Log In  |  Register Now  
 Home | Syndication Services | Media Features | Research Center | Archive | Contributors | About Us

To receive our weekly e-newsletter containing headlines and highlights from The Globalist, sign up here.



Topic

Companies

Culture

Development

Diplomacy

Economy

Environment

Finance

Health

History

Markets

Media

Music

Politics

Religion

Security

Sports

Technology

Women

Youth


Region

Africa

Asia-Pacific

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America


Globalist Bookshelf

Best Books of 2009

Best Books of 2008


Editorial Staff

Contributors

Jobs & Internships


Subscribers to The Globalist's premium services can log in here:

Username:

Password:

Forgot your password?




 

Order "Civilization and Its Enemies"

Globalist Bookshelf > Global Society
Civilization and Its Enemies
 

By Lee Harris | Friday, January 21, 2005
 

Early in the 21st century, the United States finds itself in a tough position. It is hated by its enemies — and even its friends are often wary of U.S. motives. Lee Harris — author of “Civilization and Its Enemies” — argues that it is not America’s conservative traditions, but its tolerance and multicultural heritage that have predestined it to be the first among equals in defending civilization everywhere.


he United States is uniquely equipped to act as the new sovereign in the world today, not simply because of its power — but because of its tolerance.

The power of multiculturalism

The very multiculturalism that causes concern among many conservatives — far from weakening the United States’ position — has made it a historically unprecedented microcosm of the rest of the world.

We Americans are feared not because of who we are — but what we are. We act on behalf of all people to make the community around them more open, more tolerant, more trusting.

Its diversity reflects that of the world — and this means that for the first time in world history, a great power is genuinely capable of transcending the limitations to human cooperation imposed by divisions along the lines of race, sect and ethnicity.

That the United States is a practical design for the next stage of human history — a utopia that works — is a remarkable achievement.

It is the appalling historical insensitivity on the part of the Left that makes them bind to the world-historical significance of this fact.

Cosmopolitan ideal

The great American cultural revolution that began in the 1960s — and which, like all such events had ennobling and appalling episodes — has produced, through no one’s design, an America that embodies the cosmopolitan ideal far more than any other society in human history.

Those who still wish to give their allegiance to a purely hypothetical community of all the men and women on the planet are not only indulging in a fantasy, they are being downright reactionary.

The problem of power

By failing to support the United States in its effort to offer liberal values to the rest of the world, the liberal cosmopolitans betray both liberalism and the cosmopolitan impulse — that is, the desire to treat all human beings as of equal moral worth regardless of any accident by birth.

After this juncture in history, it is in the interest of civilization, wherever it is found, to keep the legitimacy of Pax Americana intact.

Instead, they prefer to place their hopes in the fantasy of a community that will never exist, because it could never exist.

The burden with which any U.S. president and any administration will be saddled into in the foreseeable future is the horrible problem of being the dominant power in the contemporary world.That world has every reason to be fearful and distrustful of any power at all, much less the staggering degree of power that the United States currently possesses.

In short, we Americans are feared not because of who we are — but what we are.

The feared Americans

It is absurd to think that the world should inevitably be jumping up and down with joy that there is one overwhelmingly dominant nation.

That is true even if you happen to believe — as I do — that there has never been a nation whose track record of humanity and generosity can even come close to matching our own.

Defending all civilization

On the one hand, we do have too much power. On the other, we cannot have any less. This is the paradox that not only we must somehow learn to live with — but so must the world.

For the first time in world history, a great power is genuinely capable of transcending the limitations to human cooperation imposed by divisions along the lines of race, sect and ethnicity.

The civilization that the United States is now called upon to defend is not America’s or even the ‘West’s — it is the civilization created by all men and women, everywhere on the planet.

We act on behalf of all people who have worked to make the actual community around them less addicted to violence, more open, more tolerant, more trusting. Civilization, in this sense, is Chinese, American, African, European and Muslim.

Those who are working for this purpose are all on the same side — and we all have a common enemy. It is an enemy whose origin goes back to the dawn of history.

Fighting a common enemy

And indeed, it is the enemy that began the whole bloody and relentless cycle of violence and war — the eternal gang of ruthless men.

Someone must be prepared to fight them whenever they threaten to enter history and threaten thereby to change even the very possibilities in terms of which we are — forever after — doomed to imagine our future.

First among equals

After this juncture in history, it is in the interest of civilization, wherever it is found, to keep the legitimacy of Pax Americana intact.

The United States is uniquely equipped to act as the new sovereign in the world today, not simply because of its power — but because of its tolerance.

But the United States cannot permit itself to become the arrogant empire that its critics fear — or, indeed, an empire of whatever kind. It must be first, but first among equals.

It must adopt the psychological finesse of a George Washington — that is to say, a style of leadership where the leader is far more concerned with preserving consensus among his followers than with asserting his authority over them.

An issue of trust

We must do so not because consensus is good in itself, but because it is an indispensable precondition of strong leadership.

If the leader is not trusted by those whom he must lead, he will be incapable of exercising the kind of leadership that is most necessary in a time of crisis and peril. He will not be permitted to act unilaterally and at his own discretion.

Fighting ruthlessness

For the foreseeable future, the United States must reserve the option of acting precisely in this manner, unilaterally and at its own discretion. This it must do not to subvert the rules of international liberalism, but to uphold them.

Today, those ruthless gangs are Muslim — but there is no reason why this will be true 20 years or two years hence.

Otherwise, the geopolitical system supported by these rules will collapse, as would any other trust system that has lost its mooring in its traditional code of honor.

In the epoch we have entered, some agency must have the capacity to act quickly, decisively — and with overwhelming strength in order to keep ruthless gangs from charting the course of the next stage of history.

Cultural diversity

Today those ruthless gangs are Muslim — but there is no reason why this will be true 20 years or two years hence. But in whatever incarnation such ruthlessness appears, it must not be allowed to decide the direction of mankind’s future development.

During the course of its history, America has devised a unique solution to the fundamental problem of politics — that of figuring out how to get people to cooperate with each other — and it has done this with an extraordinary diversity of ethnic groupings.

Learning from America

If cultural diversity has a genuine value — which it most certainly does — its value lies in the objective superiority that different cultures have over each other.

The United States must reserve the option of acting unilaterally and at its own discretion —not to subvert the rules of international liberalism, but to uphold them.

What would be the point of looking sympathetically at someone else’s culture, if all we could learn from it is how to live better within our own? And if it makes sense for us to learn from others, doesn’t it make equal sense for them to learn from us?

To force other cultures to stay permanently in the cake of custom imposed by the tradition of their ancestors is a perverse way of expressing appreciation for their humanity. It is, on the contrary, to treat them like curiosities in a museum of natural history, like those waxwork tableaux.

But hard though it may be, we have to do much better than to show the casual visitor a typical scene of daily life among Paleolithic hunters of early Sumerians.


Adapted from CIVILIZATION AND ITS ENEMIES by Lee Harris. Copyright © 2004 by Lee Harris. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.


Let us know what you think ...
 

 

 

 

You must be a registered user of our site to send us your comments. If you have already registered, please log in. If you a new user of our site, please register now. Registration is quick, easy and completely free.

   

Complete the below to send a letter to the editor about this article.

   
Name  
 
Email Address  
 
City and State  
 
Country  
 
Comments  
 

 
Please note: If we publish your comment on The Globalist, we will identify only your name, city and country. We do not publish anonymous comments. Your email address will not be published.

We regret that we cannot publish every comment we receive. Furthermore, because we review each comment before it is published, there may be a delay between the time you send your comment and its appearance on our site. The Globalist reserves the right to edit comments for style and length.

Copyright © 2000-2010 by The Globalist. Reproduction of content on this site without The Globalist's written permission is strictly prohibited. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

The Globalist claims full trademark rights to The Globalist name and logos.

McPherson Square, 927 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005
The Globalist