Why Anglos Lead

National Interest ^ | 12/22/2005 | Lawrence Mead

[chilepepper]

IMHO one of the more important successes of the anglo culture was its adoption of the Calvinist ethic of self improvement.

In many other societies, (Latin America, most Catholic countries, most Asian countries, etc), the average person is taught to be docile, to believe that their fate is preordained and "there is nothing they can do about it". Makes for populations easy to control by the ruling classes.

In England and the US in particular, the culture has absorbed the concept that one is one's own master, and you can control your own fate for the better if you work at it. Independence of mind, hard work and self sufficiency win the day.

Unfortunately for the US, the rest of the world is onto the secret of the US success at exactly the same time the US education system, MSM and Hollywood are turning US children into, well, docile sheep who think everything is preordained and "there is nothing you can do about it" -- hence easy to control by the ruling classes.

the effect of learning the anglo secret is striking here in Chile: influenced by Protestant missionaries, the lower classes have realized that they can escape the vicious circle of poverty they have been kept in. class mobility is starting to occur here - sons and daughters of simple farmers now learn professional skills, take two jobs or start their own small business to buy a better car and a better house.

this trait is really spreading throughout the world, so I sense the day of anglo supremacy is drawing to a close, even though everyone will still be speaking english and dreaming of eating steaks and potatoes and being on a Harley Davidson at the corner of Hollywood and Vine with a Blonde riding on the back...

i think we can still be the first among equals, but we will have to work at it...

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I agree with your statement that the Roman-British culture was replaced by Anglo-Saxon barbarians. Actually that culture was forced in to Wales, which was independent until centuries after the Norman invasion.
Still Roman culture permeated Western Civilization. First, the Catholic Church was the official religion of Rome and carried on with some of its culture.
The Roman legal system is not the basis for the English Common Law, as it was for continental Europe. However, the Roman law did influence the English system. It is ironic that Scotland is a civil law country rather than common law, yet it was probably more barbarian than England.

[elbucko]

America, the concept, the theory, is a direct product of the European enlightenment.

Correction, the Scottish Enlightenment.

[mugs99]

I would argue that Britain was still a superior overall power to the United States right up to WWI

They lost their China trade to us after the Spanish war. Taking the Phillipines from Spain made us the super power in the Orient.
We were in the drivers seat from then on. Our military and political power was rising world wide while theirs was declining. They simply did not have the resources to keep up with us.
.

[Dumb_Ox]

Down with Anglophilia! Remember 1812!

What explains Anglo primacy?

Perfidy, treachery, a monolithic government with a self-interest in wealth-creation and only nominal separation of powers, plus an uncanny ability to propagandize masked by a cloak of self-righteous self-absorption.

And a really, really good and really, really loyal military.

[Dumb_Ox]

Roman Christianity, as established by the Empire disappeared for over a hundred years. However, in the celtic lands, Christianity still flourished but with out connection to Rome. It was Pope Gregory who sent out Augustine to ensure that England became a Roman-church strong hold, and to push out all Celtic influences, with the purpose of bringing that Church under the rule of Rome as well.

This is plain false. St. Patrick himself received a papal blessing before setting off on his missions. The Celtic Churches were never independent of or in schism from Rome, and nobody even thought they were such until Anglican propagandists got through mangling history.

[Dumb_Ox]

Western Equality is likely at least as old as England. Check out Thomas Aquinas

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

The Anglican Richard Hooker was greatly influenced by Aquinas, and Locke based some of his philosophy on Hooker, or at least he respected Hooker enough to misrepresent him deliberately.

[Restorer]

It was one the greatest ages in history, that saw the two greatest Revolutions (American and French)

The American Revolution was one of the best things to ever happen in history, the French one of the worst. Most of the unpleasant history of the past 200 years can be traced directly to the influence of the French Revolutiion, including both Fascism and Nazism.

The reason is that the French Revolution, as with almost all other revolutions since, which largely imitate it and repeat its mistakes, had unlimited goals. They were going to solve all mankind's problems. All they had to do to accomplish this was to put unlimited power into the right hands. The conflict ever since between different revolutionary visions was not over whether this basic paradigm was accurate, but over which ideology and ruling group would constitute the "right hands."

The American Revolution, OTOH, did not intent to solve all problems in America, much less the world, but only to set up a process by which the American people could rule themselves and nonviolently replace bad leaders when they chose.

It thus for the first time in history set up a government which operated on the expressed principle of leaving "ordinary people" alone to lead their own lives as they saw fit.

This is an enormously greater change than all other revolutions, which essentially had the goal of changing one group of "rulers" for another. The American Rev has so far been just about the only one which had the goal of getting rid of "rulers."

IMO we often forget the tremendous significance of this distinction. Although we fall far short of it in practice.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Without the values from the British system of Government, the American Revolution might not have happened at all. At best something like the French Revolution would have taken place. One of the values of the British system was the rule of law and the evolution of representative government over the centuries. Edmund Burke was spot on in explaining the difference between the British and French experiences. The British constantly reformed their system over centuries, while the French tried to reform overnight creating the terror and Bonapartism. The American Revolution was the product of British values.
As Adam Smith pointed out self-interest and wealth creation is not a bad thing.
Yes the British had a good and loyal military. Without that Bonaparte, the Kaiser and/or Hitler probably would have won.

[muawiyah]

Actually, America is more like the extension of privilege beyond the noble classes into the commons.

The noble classes acquired "rights" "way back when".