It is fair to note that the international 'top dog' is always
fair game for criticism and, often, 'action' by lesser powers. In the mid 19th century America enjoyed
”twisting the (British) lion's tail” whenever and wherever it could, including giving (limited) support to the Fenians who tried to invade Canada. It must not be surprising, therefore to find that, 150 years later, America suffers the same fate.
But, I believe that the reflexive anti-Americanism that we see around the world today is more than just political penis envy. I think it is a struggle between Anglo-American
liberalism and the
illiberal (
not conservative) tendencies of e.g. France, Germany, Italy and Spain. (The world's truly conservative societies such as China, Japan and Singapore have different, deeper policy differences with America but, oddly enough, they are less anti-American than are most Europeans, Latin Americans and people in the
Islamic Crescent which stretches from North Africa through the Middle East and West Asia all the way to Indonesia.)
In my opinion illiberal ≈
statist. There is a fundamental philosophical split between
liberals, like the Americans, and
statists, like the French; the split is not over e.g. democracy or even the rule of law but, rather, the roles and
rights of individuals and
to property. The liberal sees the main duty of the state as being to protect the sovereign individual from all
collectives, including e.g. organized religion and the state itself. The
statist (the illiberal) sees the main duty of the state as being to protect the individual from himself/herself and from her/his own base, selfish instincts. This division is irreconcilable and dooms the two 'sides' to perpetual enmity. Even when, as now and during the Roosevelt administration, the USA has a
statist, illiberal government in Washington the country, itself, remains resolutely liberal. Even when France has a modestly liberal government, as it does now, the country remains
statist. It is deeper than passing, partisan political philosophy; it is part of the 'national DNA.'
Brian Lee Crowley (in
Fearful Symmetry: The fall and rise of Canada's founding values) sees Canada as split between
instinctively liberal English (and new immigrant) Canada and
instinctively illiberal Québec. It is tempting to fall back onto bits of Max Weber and the idea of the Protestant work ethic, but I'm not sure all the blame for illiberalism can be laid at the feet of the Roman Catholic Church. What I am sure of is that the liberal/statist split is wide, deep and cultural. The split between liberals and statists is deeper than that between liberals and (mainly Asian) conservatives. And that split is, I believe, the 'root cause' of the reflexive anti-Americanism that allows, even forces, many Western governments to adopt anti-American policies even when doing so may be harmful to their own strategic best interests. Very often, as we see in Canada and the USA, governments are far less liberal than the people who elect them. Governments are often (usually?) somewhat disconnected from the people. Governments are the creatures of political activists – a tiny minority subset of the the minority (or slim majority) of active voters. In Canada and the UK and USA
most political activists are, or
appear to be more illiberal, i.e. statist, and, consequently BQ, Liberal and NDP supporters, than is the case for most of the population.
So what?
There is an increasingly loud call, in the USA, for a reformation of the 'West' – a reconciliation with Europe and Latin America and some sort of a rapprochement with the Arabs all to 'face off
against a resurgent Asia. That, in my view is a fundamentally misguided strategy. I believe that Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and West Asia are
culturally mismatched with America and the
Anglosphere; so are the rising Asian giants, China and India, but both are, I think less hostile towards us than our many of our
traditional allies.
In my view the better strategy is to accept a deeply divided world with competing liberal, illiberal and conservative 'blocs,' none of which
need to be our enemies,
per se, This means, in my opinion that we need to take a long, hard, cold and calculating look at our vita interests and make our mid and long term strategic decisions in pursuit of our own vital interests. That means that 'old friends' may not be seen as being very friendly and strangers, with strange socio-economic and political values might seem friendlier.
What are our
vital interests? I continue to use the overly simple formula: Peace and Prosperity. Peace is, as I have said before, more than just an absence of war and prosperity is more than just “a chicken in every pot.” The two tend to go together and to reinforce one another. Being at “peace” does not mean that we disarm or even that we eschew tough, bloody combat operations overseas. We should do neither. We must be prepared to do our full and fair share, including some combat operations, to preserve the broader, global peace. (And yes, I am reminded of the old slogan that “Fighting for Peace is like F_cking for Virginity” but the correlation is not perfect.) We need to remember Lord Palmerston's admonition that we (he was talking about 19th century Britain) do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies but we do have permanent interests, to with: Peace & Prosperity. We, in the American led Anglosphere in general but especially in Canada, need to focus on our interests, not look for new enemies.
