This essay was first published in the Palestine Chronicles 2003 10 01.

The American right: What lies beneath

As a personal project I have recently read and reviewed several books concerning American current events, and modern history in relation to the Middle East and Islam in particular, and to the world in general. The texts, mostly American, ranged from the left to the right, with authors on the right including Jean Elshtain (Just War Against Terror, Basic Books, 2003), Caleb Carr (The Lessons of Terror, Random House. 2003), Ralph Peters (Beyond Terror, Stackpole. 2002), Robert Kaplan ( Warrior Politics, Vintage Books. 2002), and Michael Ledeen (The War Against the Terror Masters, St. Martins, 2003).

The premises of the arguments of the American right appear to be based on two fundamental factors: first, that there is no innate goodness in humanity; and secondly that America is entitled by its own superior society, to establish an empire to protect the world, the white man’s burden revisited. The two of course are closely related and lead to the basis of the rationalizations as to how America is operating in the world today.

All of what could be labelled ‘right wing’ texts included comments negating the idea of any innate human goodness, a factor that could be labelled altruism. In supporting this point of view they quote Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and the Bible, emphasizing Hobbes “Leviathan”, the “life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short.” Kaplan argues that altruism “complicates” our truths leading to “unsatisfactory moral compromises.” Elshtain bases her position on the biblical view of the “fall and inheritance of sin”. Peters argues that “there is no historical evidence…to assume an innate human goodness”. Ledeen falls back on Machiavelli’s comment “Man is more inclined to do evil….”

The second factor of establishing an empire is evident in the same writings. Elshtain argues that America carries the right to attack and destroy under limited ‘just’ circumstances. Kaplan argues that America is “most certainly both” a republic and an empire, its power deriving from “it never having to be declared, saving itself from the self-delusive, ceremonial trappings of the United Nations.” Caleb Carr, while writing a surprisingly instructive book on terror and its effects, argues for “enlightened belligerent action” and defines several principles of “progressive war”.

The convenience of all these arguments is that they provide a rationalization as to why war is necessary (lack of innate goodness) and that the only peoples capable of just or enlightened war (oxy-morons whichever way it is looked at) is the American empire. Unfortunately they are just that, rationalizations, that do not stand up to the “facts”.

To rely on ancient or classic philosophy as an argument for war is to relive the errors of the past and all the apologists make that mistake as well as indicating that rather than relying on current information and the evidence before them, they can only argue with the support of others from another equally volatile time. It would seem that none of them has ever read any of the current sociobiology texts that argue effectively for a genetic basis for good old altruism as much as for violent old evil. Jarred Diamond in The Third Chimpanzee and E. O. Wilson in Consilience present the point clearly, indicating that human beings react in the old “fight, flight, or accommodate” mode. This includes acts of violence for ones defence, as well as acts of altruism, that seemingly take away from an individual’s survival, but enhances the survival of the group, clan, or society.

The evidence before the deniers of altruism is so obvious it is difficult to understand why they cannot see it. These arguments on terror and terror war and its justifiable counter war arise from the 9/11 atrocities in New York. Yet that act, at once a violent - dare I use their words - ‘evil’ act also demonstrated the highest altruism of humanity. Immediately after the attacks, the people, not the government, rallied to aid and assist those in trouble in whatever way they could, many of them sacrificing their own lives while doing so, at the same time that the top echelon of the federal government flew around in panic hiding out for their own safety. The ultimate act of altruism is when a soldier dies for his fellow soldiers, his country, so that others may survive - or is that just propaganda and brain-washing?

There really is no argument with the second factor of American imperialism, as it is already well established. Many Americans, however, fail to understand why they are disliked so much by foreigners. It is not because America is rich and democratic (the latter is arguable) but because American economic, cultural, and military strength simply impose themselves wherever they feel it is necessary to maintain control of the resources and labour that keep America on top. The people of the world quite literally want the Americans to go home - they are tired of the covert-subversive actions, they are tired of the overt military actions, tired of the economic stranglehold now supported in secret negotiations involving the World Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the large transnational corporations, all of which are strongly non-democratic.

America’s course is therefore plotted by people who view others as evil, without any innate goodness (which of course has to mirror back on themselves); this is combined with an empire that Americans view as good and just simply because it is rich and powerful. These justifications have taken the United States into a renewed era of military interventions around the globe, interventions that deny basic human rights and that deny effective interventions on the part of larger global political bodies.

Source: The Palestine Chronicle – www.palestinechronicle.com