Skip to comments.What's So Great About America?
Posted on 07/03/2006 12:04:46 PM PDT by screamradish
What's So Great About America? By Dinesh D'Souza
During the week of the Fourth of July, TAE looks back to its April/May 2002 issue when Indian-born scholar Dinesh DSouza shared his thoughts on his adopted country of America.
The newcomer who sees America for the first time typically experiences emotions that alternate between wonder and delight. Here is a country where everything works: The roads are paper-smooth, the highway signs are clear and accurate, the public toilets function properly, when you pick up the telephone you get a dial tone. You can even buy things from the store and then take them back if you change your mind. For the Third World visitor, the American supermarket is a marvel to behold: endless aisles of every imaginable product, 50 different types of cereal, multiple flavors of ice cream, countless unappreciated inventions like quilted toilet paper, fabric softener, roll-on deodorant, disposable diapers.
The immigrant cannot help noticing that America is a country where the poor live comparatively well. This fact was dramatized in the 1980s, when CBS television broadcast an anti-Reagan documentary, People Like Us, which was intended to show the miseries of the poor during an American recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with the intention of embarrassing the Reagan administration. But it had the opposite effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans had television sets and cars. They arrived at the same conclusion that I witnessed in a friend of mine from Bombay who has been trying unsuccessfully to move to the United States for nearly a decade. I asked him, Why are you so eager to come to America? He replied, Because I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat.
The point is that the United States is a country where the ordinary guy has a good life. This is what distinguishes America from so many other countries. Everywhere in the world, the rich person lives well. Indeed, a good case can be made that if you are rich, you live better in countries other than America, because you enjoy the pleasures of aristocracy. In India, where I grew up, the wealthy have innumerable servants and toadies groveling before them and attending to their every need.
In the United States, on the other hand, the social ethic is egalitarian, regardless of wealth. For all his riches, Bill Gates could not approach a homeless person and say, Heres a $100 bill. Ill give it to you if you kiss my feet. Most likely the homeless guy would tell Gates to go to hell. The American view is that the rich guy may have more money, but he isnt in any fundamental sense better than you are. The American janitor or waiter sees himself as performing a service, but he doesnt see himself as inferior to those he serves. And neither do the customers see him that way: They are generally happy to show him respect and appreciation on a plane of equality. America is the only country in the world where we call the waiter Sir, as if he were a knight.
The moral triumph of America is that it has extended the benefits of comfort and affluence, traditionally enjoyed by very few, to a large segment of society. Very few people in America have to wonder where their next meal is coming from. Even sick people who dont have money or insurance will receive medical care at hospital emergency rooms. The poorest American girls are not humiliated by having to wear torn clothes. Every child is given an education, and most have the chance to go on to college. The common man can expect to live long enough and have enough free time to play with his grandchildren.
Ordinary Americans not only enjoy security and dignity, but also comforts that other societies reserve for the elite. We now live in a country where construction workers regularly pay $4 for a cappuccino, where maids drive nice cars, where plumbers take their families on vacation to Europe. As Irving Kristol once observed, there is virtually no restaurant in America to which a CEO can go to lunch with the absolute assurance that he will not find his secretary also dining there. Given the standard of living of the ordinary American, it is no wonder that socialist or revolutionary schemes have never found a wide constituency in the United States. As Werner Sombart observed, all socialist utopias in America have come to grief on roast beef and apple pie.
Thus it is entirely understandable that people would associate the idea of America with a better life. For them, money is not an end in itself; money is the means to a longer, healthier, and fuller life. Money allows them to purchase a level of security, dignity, and comfort not available in other countries. Money also frees up time for family life, community involvement, and spiritual pursuits, and so provides moral as well as material gains.
Yet even this offers an incomplete picture of why America is so appealing to so many outsiders. Let me illustrate with the example of my own life. Not long ago, I asked myself: What would my existence have been like had I never come to the United States, if I had stayed in India? Materially, my life has improved, but not in a fundamental sense. I grew up in a middle-class family in Bombay. My father was a chemical engineer; my mother, an office secretary. I was raised without great luxury, but neither did I lack for anything. My standard of living in America is higher, but it is not a radical difference. My life has changed far more dramatically in other ways.
Had I remained in India, I would probably have lived my entire existence within a one-mile radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical religious, socioeconomic, and cultural background. I would almost certainly have become a medical doctor, an engineer, or a software programmer. I would have socialized within my ethnic community and had few real friends outside that group. I would have a whole set of opinions that could be predicted in advance; indeed, they would not be very different from what my father believed, or his father before him. In sum, my destiny would to a large degree have been given to me.
Instead, I came to Arizona in 1978 as a high-school exchange student, then a year later enrolled at Dartmouth College. There I fell in with a group of students who were actively involved in politics; soon I had switched my major from economics to English literature. My reading included books like Plutarchs Moralia; Hamilton, Madison, and Jays Federalist Papers; and Evelyn Waughs Brideshead Revisited. They transported me to places a long way from home and implanted in my mind ideas that I had never previously considered. By the time I graduated, I decided that I should become a writer. America permits many strange careers: This is a place where you can become, say, a comedian. That is very different from most places.
If there is a single phrase that encapsulates life in the Third World, it is that birth is destiny. A great deal of importance is attached to what tribe you come from, whether you are male or female, and whether you are the eldest son or not. Once your tribe, caste, sex and family position have been established at birth, your life takes a course that is largely determined for you.
In America, by contrast, you get to write the script of your own life. When your parents say to you, What do you want to be when you grow up? the question is open ended, it is you who supply the answer. Your parents can advise you: Have you considered law school? Why not become the first doctor in the family? It is considered very improper, however, for them to try to force your decision. Indeed, American parents typically send their teenage children away to college where they live on their own and learn independence. This is part of the process of forming your mind, choosing a field of interest for yourself, and developing your identity.
It is not uncommon in the United States for two brothers who come from the same gene pool and were raised in similar circumstances to do quite different things: The eldest becomes a gas station attendant, the younger moves up to be vice president at Oracle; the eldest marries his high-school sweetheart and raises four kids; the youngest refuses to settle down; one is the Methodist that he was raised to be, the other becomes a Christian Scientist. What to be, where to live, whom to marry, what to believe, what religion to practicethese are all decisions that Americans make for themselves.
In America your destiny is not prescribed; it is constructed. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper and you are the artist. This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America. Young people especially find the prospect of authoring their own lives irresistible. The immigrant discovers that America permits him to break free of the constraints that have held him captive, so that the future becomes a landscape of his own choosing.
If there is a single phrase that captures this, it is the pursuit of happiness. As writer V. S. Naipaul notes, much is contained in that simple phrase: the idea of the individual, responsibility, choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation, perfectibility, and achievement. It is an immense human idea. It cannot be reduced to a fixed system. It cannot generate fanaticism. But it is known [around the world] to exist; and because of that, other more rigid systems in the end blow away.
But where did the pursuit of happiness come from? And why has it come in America to mean something much more than simple selfishness? Americas founders were religious men. They believed that political legitimacy derives from God. Yet they were determined not to permit theological differences to become the basis for political conflict.
The American system refused to establish a national church, instead recognizing all citizens as free to practice their own religion. From the beginning the United States was made up of numerous sects. The Puritans dominated in Massachusetts, the Anglicans in Virginia, the Catholics were concentrated in Maryland, so it was in every groups interest to live and let live. The ingenuity of the American solution is evident in Voltaires remark that where there is one religion, you have tyranny; where there are two, you have religious war; but where they are many, you have freedom.
One reason the American founders were able to avoid religious oppression and conflict is that they found a way to channel peoples energies away from theological quarrels and into commercial activity. The American system is founded on property rights and trade, and The Federalist tells us that protection of the obtaining of property is the first object of government. The founders reasoned that people who are working assiduously to better their condition are not likely to go around spearing their neighbors.
Capitalism gives America a this-worldly focus that allows death and the afterlife to recede from everyday view. Along with their heavenly aspirations, the gaze of the people is shifted to earthly progress. This lowering of the sights convinces many critics that American capitalism is a base, degraded system and that the energies that drive it are crass and immoral.
These modern critiques draw on some very old prejudices. In the ancient world, labor was generally despised. The Greeks looked down on merchants and traders as low-lifes. The gentleman understands what is noble, Confucius writes in his Analects, the small man understands what is profitable. In the Indian caste system the vaisya or trader occupies nearly the lowest rung of the ladderone step up from the despised untouchable. The Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun suggests that even gain by conquest is preferable to gain by trade, because conquest embodies the virtues of courage and manliness. In these traditions, the honorable life is devoted to philosophy or the priesthood or military valor. Making a living was considered a necessary, but undignified, pursuit. Far better to rout your adversary, kill the men, enslave the women and children, and make off with a bunch of loot than to improve your lot by buying and selling stuff.
Drawing on the inspiration of philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith, the American founders altered this moral hierarchy. They argued that trade based on consent and mutual gain was preferable to plunder. The founders established a regime in which the self-interest of entrepreneurs and workers would be directed toward serving the wants and needs of others. In this view, the ordinary life, devoted to production, serving the customer, and supporting a family, is a noble and dignified endeavor. Hard work, once considered a curse, now becomes socially acceptable, even honorable. Commerce, formerly a degraded thing, now becomes a virtue.
Of course the founders recognized that in both the private and the public sphere, greedy and ambitious people can pose a danger to the well-being of others. Instead of trying to outlaw these passions, the founders attempted a different approach. As the fifty-first book of The Federalist puts it, Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. In a free society, the security for civil rights [consists] in the multiplicity of interests. The framers of the Constitution reasoned that by setting interests against each other, by making them compete, no single one could become strong enough to imperil the welfare of the whole.
In the public sphere the founders took special care to devise a system that would minimize the abuse of power. They established limited government, in order that the power of the state would remain confined. They divided authority between the national and state governments. Within the national framework, they provided for separation of powers, so that the legislature, executive, and judiciary would each have its own domain of authority. They insisted upon checks and balances, to enhance accountability.
The founders didnt ignore the importance of virtue, but they knew that virtue is not always in abundant supply. According to Christianity, the problem of the bad person is that his will is corrupted, a fault endemic to human nature. Americas founders knew they could not transform human nature, so they devised a system that would thwart the schemes of the wicked and channel the energies of flawed persons toward the public good.
The experiment that the founders embarked upon more than two centuries ago has largely succeeded in achieving its goals. Tribal and religious battles such as we see in Lebanon, Mogadishu, Kashmir, and Belfast dont happen here. Whites and African Americans have lunch together. Americans of Jewish and Palestinian descent collaborate on software problems and play racquetball after work. Hindus and Muslims, Serbs and Croats, Turks and Armenians, Irish Catholics and British Protestants, all seem to have forgotten their ancestral differences and joined the vast and varied American parade. Everybody wants to make it, to get ahead, to hit it big. And even as they compete, people recognize that somehow they are all in this together, in pursuit of some great, elusive American dream. In this respect America is a glittering symbol to the world.
Americas founders solved two great problems which are a source of perennial misery and conflict in many other societiesthe problem of scarcity, and the problem of religious and tribal conflict. They invented a new regime in which citizens would enjoy a wide range of freedomseconomic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech and religionin order to shape their own lives and pursue happiness. By protecting religion and government from each other, and by directing the energies of the citizens toward trade and commerce, the American founders created a rich, dynamic, and peaceful society. It is now the hope of countless millions all across the world.
Dinesh DSouza, Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is author of Whats So Great About America (2002), from which this is adapted.
...the foods pretty good too.
Gotta love the fact that we have two different oceans, too (and a gulf, to boot!).
Wow! This is an excellent article, and thank you for posting it. The one thing it didn't mention is that one of our greatest blessings is our honorable military, which protects and defends those very freedoms which have made us great. BTW, notice how it is a foreign-born citizen who sees our strengths so clearly, while some of our native born citizens (I'm referring primarily to the dems, of course) see nothing but the negatives - doom and gloom, cut and run, all the way.
No, this is the murderous project of the left, agents of Hell, everyone of them.
Well, for one thing, we capitalize America.
We are the home of jazz, the blues, country and rock and roll!
Nice. Thanks for posting!
beat me to it....innocent mistake by the thread starter I'm sure but mods please fix....
Detroit 56 26 .683
If you read that article, thank a teacher.
If you read that article in English, thank a US Soldier.
What are the odds that this article would be required reading in a high school? Of course, the kids wouldn't know who Madison was, nor what the Federalist Papers were. I, for one, am gonna take a copy of this home and have my teenage boys read it.
Baseball, pork ribs, comic books, a high school band, high school sports for boys and girls, clean air, clean water, national and state parks, the right to disagree and remain friends, golf, hand tools, music, the right to invent things and get them marketed, and the right to be a loan, if you want. These are some other good things, but mostly baseball.
loan = load
"Two men look out
Through the same bars;
One sees the mud
And the other, the stars."
This essay should be required reading in every public school...and because of the idiots we have put in charge of them, it won't be.
the book is pretty good, and I think I picked up the paperback on Amazon pretty cheap.
You don't suppose Reid and Pelosi ever heard of this guy, do ya?
Wow, nice photo!
The right to keep and bear arms.
A story has it that a wealthy Brit was travelling through Texas in the 19th century, considering an investment in land. He came upon a man working in the fields, approached him, and said "I say, can you tell me where I might find your master?"
The man looked him in the eye replying, "That bastard h'ain't been born yet."
Boy is this ever true. I just hired a day laborer to do some weed-eating and hedge trimming. I hoped he'd come in the morning when the neighbors are gone because it is seen as wimpy behavior here to hire someone to do your own yard work instead of doing it yourself.
Unless you lucked out and found a conservative, patriotic teacher, the odds would stink.
Excellent piece and nice to read on the Fourth of July.
But hey, at least they "support the troops". (massive sarcasm)
I just love your posts.
D'Souza gets a lot of things right in this article, but he missed badly on this one. The Founders knew that the success of America depends on its moral foundations.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. -- John Adams
D'Souza correctly points out numerous good things about America, but at the same time he fails to point out that many of those things are under attack from within, precisely because the "moral and religious" foundation of America has been greatly weakened.
To reduce America to a place of better financial transactions (as he seems often to do here) is to miss the real point of America.
Hey! Alaska is laying on Wisconsin...and I'm NOT that kind of girl, LOL! ;)
My favorite conversation stopper: Ask a Frenchman "Sprechinze Deutch?" and when he says "non!", tell him "You're welcome!" Free Republic is a wonderful example of America's return to it's roots. I tell people that a hundred years ago, men in bars would get in fist-fights over politics, and it was better than now, when so few know absolutely nothing about how and why they are governed, and seem to think that the Holy God of Tolerance is an excuse to have no opinion. At one time, everyone who could afford to could put out a pamphlet on what they believed to be true, and sway their village for the better. With the advent of the Internet, we've returned to that. No longer is the public discussion of ideas determined by liberal anchormen who opened and closed the floodgate of discussion. Today, everyone has a printing press that reaches the world! What better arguement for (representative!) democracy and the flow of ideas!
Vist http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~abartmes for outdated pictures of my family and interesting oddities.
Great link, thanks.
By Robert Rector
----------------------------------------- Mr. Rector is senior policy analyst for welfare and poverty issues at the Heritage Foundation.
Today the Census Bureau releases its annual report on income and poverty in the U.S. As it has for many years, the report will show more than 30 million Americans "living in poverty." But a close look at the actual living standards of people defined as "poor" shows that the Census Bureau's report is misleading.
For most of us, the word poverty suggests destitution: the inability to provide a family with adequate food, clothing and shelter. But only a small number of the 30 million plus people classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit this description. Although real material hardship does occur in America, it is rare. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions considered comfortable or even well-off just a few generations ago. Indeed, total spending per person among the lowest-income one-fifth of households actually equals those of the average American household in the early 1970s--after adjusting for inflation.
How poor are the "poor"? Consider the following statistics, all drawn from federal government reports:
In 1995, 41% of all poor households owned their own homes. The average home owned by a poor person has three bedrooms, 11/2 baths, a garage and a porch or patio.
"If I give you 200 million dollars will you kiss my ass?"
"Sure! Of course I will!"
"Instead, if I give you this 100 dollar bill, will you kiss my feet?"
"Absolutely not! What do you think I am!"
"We already established what you are. Now we are just haggling over the price."
Is this what Alaskans mean by "the lower 48"?
Harry Lime: Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.
Now that's funny.
Yes it is -- and beautiful too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.