• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Newsweek: Dream On America

GrGr

Diamond Member
Newsweek

Dream On America

The U.S. Model: For years, much of the world did aspire to the American way of life. But today countries are finding more appealing systems in their own backyards.

by Andrew Moravcsik

01/25/05 "Newsweek" -- Not long ago, the American dream was a global fantasy. Not only Americans saw themselves as a beacon unto nations. So did much of the rest of the world. East Europeans tuned into Radio Free Europe. Chinese students erected a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square.

You had only to listen to George W. Bush's Inaugural Address last week (invoking "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times) to appreciate just how deeply Americans still believe in this founding myth. For many in the world, the president's rhetoric confirmed their worst fears of an imperial America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests. But the greater danger may be a delusional America?one that believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the American Dream lives on, that America remains a model for the world, one whose mission is to spread the word.

The gulf between how Americans view themselves and how the world views them was summed up in a poll last week by the BBC. Fully 71 percent of Americans see the United States as a source of good in the world. More than half view Bush's election as positive for global security. Other studies report that 70 percent have faith in their domestic institutions and nearly 80 percent believe "American ideas and customs" should spread globally.

Foreigners take an entirely different view: 58 percent in the BBC poll see Bush's re-election as a threat to world peace. Among America's traditional allies, the figure is strikingly higher: 77 percent in Germany, 64 percent in Britain and 82 percent in Turkey. Among the 1.3 billion members of the Islamic world, public support for the United States is measured in single digits. Only Poland, the Philippines and India viewed Bush's second Inaugural positively.

Tellingly, the anti-Bushism of the president's first term is giving way to a more general anti-Americanism. A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country. Says Doug Miller of GlobeScan, which conducted the BBC report: "President Bush has further isolated America from the world. Unless the administration changes its approach, it will continue to erode America's good name, and hence its ability to effectively influence world affairs." Former Brazilian president Jose Sarney expressed the sentiments of the 78 percent of his countrymen who see America as a threat: "Now that Bush has been re-elected, all I can say is, God bless the rest of the world."

The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard, they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements. The loss of faith in the American Dream goes beyond this swaggering administration and its war in Iraq. A President Kerry would have had to confront a similar disaffection, for it grows from the success of something America holds dear: the spread of democracy, free markets and international institutions?globalization, in a word.

Countries today have dozens of political, economic and social models to choose from. Anti-Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America, where countries have established their own distinctive ways?none made in America. Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law?a model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. In Asia, the rise of autocratic capitalism in China or Singapore is as much a "model" for development as America's scandal-ridden corporate culture. "First we emulate," one Chinese businessman recently told the board of one U.S. multinational, "then we overtake."

Many are tempted to write off the new anti-Americanism as a temporary perturbation, or mere resentment. Blinded by its own myth, America has grown incapable of recognizing its flaws. For there is much about the American Dream to fault. If the rest of the world has lost faith in the American model?political, economic, diplomatic?it's partly for the very good reason that it doesn't work as well anymore.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: Once upon a time, the U.S. Constitution was a revolutionary document, full of epochal innovations?free elections, judicial review, checks and balances, federalism and, perhaps most important, a Bill of Rights. In the 19th and 20th centuries, countries around the world copied the document, not least in Latin America. So did Germany and Japan after World War II. Today? When nations write a new constitution, as dozens have in the past two decades, they seldom look to the American model.

When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in. They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies," he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories."

So it is elsewhere. After American planes and bombs freed the country, Kosovo opted for a European constitution. Drafting a post-apartheid constitution, South Africa rejected American-style federalism in favor of a German model, which leaders deemed appropriate for the social-welfare state they hoped to construct. Now fledgling African democracies look to South Africa as their inspiration, says John Stremlau, a former U.S. State Department official who currently heads the international relations department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg: "We can't rely on the Americans." The new democracies are looking for a constitution written in modern times and reflecting their progressive concerns about racial and social equality, he explains. "To borrow Lincoln's phrase, South Africa is now Africa's 'last great hope'."

etc.

---------

A long, but worthwhile read.
 
Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law?a model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics.

Cultural diversity and respect for international law? Europe? That doesn't make any sense!
 
Another "He hate me." article?

::yawn::

Many of the countries in Europe are showing their true stripes right now. Where is support from them for the elections in Iraq? Where are the people to help implement democracy, which they supposedly hold so dearly? C'mon. Germany, France, Spain - where are you during this process?

I really couldn't care of those Europansies like us or not.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Another "He hate me." article?

::yawn::

Many of the countries in Europe are showing their true stripes right now. Where is support from them for the elections in Iraq? Where are the people to help implement democracy, which they supposedly hold so dearly? C'mon. Germany, France, Spain - where are you during this process?

I really couldn't care of those Europansies like us or not.

I sure hope our future foreign policy makers don't share your attitude - we aren't the big dog we used to be - cooperation is key.
 
Wow, that is a nice load of horseshit wrapped in an thinly veiled anti-Bush rant.

I also find it rather disturbing that a person who appears to be a political science professor thinks that the concept of Judicial Review was specifically included in the Constitution.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sadly, this article won't make a difference.

Why should it? Would an editorial make a difference with you and your absurd conclusion that Canada should be some sort of kind and benevolent moral authority for the world?

I'm going to guess no.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sadly, this article won't make a difference.

Why should it? Would an editorial make a difference with you and your absurd conclusion that Canada should be some sort of kind and benevolent moral authority for the world?

I'm going to guess no.
I don't get your point. Canada is arguably the kindest and most benevolent country in our hemisphere. Last time I checked Canadians were not stacking nude men (no Mountie jokes), committing AND endorsing torture, cutting taxes on the wealthy while decreasing health benefits for the poor, spewing more than it's fair share of air pollution, or bombing countries in order to convert them to democracies.

Canada certainly isn't THE moral authority of the world but they are certainly on the right track. The USA sux . . . at least it's leadership does and the morons that endorse them.

 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sadly, this article won't make a difference.

Why should it? Would an editorial make a difference with you and your absurd conclusion that Canada should be some sort of kind and benevolent moral authority for the world?

I'm going to guess no.
I don't get your point. Canada is arguably the kindest and most benevolent country in our hemisphere. Last time I checked Canadians were not stacking nude men (no Mountie jokes), committing AND endorsing torture, cutting taxes on the wealthy while decreasing health benefits for the poor, spewing more than it's fair share of air pollution, or bombing countries in order to convert them to democracies.

Canada certainly isn't THE moral authority of the world but they are certainly on the right track. The USA sux . . . at least it's leadership does and the morons that endorse them.

Canada agrees with Iraq financially, health care system is immoral in itself - it forces the poor to pay for the rich and kills off the poor, commit torture & murder (my, how short our memories are... Somalia, anyone?), funded civil wars in other countries (Sudan, anyone?), etc. Canada is not the kindest and most benevelolent country in our hemisphere. That would probably belong to some small country like Jamaica or some South American nation that doesn't do much. For such a small country (population-wise), Canada has done much destruction.
 
Dude you are so lost.

Somalia was not Canada's greatest hour but I've never seen anything linking Canada to Sudan's civil war.

What is it that Canada agress with Iraq financially? That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. Canada's healthcare system is the epitome of egalitarian . . . arguably to a fault. It's actually the USA that compels poor people to subsidize the healthcare of the wealthy while actively subsiziding the production of society's major ills (tobacco, food industry, ridiculous protections for gun ownership).

 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude you are so lost.

Somalia was not Canada's greatest hour but I've never seen anything linking Canada to Sudan's civil war.

What is it that Canada agress with Iraq financially? That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. Canada's healthcare system is the epitome of egalitarian . . . arguably to a fault. It's actually the USA that compels poor people to subsidize the healthcare of the wealthy while actively subsiziding the production of society's major ills (tobacco, food industry, ridiculous protections for gun ownership).

Dude you are so lost. Good to see that you at least know about Somalia. Canada not linked to Sudan's civil war? I suggest you read some international news! Canada was heavily criticized in the international community for refusing to put sanctions on Sudan even after a government report stated that their oil companies were essentially funding the civil war! Open your eyes!

Canada agrees with Iraq financially. They make money off of Iraq, they provided funds, provide weapons, etc. Oh, what a great moral position. Now, I'm against the Iraq war, but to say that Canada is some moral superpower, especially in regards to Iraq, is absolutely ridiculous.

Canada's health care is the perfect system for the elite of society. Most health care specialists give priority care not based on need, but social status! Over 90% of heart specialists alone have been polled to give priority care based on non-health needs. The rich get health care immediately, the poor pay for this with their lives because they can't get healthcare otherwise. I dislike the US system, but Canada's is far from perfect and is the perfect system for the elite.
 
Dude, do you really think Canada is even marginally responsible for lack of global sanctions against Sudan?! That's laughable.

Uh, there's no government that's more morally and financially corrupted in Iraq than the USA. Canadian activity in Iraq is likely pennies on the dollar if not fractions of a penny. I wouldn't call Canada a moral superpower but they are definitely not complicit like the UK, Spain (under the previous tool), Poland, Japan, etc.

The basic healthcare provided by Canada to ALL of it's citizens is FAR superior to the quality and quantity of care typically provided to Medicaid (poor Americans) and those without any insurance at all. I would love to see the polling you reference about heart specialists in Canada. But just for reference, in Canada the working poor may receive low priority . . . in America the working poor receive NO priority until they show up in the ER . . . and then it's still a crap shoot.

Indeed Canada's system is FAR FAR from perfect and arguably it is the perfect system for the elite b/c no one can honestly claim that Canada doesn't provide "safety net" care for all citizens while at the same time $$$ still buys access to state of the art care. But alas, that's the best ANYONE will do unless you come up with a system with unlimited resources and make it so no one ever gets sick.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, do you really think Canada is even marginally responsible for lack of global sanctions against Sudan?! That's laughable.

Like dude, did you really think that I meant that Canada is responsible for the actions of other countries? No dude, I'm refering to their own government actions. They're responsible for their own activity and most of the Western world sanctioned them, Canada's own government investigation found it responsible for freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars for the Sudan government to use in the war, yes. Why talk about the lack of global sanctions? I'm talking about Canada, not anyone else. Is that a diversionary attempt to ignore Canada's immoral acts? What you just said is laughable. Saying that Canada did not fund Sudan's civil war is like saying that the US is not in Iraq.

Uh, there's no government that's more morally and financially corrupted in Iraq than the USA. Canadian activity in Iraq is likely pennies on the dollar if not fractions of a penny. I wouldn't call Canada a moral superpower but they are definitely not complicit like the UK, Spain (under the previous tool), Poland, Japan, etc.

I agree, but Canada is far from moral in regards to Iraq. They are easily one of the most morally corrupt countries in the world in regards to Iraq for the simple reason that most countries aren't even involved. But oh no, you think that being involved in Iraq makes Canada more moral even though there are many countries in our hemisphere that probably have absolutely no involvement.

The basic healthcare provided by Canada to ALL of it's citizens is FAR superior to the quality and quantity of care typically provided to Medicaid (poor Americans) and those without any insurance at all. I would love to see the polling you reference about heart specialists in Canada. But just for reference, in Canada the working poor may receive low priority . . . in America the working poor receive NO priority until they show up in the ER . . . and then it's still a crap shoot.

That's just an opinion. I disagree. Canada's own system is a human rights violation. Robbing the poor and middle class of health care, prevented from seeking healthcare elsewhere in their own country by their own oppressive government, as well as funding the elite. The poor and middle class are dying to serve the petty medical desires of the rich.



 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sadly, this article won't make a difference.

Why should it? Would an editorial make a difference with you and your absurd conclusion that Canada should be some sort of kind and benevolent moral authority for the world?

I'm going to guess no.

:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sadly, this article won't make a difference.

Why should it? Would an editorial make a difference with you and your absurd conclusion that Canada should be some sort of kind and benevolent moral authority for the world?

I'm going to guess no.
I don't get your point. Canada is arguably the kindest and most benevolent country in our hemisphere. Last time I checked Canadians were not stacking nude men (no Mountie jokes), committing AND endorsing torture, cutting taxes on the wealthy while decreasing health benefits for the poor, spewing more than it's fair share of air pollution, or bombing countries in order to convert them to democracies.

Canada certainly isn't THE moral authority of the world but they are certainly on the right track. The USA sux . . . at least it's leadership does and the morons that endorse them.

My point was that despite what he believes a simple editorial isn't going to change anyone's views, not even his hilarious view.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sadly, this article won't make a difference.

Why should it? Would an editorial make a difference with you and your absurd conclusion that Canada should be some sort of kind and benevolent moral authority for the world?

I'm going to guess no.

:cookie:

Is that a normal cookie or a morally superior cookie? :roll:

Love these super nationalists...
 
Both of the two major points in the article you linked are red herrings. First of all, what the U.S. scores in opinion polls has nothing to do with whether universal values championed by the U.S. and others. The author quoted hails Europe's generous social welfare, cultural diversity, and respect for international law. We've specifically chosen not to embrace the first point, we surpass Europe on the second, and it seems "respect for international law" these days means willingness to accept the International Criminal Court, Kyoto Protocol, and opposition to the Iraq war, none of which I hold to be especially virtuous.

His second main point is arguing that because other nations are choosing Parliamentary systems of government instead of our federalist system that this is somehow a rebuke of American values shows a lack of understanding what democratic values are.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Another "He hate me." article?

::yawn::

Many of the countries in Europe are showing their true stripes right now. Where is support from them for the elections in Iraq? Where are the people to help implement democracy, which they supposedly hold so dearly? C'mon. Germany, France, Spain - where are you during this process?

I really couldn't care of those Europansies like us or not.

:cookie:

Why should they help George clean up his mess, especially since they were opposed to making it in the first place? What ever happened to accountability, to accepting responsibility for one's actions?
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
[ ... ]
Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law?a model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. ...
How ironic that Europe is embracing America's old ideals even as we are abandoning them.


When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in. They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies," he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories." ...
And it sounds like they're a whole lot smarter than we are about making democracy work well.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: GrGr
[ ... ]
Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law?a model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. ...

How ironic that Europe is embracing America's old ideals even as we are abandoning them.

Please inform me how they're embracing cultural diversity, especially when so many of these countries in Europe have declared multiculturalism to be dead. Some have even criticized government reports stating that multiculturalism is a failure as being too positive. The EU may be multicultural in that it has many countries of different European cultures, but each country individually treats 'foreign' cultures within their own societies as a threat.

I'm really curious.
 
"respect for international law" these days means willingness to accept the International Criminal Court, Kyoto Protocol, and opposition to the Iraq war, none of which I hold to be especially virtuous.

Apparently...and I guess these people like to forget that many European countries are and have been involved with the Iraq war. But let's just conveniently forget about that.
 
i'm sorry, but rifkin is a joke.

in his book he just makes huge stretches of desperation for arguements. like comparing european nations to our big states and claiming euro victory. of course the fact that there are huge population differences are left out... dude cherry picks data and twists stats for his arguments. its just bad stuf.
 
Back
Top