A common concept among our citizenry is that the United States, at one time or through its continued existence, has been a nation that holds up certain ideals as being the foundation for societal development. These ideals, specifically life, liberty and property, are said to a public benefit and therefore always the internal motivation of citizens and the state. However, what historical fact in the existence of the United States has lead individuals to accept this concept? What event or events has lead them to believe that these ideals are apart of the "American experience?" What has caused it to be woven into our socio-political structure? Or do citizens believe it because they are told it?
Honestly, I don't see these values. I don't see any period in American history that actually enshires liberty or private property. I would like to be proven wrong because I would like to hope that there was some divergence in our history. A misstep that caused the US to go from a relevantly peaceful, lawful peoples to a beligernent, expansionist, pro-subsidization peoples. What has happen in the several centuries of American history seems to be a mere continutation of corportatist schemes, despotic empire and belligerent diplomacy.
I grant that the actions of others are not always in concert with those around them but why does the mass of citizenry still believe in these "American ideals?" Is it that they are ignorant? Purposefully? When American soldiers were torturing Phillipinos and burning down their villages at the turn of the twenth-century, where was the mass outcry from the citizenry? There was an outcry by a select few individuals but their writings were met with silence and to ask the question posed by Herbert Welsh:
"What is the significiance of such silence?"
What are your thoughts on this matter?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
It seems the majority of the American people operate under a warped definition of liberty. I wouldn't be surprised if such a warped view came from their schooling. They were taught about the values of America as well as the actions taken by America, and might see the two as mutual. For example, while people on these forums may see the "War on Terror" as horrid, despicable, etc., a lot of Americans see the "war" as a way to protect their freedoms from evil-doers who simply hate freedom and want to enslave the world.
We're quick to accept new ideas but slow to reject old ones. Give someone a dumb idea when they're too inexperienced to know any better, and an entire lifetime of evidence to the contrary won't shake it out of their heads.
I think there was a time when America was better than it is now. Perhaps there was no mass outcry against the torture of Phillipinos, but at least there was no constituency for torture, no public outcry against cessation of torture like there is now.
It is a fact that for a long time America was seen by the rest of world (at least outside the Western hemisphere) in a positive light, in the sense that its conduct was less bad than the conduct of other great powers.
Let us recall for example that though it was industrialy the prime nation in the world and therefore capable of being its most important power it voluntarily disengaged itself from Europe after WWI. That it was capable of becoming disillusioned with its wartime allies, deeming their treatment of a vanquished enemy too harsh (imagine that!). Even Woodrow Wilson, who has often served as a punching bag for libertarian historians, when taking to the world stage was capable of approaching world politics not without some sincere idealism and even a measure of naivete, something that was beyond the gritty Europeans. The midd 1930s found it with, in global terms, a minor army. I like the revisionist historians' showing the cynism and the harm of US politics in the first half of the 20th century. By doing that they have done great work that is a powerful argument for our point of view that there is evil in every state action - even in the most publicly celebrated ones. However at the same time it can not be said the US was at the time the worst of the great powers, or even, as bad as they were. There was great cynism in Roosevelt's conspiring to get America into war, great cynism in bombing cities in Germany and Japan, etc, etc however the other powers were at the time acting with stil greater cynism. I think things went downhill fast when it accepted the role of world hegemon after WWII. It became the most destructive and aggressive of all powers. At the same time I think it was for a long while redeemable. The opposition to the war in Vietnam was a sight to behold. There was not public outcry against the treatment of Philipinos, but there sure was one against the treatment of the Vietnamese. Some of that opposition was misguided in that it was caused by sympathy for the cause of Communism, but really, that was a miniscule part of it. Without idealising it I think there is a lot Americans can be proud in regard to the '60s antiwar movement, not in the least because it turns out - such movements are rare anywhere in the world. Regardless of this positive note I think the present day America however is too far gone for that and I think the only case in which it will cease to be such a force for disruption in the world is if it experiences some sort of crisis that takes away its capability to do such - though I would love to be proved wrong.
wasn't the treatment of philipinos opposed by the anti-imperialist league? In any case the philipinos were pretty brutal too vis-a-vis torture.
"wasn't the treatment of philipinos opposed by the anti-imperialist league? In any case the philipinos were pretty brutal too vis-a-vis torture."
Yes, they did protest the conquest of the Phillipines. That is why I said:
"There was an outcry by a select few individuals but their writings were met with silence"
The 19th century was okay if you weren't black, Chinese, female, Southern or Yankee. That sound sarcastic, but it's not. For white males during some periods of the south and especially the west, near anarchy reigned for the individual.
Sorry I meant to reply to Marko -I don't think he had any qualifications so I just wanted to add more context for history purposes.
People are individuals with different minds. You are trying to understand something that has no base at which to be understood. You ask what significance the silence of the citizens has. I say the impossibility of understanding it is significant. But I can not prove significance, which is the point I'm trying to get across in all of this. Which, of course, is why I can't stand psychologists. And also why, as a child, they could not stand me.
Well whether you are a Rothbardian and propound natural rights or your a Misesian who follows his version of utilitarianism, what does it say about people if they are so easily seduced into the war fervor?
I found Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty more than adequeate to cover this subject. Mises.org has the audio series; hours upon hours of it.
Now I'm not quite sure exactly where the American cultural propaganda began, but I believe a lot of the rewriting of American history began in the 19th century, and with it came certain notions that these revisionists wanted to be rooted in American culture. This is the period where certain facts were written out, and certain myths were written in. This is also where concepts such as individual responsibility and character were replaced with nationalism and various forms of collectivism.
You also must consider that every American political regime has put forward their own version of utopia.
As to the propensity for war.
To say this applies to everyone is probably a reach. There are, however, certain segments of the populace that identify with one or more of the following categories:
Total Pacifists: A very small number who believe in nonviolence no matter the cost to life, liberty or property.
Libertarians: A relatively small number who believe in non-aggression; war only as a last resort and for defense only.
The "Good Guys": A pretty sizeable group who believe in aggression "for a good cause"; war as a last resort and for either defense of their own nation or their allies. This is the traditional American position prior to Theodore Roosevelt, with some obvious exceptions.
The "Winners": A growing group who believe in aggression in order to win or promote one's ideals. Willing to use coercion over other forms of diplomacy. Willing to use pre-emptive warfare when the opposition appears to have the upper hand or the "winners" are in a bad spot. American foreign policy has been here for some time now.
The "Conquerors": A small group willing to use aggression in all of its various forms to dominate all others. Some are driven by hatred or revenge - the kill'em all mentality. The "Winners" may just be more subtle that this group, especially compared to the Libertarian position.
The Psychopaths: Folks who just want to kill and don't really care why. It's not for any gain, whether real (like land, women or weath) or imaginary (religious righteousness).
I think even the most aggressive folks think of themselves in terms of "Winners". It's so easy, however for too many to go from the "Good Guys" to the "Conquerors" when the right conditions are in place. It's probably this openness to shift so much that is most troubling to Libertarians.
I think the reason folks are willing to shift so much is because they don't really have a personal philosophy or set of standards. They don't really think. Too many let their leaders decide what is right and wrong. They are conditioned to do this from their family, education, churches, and social and political affiliations. They are conditioned to not think via their entertainment and lifestyle. Much of modern American culture is designed, whether intentionally or not, to make Americans maleable to the political class and their state-warfare machine; and to state-sponsored corporatism that benefit in its operation. Earlier American cultures were more libertarian, although far from ideal.