Modern Movement” in architecture (not quite the same as “modern architecture” I would say, but that’s by the by), and on “modern art” of the sort that we here mostly love to loathe. These “anti-progessive” tendencies (actually very progressive indeed if by progressive you mean things getting better) have tended to lose out at the level of national cultural policy and at the level of the dominant media-endorsed cultural agenda. But by linking up globally, nationally isolated losers can unite into global … maybe not winners yet, but much heavier hitters, put it like that. Culture blogging is deep into the “who we are” question.
Other losers at the national level are the hardcore socialists, who may be getting many of the little policies that they want, but who are not going to be allowed back into power any time soon, to turn countries like Britain into Communist East Germany. So, they are gathering together in order to try to turn the entire world into Communist East Germany. They have pretty much given up on “domestic” policis. The smarter unreconstructed state centralists are concentrating on trying to create a world state.
Who are we? Their answer is “citizens of the world”. When the people of the world wake up to the nature of this beast, there’ll be no other world – no “West Germany” – to compare things with or to escape to. That’s their plan, anyway. Their “vision”.
This “who are we?” question isn’t just a European thing.
That was a pretty insightful commentary. I would add by saying that the ilk Hillary represents – where she commands devotion and respect – in contrast to Europe, is a very small swath of the America, essentially the campus elite. Those in Europe of dream of their other America (the one that reviles GWB) must recognize that this other America is a small and alienated bit of the body politic. And their real constituency, beyond themselves, are like-minded compatriots primarily in Europe (which is pretty much what you point out).
It’s just that in Europe that ilk has much more political influence and power, though I’m beginning to suspect that that’s not as much due to their ideas having popular resonance as one would think. I think it’s more due to the fact that continental political systems seem to be far more resistant to popular will than over here, giving this group far more political influence than it warrants. It seems that the development of the EU superstate is bearing this out.
An even more interesting treatment of essentially the same topic from John Derbyshire in National Review Online yesterday:
Hillary is your pal, you stupid neocon “libertarians.” She is the exact same as you warmongering, far right, Chimpy-loving, Isreal-fetishing, Trostsky-worshiping Straussians.
See http://www.lewrockwell.com for more information about these “libertarian” neocons and how to stop sites such as this.
The America who wrote to say “who we are” isn’t a factor in the USA — well, he or she must be unwilling to relinquish a hoary civics myth long since overcome by events.
Up until, say, 1968, “who is right” still mattered most in American (and elsewhere in the West). Now, Americans are (almost) like the rest of you on this particular point. As Ignasio Silone wrote, “Politics is choosing one’s comrades.”
Hmmmm……..Paleodude, perhaps an neo-idiot?
Oooops….”a” neo-idiot.
It’s a shame that when socialists realised that “socialism in one country” didn’t work, it was the “one country” bit they chose to blame rather than the “socialism”.
This goes back to something others have said:
The ideological devide of the new century is between conservative libertarians and transnational progressivism.
http://www.cdfe.org/progressivism.htm
I stumbled across an over-engineered stat site that was pushing a theory too boring to detail… but he did point out one very interesting point.
In this century there have been 100’s of wars between non-representive governments and democracies… 100’s of wars between non-representative governments and other non-representative governments…
Democracies have fought Democracies zero times. Think about it…
It suggests representative government… even if flawed… could be the solution…
I recently read a book called One Nation, Two Cultures – a searching examination of American Society in the Aftermath of Our Cultural Revolution by Gertrude Himmelfarb. Though she is obviously more conservative, I found the book rather informative particularly about divisions post – industrial revolution (class/cultural/intellectual institutions and so on).
As I remember many stories about Wales/England from relatives growing up – as well as current associations over the waters – I imagine many of the points are applicable to GB as well.
My husband recently read The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe, which describes cultural/societal cycles historically sited for the past appx. 400 years. This may be applicable to your points as well.
Very good article Brian! Thought provoking!!!
Although I agree there is a divide along the lines that have been premised here, I think the Hill&Billy hatred is a different phenomenon for many in America.
Those that really hate Hillary do so because she stands for nothing. No principals at all. She does not even believe in herself. She does not have even enough self-esteem to believe that as Hillary Rodham she could have won an election, but as Hillary Clinton she could. Some feminist!
And yes, this really, really bothers a lot of Americans that this empty shell of a person commands such a following.
Hillary also scares the living daylights out of some of us, because of episodes like this:
Nice piece, Brian. I definitely think the “who we are” question is increasingly becoming something that can be detached from national borders.
This Paleodude character who commented above – I don’t know what others think, but I would say that anyone who prays LewRockwell.com in aid of any view needs to have his or her head checked. I also detect a whiff of anti-semitism in his/her comments. Take a hike and express your ravings elsewhere.
Brian,
Interesting piece, but I wonder if you are not confusing aesthetics and identity? If, as an American, I favor contemporary Italian furnishings, does that mean I am more Italian than American? Hardly. To my mind what the accelerated pace of globalisation of the past two decades has done (I speak here especially but not exclusively of the US) is to broaden the menu from which individuals may choose. That holds in cuisine, literature, fashion, etc. But exotic offerings are always, necessarily modified to local tastes, becoming nativized in the process. Therefore we are always responding to larger cultural currents in first a local and secondarily a national context. It is easy to exaggerate the extent to which individuals can plug in directly to thoughtstreams far away, when you are running an internationalist blog like this one (for which I thank you). But while I may be interested in what goes on in the UK, I am not there, I am not exposed to the same media, do not shop in the same stores, do not imbibe the same aesthetic or political ideas as you. A true global community is still a long way off, and I for one am glad of it.
As for the Hillary argument, I think Sullivan is off on this one (normally I think he’s v. insightful). Why? Personal experience. My parents live in New York state, a lovely but economically depressed zone few foreigners ever visit. When Hillary announced her Senate candidacy they hit the roof–carpetbagger, shrill liberal witch. I heard it all. Then something happened. Hillary started showing up at events large and small across the state. The first few times, grumbling continued (a visitation by the queen, etc.). After a few months, however, I noticed a change. She kept coming, she listened, and she offered her ideas on how to improve things. They ended up voting for her, and have generally given her high grades on performance in office.
The IDEA of Hillary is polarizing, but the reality is not really so different from other politicians. I wonder if this will not eventually occur to people outside New York State.
Kelli
Thanks for that, especially about Hillary – very interesting.
About the confusing aesthetics with identity thing, I probably did, but I didn’t mean to. I entirely agree that liking Italian paintings or food is not the same as being an Italian. What I meant was that if you already convinced of your membership of an international “identity” group, like a political category (communist, libertarian, vegan, ecologist, even conservative or even nationalist, oddly enough) the technology is now there to join up with others in other countries of a similar inclination. The international coalition against modern architecture (a rough description but it’ll do) is an example of the same process being used for another purpose, in the manner of a global blog devoted to Italian food.
However, I did indeed confuse things by saying that cultura blogs are “part of” this identiy thing. What I meant was that they can discuss Italian painting, AND also the nuances of different national cultural identities that people are dealt, and different global identities that they adopt. That’s all potentially under the heading of “culture”.
To reinforce your point, a “global identity” often fades away in the mind of the identifier when he actually travels to other places, and meets those other people who are supposedly the same as him, but who turn out, because of national and local reasons that are much stronger than any of them perhaps realise, not to be. I’m sure you’d agree that this happens a lot.
But my argument is: less now than say a century ago or even two decades ago, because of the Internet etc. blah blah blah. And if it happens more it is only because so many more people are embarking on crafting such new global identities for themselves.
In general, I’m glad people liked this post, those who did. It was quite hastily done, and after posting it I feared that it might seem that I’d made an irrelevant gear change from Hillary to other things. But most commenters get the continuity of what I was saying, even if disagreeing with some of it.
Kelli (again)
To reinforce also your point about Hillary, I vividly recall being told by a political very well informed American with absolute certainty that Bill Clinton would absolutely not be elected for a second term, because too many people just hated him. And as I recall, he sailed through reelection with great ease.
Depth of hatred among enemies doesn’t count for so much as number of people who really hate you, and if you can keep that within bounds, you can be a major politician. Look at Nixon. Well, look at all of them really.
Depth of hatred among opposition true-believers may even be an advantage. “Well, I may not like much of what he’s offering, but at least those other bastards hate him. So electing him, and working for him in the meantime, will help to hit them where it hurts.”
Brian,
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I agree with you entirely that our hyperlinked age allows once marginalized groups to connect with kindred spirits around the world. The internet of course is but one part of this–cheap travel, the adoption of English as the new lingua franca, migration and education patterns are often overlooked but equally critical.
All of this has led many of us in the chattering classes to conclude that, gee whiz, we really are becoming a global village. This is (to use Henry Ford’s term) bunk. For example, on the eve of the Iraq war opponents pointed to the crowds in other countries as proof that the whole world opposed the action. But if you looked at the forces driving the anti-war sentiment, they varied enormously from country to country. All politics is local, but if you can find one theme around which to rally–anti-Americanism will usually suffice–these holes can be papered over under after the tv cameras depart.
As for Hillary, I think Dems are making a huge mistake pushing (or allowing her to push herself) center stage too soon. She’s halfway through her first term as senator–she should finish it and run again, securing a strong mandate from her constituents and establishing a record of achievement utterly separate from Bill’s (if she can). That’s awfully old fashioned of me, I know, wanting to judge politicians by achievement rather than rhetoric. But the Dems are looking pretty desperate these days and their nominal “leader”, Terry McAuliffe, is a creature of Clinton (ironically, from my hometown, Syracuse). Hillary in 04 is not an impossibility.
First off, the Monbiot piece you linked to was disturbing. But, just appealing enough that many will not see the Texas sized holes throughout his plans. After all, justice and democracy are such pleasant words.
hongkongxpat really nails the Hillary thing on the head.
My beef with Sullivan’s piece is that he comes close to hyperventilating. He uses the term civil war if Hillary runs. That’s just bunk. There was true hatred toward Bill Clinton and we had nothing of the sort. While many people probably dislike Hillary more than her husband, it’s not so much more that it’s suddenly going to cause riots or anything, regardless of whether she wins or not.
Kelli’s right that the Dems (at least McAullife) seem to be pushing Hillary too soon, but it’s because the current field of candidates is so darn depressing. Which brings me to the point about Clinton’s landslide in ’96. Clinton’s re-election in ’96 had far more to do with the week challenger than any inherent strengths of Clinton. Many people voted for Clinton because things were going good, but Republicans didn’t turn out the vote because Dole was about as big a dud as the party has ever nominated. And while Clinton had an electoral landslide, he still failed to win 50% of the vote. Remember, both Gore & Bush got more of the popular vote than Clinton ever did.
On the who we are question, what’s wrong with the “who we are” being answered with “Americans, Brits, Dutch”, etc.
>>>Who are we? Their answer is “citizens of the world”. When the people of the world wake up to the nature of this beast, there’ll be no other world – no “West Germany” – to compare things with or to escape to. That’s their plan, anyway. Their “vision”.<<< Same reason behind all the attacks on Federalism from the left in America. And this (much more than abortion) is behind their desperation to prevent the appointment of real conservatives to the Supreme Court. The idea behind Federalism is, certainly, to have a strong federal government (in contrast to the Articles of Confederatoin) but also to retain powers of governence to explicity ceeded to the federal government within the states. This produces an environment where states can compete and experiment with differing policies, and where they can learn from each other what works best, and/or citizens and businesses can "vote with their feet" by moving from worse to better governed states. Federalism thus provides more freedom to citizens, more choices, and better governance through competition between states and other local authorities. In allowing for diversity and experimentation in policy, it is also more (genuinely) progressive. Federal government mandates and policy dictates, in all their multitudinous forms, are part (at a semi-concious level) of the left's attempt to destroy this freedom, choice, diversity, competition and progressivity. The left claims to cherish all these things, but these claims are among the greatest and most brazen lies.
“It’s a shame that when socialists realised that “socialism in one country” didn’t work, it was the “one country” bit they chose to blame rather than the “socialism”.”
hmmm, well, actually state socialism was a crippled version of the full socialist idea, a sort of socialism lite predicted to fail by theorists. Socialism can’t bear competition, it only “works” when there is nothing to compare it to, no alternatives.
That idea hasn’t gone away. It may be that it will come back strongly as Eurasia continues to stagnate due to unproductive economic policies and adverse demographic trends. It is in our interests to study this subject deeply and make intellectually honest appraisals of circumstances and trends. The US can’t carry the world, it is facing its own economic problems and is further impacted by Eurasian weakness.
By some estimates socialism is still on plan for world domination, a task that may take another century or two. If a portion of humanity establishes a presence on other worlds then world socialism may go the way of state socialism and for the same reasons: the inability to face competition. For practical purposes this seems to be an eternal conflict.
By some estimates socialism is still on plan for world domination, a task that may take another century or two.
Socialism is a Ponzi scheme, and never lasts longer than it takes to exhaust the funds of the gullible. One of the reasons the EU keeps trying to pull in fresh blood.
I doubt they’ve got a century or two left to suck dry all the world’s willing marks.
I wrote about this issue here, inspired by the debate about political labels inspired by an essay by Michael Totten.
This isn’t new. There has been a strong identity component to any political stance since politics became a game the average Joe or Jane could play.
Oh I don’t know. Aren’t we being just a bit harsh?
“Mention her name in some contexts and what you get is an irrational, near-hysterical tirade.” Sullivan is over the top. Yes, some people are simply irrational about gays, too. That says more about them than about gays.
Every politician of any long-time significance provokes similar antipathy from his/her opponents. Sullivan conveniently forget the intense dislike which many people had and still have for Ronald Reagan. Everyone liked Jerry Ford. See my point? I find myself astonished when I hear my liberal friends attack GW Bush as if he was the devil incarnate. Similarly I ‘d suggest that Hillary is not nearly worthy of the venom I hear.
And just for a frame of reference, can’t most of the “two-facedness” attributed to Hillary be said of virtually every politician? Politicians say what they need to say to get elected. We, the people, want it that way. Our system in the USA is designed to give us shades of gray, not the black and white demanded by the hard-core of either party. There is an inevitable and wholly logical “move to the center” in order to capture those 5-10% swing voters.
And one other point about Sullivan’s reference to Nixon: the man was TWICE elected to the Presidency. By painting Hillary as such a provocative character, Sullivan may be doing her an enormous favor.