By Aart G. Broek
“Never, ever underestimate a people’s pride, no matter how broken they might be. Tap into people’s dignity and they will do anything for you. Ignore it, and they won’t lift a finger.” [Thomas Friedman NYT, 2003, Nov. 9]
President Trump hasn’t polished up the doctrines and imperialist practices of the past. His country is busy salvaging what remains of that cherished omnipotence of the past.
No country has been so thoroughly humiliated since “the fall of the Wall” in 1989—the collapse of the communist Soviet Union—as the United States. The expectation that the entire world would embrace a liberal-democratic system as “paradise” has come to little or nothing in the ensuing thirty-five years; quite the opposite.
Russia selectively appropriated the capitalism it had despised for decades, subjected its people to the dictatorship of an oligarchy, and infiltrated countries like Ukraine and Venezuela, both with and without military force. China developed into an imperial power as large and threatening as the hallowed United States itself, but without the consent—and certainly no dissent—of its people, let alone those of Tibet or Hong Kong. Europe refused to actively defend the paradise built and protected by the US, systematically insulted the US with fierce criticism and by selling, among other things, sensitive IT knowledge to the aforementioned “Satans”. Many Islamic-backed dictatorships proved to be a desert for the US to hopelessly lose its way in, and numerous extremist Muslims managed to violently pierce the heart of the US. All of this has been very detrimental to the once-almighty United States.
There appeared to be no “end to history” at all, as Francis Fukuyama put it, the dominant idea in the American world these past three decades. On the contrary, history was being rewritten. This occurred primarily by “worlds” that – however different – each had to process a shameful past and accompanying feelings of shame: Russia, China, Islamic dictatorships, as well as Europe. Where shame roams, aggression wanders in its wake. Clearly, the demise of US’ superiority has been perceived as such: hence the success – in the US – of the slogan “Make America Great Again”.
In this “rewritten” history, Europe lacks the power to assert a robust autonomy. It will have to settle for a less attractive – ideally and ideologically – but practically feasible option for survival. It will have to take the lesser of two evils and remember Thomas Friedman’s wise words (quoted above), which are applicable to his own nation just as well.
8 Responses
The United States has simply learned some lessons in the past thirty-five years, unlearnable in the heady periods previous. The superiority of our system to creatively re-evaluate and push forward could not be better illustrated than by the tragectory of Trump’s ascent.
This article’s assertions that –
1. MAGA is about “shame;”
2. That President Trump’s aggressive stance toward generally two-faced and almost useless European “allies” is also about “shame;”
3. That current American foreign policy is about the humiliation of the United States since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-
– are totally mistaken and bizarre.
These bizarre fantastical assertions suggest a European worldview that is completely out-of-touch with reality, and in complete denial about how post-WW2 institutions such as UN and NATO were constructed for the specific benefit of Europe at the expense of the United States.
The decision by the US president to no longer accept this state of affairs has nothing whatever to do with “shame” but is rather about ending a purposely built skewed and unfair international system in existence since 1945 whose sole purpose was/is the reduction of American influence in Europe and elsewhere, and the facilitation of fantasy globalist, jacobin, neo-communist ideas and institutions.
Too many analysts, such as this author, apparently prefer to ignore obvious signals and statements made by American leaders that explain, in the simplest of terms, the reasons and motives of why certain things are happening.
It’s much easier to sit in one’s office in some failed “institution” trying to “figure out” the motives of American leaders rather than simply listening to what they say and reading what they write on these same matters.
Would the author suggest that the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program by the United States is somehow indicative of American “shame?”
How about the tariffs? Is President Trump aggressively tariffing two-faced “friendly” “allies” because of “shame?”
What about the effort to enforce the laws of the United States regarding illegal aliens and other foreign criminals – all the while opposed by treasonous elements of the failed Democrat terrorism supporting/globalist/race hate party? Is the apprehension and deportation of illegal foreign criminals a result of American “shame?”
Is the president’s aggressive push for acquisition of Greenland about “shame” or is it about what he said it was about: the United States must have it for its national security before China or Russia gets it for their aggressive/hostile plans? Should Russia or China get it, Europe is directly threatened; should the United States have it, Europe’s security is increased. Regardless, two-faced European “friends” and “allies” will not agree, and play to their own frustrated and shamed polities.
Perhaps the author is right, in a sense. The matter of current American foreign relations isn’t about “shame” at all, but Western European globalist intransigence and “friendship” is.
@Not-a-Deathocrat / Thank you for your challenging response. To start, let me be clear about what “shame” means: an accumulation of painful humiliations that are inevitably accompanied by the fear of even more despicable experiences. Humiliations can take all sorts of forms, of course. The US has suffered numerous ones over the past three or four decades. In part, these humiliations were also incurred through its own ill-considered actions, however, on the other hand, the growth of China’s threatening power can hardly be attributed to US failure.
Shame is a substantially different emotional experience than guilt. Guilt is the feeling where you wonder what harm your actions have done or caused to someone else. In short, with shame we direct thought at ourselves: what does the other person (or country) do to us or does the other person threaten to do to us to cause serious pain through humiliation?
You yourself provide good examples of US actions aimed at preventing further experiences of humiliation, such as invading Venezuela, supporting Israel against Shiite-Islamic terror, claiming Greenland, and attempting to sway Russia to its side so it could focus on the threat from China. In effect, the US is accepting a “rewriting” of the world order and trying to find the best possible solution. It accepts the humiliations it has suffered and—powerful and mighty as it still is—is trying to recover; with head held high!
Yes, the impact of the US (aggressively) channelling its shame is humiliating for Europe. The countries involved are—with a certain right—being reprimanded and sidelined by the US —how humiliating!—and even more humiliation threatens. With these shameful experiences, Europe doesn’t know how to act properly towards the US. Friedman’s quote offers a helpful clue.
“Thomas Friedman’s wise words”
What? No one who knows anything listens to him.
“In this “rewritten” history, Europe lacks the power to assert a robust autonomy. It will have to settle for a less attractive – ideally and ideologically – but practically feasible option for survival.”
Europe is just another Muslim garbage dump with the exception of some countries of Eastern Europe,
@John Galt III
Although I’m someone who knows a thing or two, I still heed Friedman’s words. Europe, too, should listen and act accordingly. Western European countries have primarily criticized the United States in recent decades, even though the latter, among other things, guaranteed the security of those countries. The United States has been a major source of European countries’ support in numerous ways. Nevertheless, for many an inhabitant, including numerous politicians, of Europe the US was above all a scapegoat, a punching bag to hit out at.
This criticism was fiercely voiced when Donald Trump served his first term as president and would only intensify. There was nothing right about the man, and even less about his actions as president. For example, some European countries preferred to side with ‘Palestinians’, i.e. Hamas (and thus Iran) rather than actively support the United States and Israel. Regarding the invasion of Venezuela, most European countries have nothing more to say than that it violates international law. How the threat taking shape and substance in this Latin-American country should have been addressed remains unsaid. Trump’s warning—strongly worded by Vice President Vance—to vigorously confront Muslim immigration is barely heeded, even though it poses a tangible threat (you phrased it somewhat differently).
In short, if Europe wants to continue to get along with Trump and his associates, European countries should support him more purposefully and thus—mindful of Friedman’s words—nurture (‘tap into’) his, and above all, his country’s, dignity, which is so often vilified.
Aart,
If I am not mistaken, I think I interviewed you in Willemstad around 2001 when I was researching my book on Papiamentu (The Story of Papiamentu-A Study in Slavery and Language). I learned to read Dutch for my research and now can even speak it fairly well.
I also submit articles to New English Review on various issues.
I hope you are well.
@Gary Fouse
Wat een verrassing. Ja, inderdaad, we ontmoetten elkaar in Willemstad, Curaçao, in 2001. You read and speak Dutch – great; for those who don’t:
What a surprise. Yes, indeed, we met in Willemstad, Curaçao, in 2001 (I don’t remember the year, you do, fortunately – am I aging?). The conversation concerned the Creole language, Papiamentu, of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao, islands in the Dutch Caribbean. We didn’t speak then – I think – about what preoccupied me even then and still does: the aggressive scope of shame.
Colonial relations create many experiences of shame, particularly among the descendants of slaves. However, there have been many impressive efforts to “channel” these experiences, to strengthen damaged self-esteem. This occurred primarily in Papiamentu. My interest in that language and in the phenomenon of shame thus converge and connect my work as a literary scholar and sociologist. Naturally, the topic also draws me far beyond the islands, because “shame” is a universal human phenomenon; hence this contribution.
We will continue our conversation outside this public window. Thank you for reaching out.
I don’t think shame, however redefined, is right. Given the same set of points, “frustration” seems more accurate, though it sounds a tad weak the way conventionally used. “Existential Frustration”, perhaps.
Americans deeply and fundamentally believe in a kind of perfection, a kind of utopia, however much their ideas contrast to more conventional, direct ideas of utopia that European intellectuals have concocted.
They believe that History has an end. They believe in the perfect model of politics, government, society, economy, morals. And that they have it. They believe that all God’s chilluns wanna be free, as defined by them. They believe there can be forever peace if we all just get it right and agree to just free trade everything. They believe that people are the same everywhere. They believe anyone can do anything with hard work and gumption. These are true statements of their beliefs even if they argue at the margins or within [relative to history] narrow frameworks, even of their arguments about the role of genetics versus environment. They are optimists, even their pessimists.
They believe that they, at home and abroad, can be safe, and that any small degree of not-safe is a sign the world is not right and they must correct. They need not just prepare and live with threats as others do.
None of those beliefs are true, ever were true, or ever will be true.
I admit that it is nice that they exist, are powerful, and believe these things, because even as radicals they are the only defence of conservative things remaining, even as utopians they are the only defence against worse utopias, even as a superpower that has aimed at globalization by inventing the UN and modern world trade they are the only defence left for nations, because by partly exempting themselves from the rules they invented they leave space for others to at least pretend to be nations.
Long may they be on top. There is no possible replacement. Even as Trump appears to move them toward being a more conventional power, let us remain engaged on friendly terms as best we can. There is no alternative.