March 14, 2003
WE'RE BOTH RIGHT:
Uncle Sam and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys (Ben Macintyre, February 15, 2003, The Times)The points of conflict between France and America are multiple, but what truly sets the two nations at odds is not their differences but what unites them: only the US and France still have a genuinely global view of themselves, a national self-image founded on the belief that they are the repositories of universal values. Both consider themselves, with equal conceit, to be "universal nations", in a way that Britain ceased to do with the end of empire.For all France's feigned insouciance about the torrent of American abuse it is now receiving, the French remain obsessed with America in a way that America is not obsessed with France. Indeed, except when France is behaving badly, America does not much care or think about France. This, of course, makes France even more obsessive.
In a new book entitled L'ennemi americain, Philippe Roger argues that French anti-Americanism is not so much a reaction to identifiable policies as a coherent world view perceiving America as a threat to France, a rival that has consistently belittled and frustrated French ambitions.
In this, modern French anti-Americanism is the direct descendant of French Anglophobia of the 18th and 19th centuries, the belief that a barbaric Anglo-Saxon capitalism was undermining French glory and excluding France from superpower status. Both Anglophobia and modernanti-Americanism contrast humane virtues with unbridled and uncaring capitalism, the kinder, gentler France holding back the geopolitical bully that was the British empire, and is now America. In practical terms, this has meant refusing the US access to French airspace on bombing missions to Libya in 1986, widespread French opposition to military action in Afghanistan, and the current stance over Iraq.
One thing that's missing here is an acknowledgment that America and France are in fact the main modern carriers of the two central ideas that provide all of the tension in the human soul and that these two impulses are antithetical: freedom and security. The American Revolution and Americanism proceed from the core belief that freedom is God granted and the necessary prerequisite that enables men to create a decent society. The French Revolution and Francism proceed from a belief that in order for a society to be decent there must be equality (financial security), imposed by the State. These things can not be reconciled--they are in fact the two opposed driving forces in all of history and human affairs--and therefore neither can America and France. Nor should we simply assume that our vision will prevail nor that it is even attractive to most people. The dream of equality and security is extraordinarily powerful and no number of failures (communism, socialism, Nazism, the New Deal, etc.), no matter how bloody, will ever dissuade those who believe. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 14, 2003 9:16 AM
The problem comes not in pursuing security, but in how it is pursued. Security can come from our belief in God's presence in our lives, from our interpersonal relationships, or from our communities. Most of our need for security can be fulfilled in these ways without obliterating freedom.
Posted by: Greg E. at March 14, 2003 9:36 AMThe French historical vision, emcompasses their revolution,
the precedecessor for the Russian,
Mexican, Chinese, & Cambodian
hecatombs, Bonapartism & Boulangerism & Petain's contribution
as well as fascism, Gaullism being the
weaker sibling of such; Remember that DeGaulle was actually installed
not by an election, but by the coalition of Algerian settlers, military
and intelligence men, who he promptly betrayed to the 'progressive
forces' of the NLF; the North African
counterparts of Fatah & the the Brotherhood; themselves the inspiration for Al Queda
Greg:
But that's what those of us who believe in freedom think and it's why American political freedom has been so closely associated with American religiosity.
The question is whether it is illegitimate for others to believe in egalitarian financial security. I oppose them, but think their view is legitimate and powerful, though ultimately suicidal.
By an odd coincidence, I was thinking along similar lines earlier this
evening.
The "tension" between France and England (and to a degree, Britain,
but less less so) is a historical fact. We're both old countries,
living closely together and sometimes rubbing up each other in the
wrong way. Sometimes fatally. Perfidious Albion.
The similarity I see between France and the USA is that both of you
have a strong sense of pride in your country, a "nationalism" that is
easily discerned and brought forth. Now I, strongly, feel empathetic
to your, US, national pride, because I see you inheriting, to a
degree, all those "anglo-saxon" traits often opposed and deplored by
the French and Germans. France has an "idea" about what it is to be
"French" that we seem to have lost.
This leads to a certain sadness though, because I find it hard to
discern any English, or British, pride in our country itself. We've
lost that feeling, this "idea" seems to have flown away and taken root
in the US. Perhaps Australia and elsewhere. Yes, it's depressing,
because I cannot even see a Thatcher rejuvenating such a pride
anymore, even though your post elsewhere today refers to such a
possibility (by leadership change, in this case Reagan over Carter).
We've had our pride eradicated, educated out of us, over years of
social engineering and cultural repudiation. For all his faults, Blair
has been astonishing recently and he has lifted my spirits enormously.
I hope this heralds a renaissance. But I fear not.
Alastair:
The difference though is that France is nationalist--to be French requires French blood, while to be American requires only allegiance to a set of ideas. That's why we've always been able to assimilate immigrants so well. The problem with Britain, I fear, is that too few any longer believe in the ideas--which we after all brought here from Britain.