Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
A lot of Americans can't even conceive that any other nation would have any reason to dislike us. We like to think of ourselves as such nice, decent, and generous people who stand up for freedom and democracy in the world, and this seems to be espoused on both sides of the political spectrum. It seems vitally important that that image be maintained in the eyes of the electorate, even if it turns out ridiculously convoluted and incoherent at the other end.
Zonie, thank you for a thoughtful and thought provoking response. The internal politics of US foreign policy do seem bizarre to this outsider.
OTOH, there is the disconnect you outlined between the ways Americans view their motives for external action and the ways in which many outside the US view those policies, the disconnect between the altruism and democratic values Americans see as fundamental in those policies and the more realistic, less flattering views many outside the US feel form the basis for these policies. OTOH there is a strong realpolitik argument to be made that the US has effectively sub-contracted its Middle East foreign policy to Israel, a move openly acknowledged by some American officials and discovered by Obama early on in his Presidency, much to his chagrin.
This calls into question not only the policies themselves, but also the kinds and quality of information available to Americans that informs and shapes their views. Given the coverage I see of ME issues by the US media, it does seem clear to me that most of the information available to Americans is filtered through a ruthlessly pro-Israel filter. It is relevant to note that the subservience to Tel Aviv's agenda promoted in the US media and the US body politic by AIPAC is not replicated any where else in the world.
I think you're right on this point, although it actually seems that U.S. media has softened up to some degree during my lifetime. During the 1970s and 80s, no one could scarcely say even the slightest unkind word about Israel without being accused of anti-semitism. Those who sympathized with the Arabs would be labeled "pro-Soviet." Even those who were willing to take the heat for protesting against the Vietnam War were somehow silent when it came to Israel.
Israel is often portrayed as the underdog: Surrounded, outnumber, hated and vilified by their neighbors who want to drive them into the sea. To abandon them would be seen as dishonorable. With Israel, our policy is seen by Americans as altruistic and ideologically congruent with our long-standing policy of "making the world safe for democracy." The religious right also support Israel because they believe it's "God's will" that America support Israel.
Another thing about Israel is that they seem to take a great effort to learn about America, to understand Americans, and as a result, they're able to talk to Americans in a more convincing fashion. A lot of people talk about propaganda as if it's something that just happens automatically, but it actually takes a lot of talent and intelligence to come up with convincing propaganda and be able to make it sell to the American people. There are few nations on Earth which understand America deep enough as to be able to communicate with our people in convincing terms. Other nations tend to talk at us rather than to us. That's where they fail.
quote:
When Americans are made aware of the facts regarding a foreign intervention, they tend to question those policies. To their enormous credit, once Americans were made aware of the realites of the Vietnam War they effectively stopped that war and brought the US and Nth Vietnam to the negotiating table. So there are some grounds for optimism provided the US media fulfills its function as a fair and impartial reporter of facts. In this context, the current furore over whistle blower Snowden's fate is of critical importance.
I agree, although America was a different nation back in the 1960s than we are now. We've changed since then, with the anti-war protesters themselves leading many of those changes. Some of the changes were also the result of events happening overseas.
During the 70s, as America was pulling out of Vietnam, the country was embroiled in the Watergate scandal, along with inflation, an energy crisis, and a Cold War to deal with, but despite all that, there was a general feeling that the country was changing for the better. We believed that we were reproving ourselves, changing our ways, and correcting our errors of the past. The Civil Rights Movement had prevailed and many Americans were discarding old stereotypes about race and gender.
The old order was being challenged in a full-court press, and even the media seemed fully on board with these changes. One could even say that the media were instrumental in pushing for many of these changes in civil rights, gender/racial equality, environmentalism, and global responsibility. One of the key events of the late 70s also included Carter's mediation between Egypt and Israel, with Begin and Sadat at Camp David. Many things that we didn't realize before were starting to come to light (such as supporting right-wing dictators in the name of "freedom" and things like that) and Americans were beginning to see their nation and the world situation in a more realistic and honest perspective.
So, as you say, there were definitely grounds for optimism during those years. I think America was jolted back mainly by the Iranians when they seized our embassy and held our people hostage back in 1979. More than the Cold War, more than the Israel lobby, more than the U.S. media, the Iranians managed to drive the American electorate into the arms of Ronald Reagan. There are even allegations that the Reagan campaign made a deal with the Iranians so that they would keep the hostages until after Carter was out of office. (Given the revelations that came out during the Iran-Contra scandal, it's not that hard to believe.)
Carter was seen as weak and ineffective, and it was commonly believed that America itself was growing weak and becoming easy prey for the rest of the world to attack us. So, from our point of view, we had been trying to be nice and globally responsible, but that wasn't working out for us. It was felt that stronger leadership was needed, one who would support a rebuilding of the defense of the United States. The religious right also enjoyed a resurgence, and all they had to do was point at the 1970s to show just how fucked up the country had gotten. The former anti-war protesters were still in a daze, having spent too much time at the discos and snorting cocaine. All the idealistic causes and their advocates had pretty much sold out by the 1980s, and it's been that way ever since.
I'm not trying to quash your optimism, but I don't think it's solely a matter of the media fairly and impartially reporting facts that would suddenly change the minds of the American people. The media don't just report facts; they shape and foster attitudes which help mold public opinion. The media also include the entertainment media, literary publishing, fiction - and that can also influence the way Americans view themselves, their government, and the world around them. Hollywood has been replete with productions about "evil corporations," government agencies, politicians, the military - and they often seem very "anti-establishment" in the eyes of the public. The music industry even more so. But then, they're part of the very same establishment and the same media, so it does get rather confusing.
I don't think that the issue is that Americans are ignorant or lack information about the situation. I can see how some would reach the conclusion that "If only the American people knew what was going on, then they'd take action to stop it," but I don't think it's really that simple anymore. Americans do know, but they don't really care - or it's so commonplace that they've become numb to it. Instead of standing up for principles and ideals like many of us once did, we've learned to compromise with the lesser of two evils.
As far as Snowden is concerned, even he wasn't really telling the Americans things they didn't already know. People have known about the NSA for decades, as well as the activities of the CIA and Hoover's FBI. But large segments of the population don't really want to do anything about it because they've been led to believe that such things are a "necessary evil," whether it's to fight communism, drugs, or terrorism.
quote:
That there is a need for a debate to occur inside the US over its foreign policy seems self-evident. As you pointed out, this debate is unlikely to initiated by either of the two main parties, both of which seem committed to the War on Communism/Drugs/Terrorism. That leaves the ball in the court of the American people, who have proved they have the power and will to re-shape the nation's foreign policy along more civilised lines.
We've had the debate here in this country, and we will likely have the same debate in the years to come.
Part of the issue we're dealing with has to do with the monumental shift in U.S. foreign policy which took place during World War II. America was previously regarded as "isolationist" (although I've always considered that to be a misnomer), as our founding fathers wanted America to be neutral with all other nations, without aligning ourselves or playing favorites of one nation over another. We were still expansionist and eventually grew to be a world power, but we still tried to maintain a somewhat neutral and detached stance on the world scene, especially when it came to disputes among the European powers. After World War I, the Senate refused to ratify the U.S. entry into the League of Nations or the Treaty of Versailles, and the U.S. again tried to stay neutral in world affairs.
This all changed as a result of World War II, and indeed, the leaders of both political parties have severely criticized "isolationism" and the U.S. refusal to get involved in world affairs after WW1 as being a contributory factor which led to WW2. This particular position is considered gospel in U.S. political discourse nowadays. It has successfully planted the notion in our political consciousness that if we don't intervene and interfere with the rest of the world, it will turn out just like World War II when tens of millions died needless deaths because we didn't interfere earlier. (This also loosely ties in with the notion that America "saved the world" in World War II. It's not just arrogant American jingoism that drives that view, but it's a necessary component to maintain the illusion and this particular sacred cow in the minds of Americans.)
After World War II and with the advent of the Cold War, American foreign policy had completely shifted from what it was before the war. Because the whole nation, both Democrats and Republicans, had been locked in a mortal struggle around the world, neither side really wanted to challenge what had been established in the minds of the people. The entire psychology of the nation had shifted to one of bomb shelters, nuclear preparedness, and looking for communist conspiracies under every bush.
Even though there was a backlash against McCarthyism and growing anti-war protests during the 60s, they didn't actually challenge the policies or the philosophy behind it. They were just challenging the methods, not the policy itself, and that's where they went wrong.
Even from those who generally oppose U.S. policy, both internally and externally, their methods of attack seem to be directed at the apparent duplicity and cross-purposes within the U.S. government and ruling establishment. The government lied about Vietnam, and once the public was informed of those lies, the opposition grew. It was the same with Iraq. The government lied about WMDs, were caught in the lie, and the opposition grew.
But then that begs the question: What if the government had been telling the truth? Would that make it all okay? That's what both sides have to ask themselves when it comes to evaluating U.S. foreign policy.
Even when the government gets caught in a lie, they'll have a big investigation and maybe somebody might get impeached or go to jail (probably not), then they'll pledge transparency and say "Okay, from now on, no more lying!" But the policy itself never changes.
quote:
From where I sit, re-shaping US foreign policy to align it more closely with the views of the American people, so that, instead of paying lip service to democratic ideals while actually doing the opposite, it would be welcomed by people all over the world, whatever their view of current US policy might be.
I think for our own sake, the U.S. will probably have to turn inward and deal with many lingering internal matters that have been left unaddressed. We don't have the same level of relative power that we once had in the world, and it might be time for foreign policy to be shifted to more accurately reflect that reality. It's not World War II anymore. There hasn't been any national leader since who has been "just like Hitler," even as much as the war-mongers like to crow about stuff like that. We're not even in the Cold War anymore, so a lot of the original justifications for U.S. foreign policy are no longer relevant.
|
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread