Reflections of a stormy petrel

I KNOW that if my parents' ancestors did not emigrate here, we would still be stuck in some feudal socialist nightmare. (My grandmother once kissed the ground of the airport after returning here from Europe.) As much as I love Europe, the more I know about it, the more it repels me. From my studies about France, in particular, the kind of secularist intellectual snobs that make up its socialist oligarchy (in a country pretending to be a republic) is appalling. For some, there will never be a chance for social mobility. The way that France looks down un us Americans as silly religious-and-yet-ironically-selfish-morons is the worst kind of elitism (considering the lives that we sacrificed on their behalf in Normandy).
Yes, perhaps the U.S. is an ultra-invididualist nation. But if this is true, Europe is the complete opposite, and what abuses result from this socially-ingrained hierarchy! Clearly, the European system of divine right and an unmoveable caste system of master-servantry didn't work for the millions that fled to America seeking a better life. Yes, Americans are extremely proud, but they have reason to be. We "make it" because we work for what we have, because some imperialist government isn't demanding half of our income as punishment for this. We Americans can be horribly materialistic, I will admit, but we are a people that don't forget where we come from. We are some of the most generous people in the world, and frankly, the only reason we seem to fund and participate in the joke that is the United Nations is out of pity for certain nations that would otherwise be abused by first-world European countries (cough Oil for Food). Did you know that privately (meaning, without the force of the government) Americans have given $34 billion to international funds?
The fact is, at least we have the freedom to choose ultra-individualism. And, believe it or not, most of us do not choose this extreme. However, we do pride ourselves on not being ridicuously dependent on mismanaged and abusive governments.
European superiority? Perhaps in art and "culture" (which is seemingly replaced by the worst kind of moral relativism), but certainly not in the "quality of life" category. I think European snobbery (especially when manifested in governments) is far worse than American individualism.

From:

I'm afraid we are not going to agree about this. You do not know very much about Europe and what you know is distorted by American political passions. Your views would have surprised - and not pleased - your Maltese relatives, and do not reflect a clear understanding of class relationships within the US (I suggest you find out how many Senators, REpresentatives, Governors and other Top People have been to Ivy League universities, before you get too excited about American egalitarianism). And I repeat that any country where Ayn Rand is taken seriously as a thinker by a significant part of the politically active population is not in a healthy intellectual state. My next post is going to be the assessment of this woman by an American hero - Whittaker Chambers - and you can answer him back. I assure you that what he has to say is going to make me sound moderate.

From:

Likewise, your typical anti-American snobbery makes you quite unequipped to pass objective judgment on the U.S. Especially as you believe that we all sit around and rave about Ayn Rand (I have yet to meet someone who agrees with her wholeheartedly, including my very capitalist father, who considers her views too extreme). I hope you don't get most of your info regarding America from the extremely unbiased BBC news.
By the way, my assessment of Europe did not include Malta, whom I found to be refreshingly supportive of the U.S. (or perhaps they were just all exceedingly polite). Most of them expressed reluctant support of the E.U. (which they were to join in one month).
Then again, I am JUST the young product of American indoctrination and ignorance. Each member of my family weighs 300 pounds, and all we do is sit around eating and watching American football, wearing our cowboy hats, of course.
I know that you are much older than me, more cosmopolitan (on the basis of living in Europe), and probably more educated. You might want to consider that perhaps you are having so many fights with people not because of simple stupidity on their part, but condescending snobbery on yours.

From:

I regret extremely that you have seen fit to take this attitude - on Christmas Eve, yet. I do not know where I have said or even implied any of the nonsense you ascribe to me. And when it comes to picking fights, does it not occur to you that "watch what you say about the US" is not exactly a peace proposal? I take the right of any free man (my fathers took their freedom with their hands and blood, from the wars of 1848 to the insurrection of 1945 and the execution of Mussolini) to say whatever I think right about any country. If two sentences about the enduring influence of someone you do not seem willing to defend are enough to send you into a tizzy, then I think you are rather too sensitive yourself.

From:

This has nothing to do with Ayn Rand, of whom I have little knowledge. I could care less about her. This has to do with comments made in this entry and previous entries (to which I restrained from commenting) that serve to maintain an unfounded negative stereotype of America and Americans. Perhaps I am projecting my frustration toward Europe on you, for which I apologize. However, you have proven to be yet another example of unwarranted anti-Americanism, which I am quite fed up with. Considering what this country has had to put up with from brutal beasts intent on killing us (including our children), the least we can receive is an absence of sneering snobbery from Western Europe. furthermore, I am told by my professors that this hate toward America is justified solely by our economic prosperity and status as a superpower! We may have major faults in the realm of international relations, but the opportunities afforded to its citizens are unrivaled.
Why would you call America without culture? We are a nation of many cultures. We build museums, opera houses, and theaters to celebrate different cultures. We may celebrate the "almighty dollar," but we use these dollars to fill collection plates at churches, to fund missionary trips to Africa, to support poor children in Eastern Europe.
Why do I laud Tony Blair, knowing that we agree on very little? Because he seems to be one of the only Europeans to actually support the U.S (and I am not merely speaking of the war in Iraq). How difficult it is for me to understand why the same countries we love to visit and whose citizens we love to meet have nothing but contempt for us in almost all respects!
Yes, you have the perfect right to criticize the U.S. Go ahead, and God forbid that I would stop you in any way. Know that for this American, to my regret, you are simply filling a dreaded stereotype of European anti-americanism. Above all of the news reports, university classes, etc., I just don't want to see/hear another example of it.

From:

If your professors are actually telling you, abusing their responsibility as educators, that the only reason why anyone (let alone European countries that are, on average, MORE prosperous than the US - check your facts before you speak) should take an anti-US position is "envy", they ought to be sacked: they are not fit for their jobs. The reasons for disliking specific features of American society are many and various. I am personally quite sympathetic with the Catholic wing of the American conservative spectrum, and regularly read such magazines as FIRST THINGS, CRISIS, THE WANDERER, CULTURE WARS and so on. I regard, however, with intense distaste the non-religious right, where I believe Rand and Objectivism to be major influences. As for her abiding presence in American culture, you should check various "favourite books" or "favourite scenes" threads in Fiction Alley, where you would find several people quoting her directly.
My view of American culture is largely positive, and if you had ASKED me instead of loading me with expletives and unwarranted hypotheses, I would have told you so. I believe that in many areas, Americans have been among the finest figures in the twentieth century (no other country, for instance, boasts an architect remotely to be compared with Frank Lloyd Wright), and that in popular culture throughout the world American influence has been and remains, in the main, benignant and enlivening. (I exclude most Hollywood "action" movies.) From Bruce Springsteen to Jack Kirby, most of my artistic heroes of the recent past are American, and I have just added Garth Brooks to the number after being introduced to his music by Jennilee.
It so happens, Stephanie, that I like you, too. Which is why I have not taken your head off about your various misrepresentations and general defensiveness and arrogance. But Ayn Rand is a peculiarly American phenomenon; it is a poisonous phenomenon; and whether or not you personally are protected from her influence by the fact of your family being Catholic, her influence is unfortunately still with us. If I had had to criticize Italian or British culture and politics - which you know perfectly well I do freely - I would have regarded any appeal to patriotism or whatever as a pure red herring. Patriotism does not defend what is bad in one's country, rather it is the first to criticize it. (Patriotism is one thing I have written about: http://www.livejournal.com/users/fpb/22050.html)

I would really like this to be over now. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

From:

If this is true, then, I sincerely beg your pardon.

Sometimes I get quiet overwraught when it starts to feel as if all conflicts boil down to the United States versus the rest of the world.

Anyway, have a happy Christmas in lovely Italy.

From:

chthonya

I hope you'll forgive me for commenting on this; I read FPB's post and your reply before heading home for Christmas, and it's been occupying my thoughts for the last few days. I'm responding not because I wish to raise the temperature again (I don't) but because you appear to be making some assumptions that weren't addressed in the exchange above.

Fundamentally, you seem to be confusing socialism and feudalism. Feudalism requires a 'socially-ingrained hierarchy' in its allocation of land and the obligations associated with it; socialism rejects the idea that resources should be allocated on the basis of class and rests on the principle that each individual has an equal right to a decent life, and it aims to realise this through some sort of social control of resources. (This is not to say that in practice, some people may not have benefitted more from a benevolent feudal landlord than the bureaucracies spawned by so-called 'socialist' countries, but under feudalism such benevolence would be largely up to the individual landlord rather than being inherent in the system.)

Personally I think that feudalism bears more of a relationship to a capitalist economy so far as an employee still contracts to exchange labour for resources (albeit money rather than land) with associated obligations on both sides. Of course, we now have the freedom to change the entitity to which we are contracted, but the economic power wielded by employers still impacts on the freedom of individuals, and the overall focus of the economy is still on something larger than the individual (usually 'the economy' itself, where it used to explicitly be the upper classes) rather than on meeting the needs of the people. But whether you agree with that or not, the point still stands that those supporting a social role for government do not do so because the Government is regarded as a deserving and wise elite, but because they do not believe that aggregated private decisions will give the best results overall. There are some issues that many people feel to be best and most consistently addressed by some form of central organisation, and taxes are paid to facilitate this, not as a 'punishment'.

For the record, I don't personally believe that decisions should be made collectively where they do not need to be (though I never fail to be amazed by people who decry 'big government' but love 'big business' - I'd far rather see decisions made by those who are electorally accountable and not legally mandated to seek financial profit at all costs). But while the market is efficient and effective in some areas, I do believe that there are areas where collective action is either more efficient (e.g. defence - I wouldn't be too confident in a system that was restricted to equipment that could be afforded by individual households and had no central co-ordination - and education, because restricting education based on ability to pay results in a less educated and less productive workforce, and prevents some individuals from reaching their fullest potential) or essential (e.g. national, regional and global environmental issues, because the sources of problems are often spread wider than individual jurisdictions, and the impacts are expensive for everyone and usually borne collectively).

From:

chthonya

(Sorry for replying at such length that LJ made me post in two stages! Here's my reply to some specific points you made:)

We "make it" because we work for what we have

As do we, although in Europe we don't work quite as much because respect for family life is manifested practically in longer holidays and a restriction on involuntary working hours. And there are many different ways of organising work; co-operative structures can result in successful businesses that offer more freedom, equality and customer focus than an ultra-individualistic ethos.

One fundamental difference between Europe and North America that underlies American individualism is population density. It's easy to get the impression that individual success is primarily down to individual effort when there are enough natural resources to meet everyone's expectations, or where national identity is based on a history in which self-sufficient people could provide for their families by moving west ~~and displacing existing inhabitants~~ into empty land. In Europe such a proposition is simply not practical: either the 'have nots' lower their expectation, or we work together for efficient and fair management of resources. Without access to 'the means of production' it's damn hard to 'make it', however hard one works.

The fact is, at least we have the freedom to choose ultra-individualism.

In the voting booth that's true. It's more debatable if we desire a safe and free and prosperous society in the future: unless population densities are very low relative to resources, exercising individual freedom almost inevitably impacts on someone else's freedom.

European superiority? Perhaps in art and "culture" (which is seemingly replaced by the worst kind of moral relativism), but certainly not in the "quality of life" category.

That very much depends on what you mean by 'quality of life'.

The average quality of US healthcare (for those with insurance) may be better than the average quality here, but my quality of life is increased by my freedom from the worry that I or my (hypothetical) family will be denied access to it if I lose my job.

Being able to walk wherever I like in my city with a low fear of violence is a definite boost to life quality - this was brought home to me when a visiting American friend panicked at the sound of fireworks because she assumed it was gunfire.

An average suburban American will likely have a bigger house than a suburban European - but that is again down to lower population density. There simply wouldn't be space for us all to have large properties, so working harder can't expand the land available but merely pushes up the prices of the existing land. We could of course sacrifice more rural land for housing, but the loss of recreational space would decrease quality of life in that area.

Conversely, geography works in our favour when it means that more of us are within easy reach of cultural facilities - the US certainly has excellent theatres, orchestras etc, but they are harder to access if it takes a couple of days drive to get to them, rather than a couple of hours on a train.

But please don't think that I'm claiming that Europe is 'superior' - I don't think superiority is a useful or safe concept to apply to nations. There are aspects of cultures on both sides of the Atlantic that are particular to that country's history and geography and not transferable, just as there are aspects of both that are not very practical in the context of globalisation - but there have been great achievements on both sides, and in my opinion much benefit to be had by discussing and understanding the differences.

I think European snobbery (especially when manifested in governments) is far worse than American individualism.

I'm not keen on snobbery myself, but I'm curious about why you think it is worse. In what respect?

From:

Would anyone believe that all this has been unleashed by a few contemptous sentences of mine about Ayn Rand, an author whom all of us (Chthonya, The Preciouss, Private Maladict and I) uniformly dislike?

From:

I can't contribute much to the Europe vs US argument, since I've never been to the US, only been to parts of Europe as a child/teenager, and am quite happily living on the other side of the world.

But who is this Ayn Rand? I've never heard of her, and I'm curious, if only to poke fun at the silly people who follow such notions as "altruism is the root of all evil". Unfortunately, I know at least one or two individuals who would salute this sort of thing. (If you met them, you'd want to tear them to pieces. Anything stupid/offensive that I've ever said will pale in comaprison to the stuff they spurt.)

From:

As I said... Watch for my next post. And I am afraid that the individuals you refer to are probably Rand followers, either directly or through some of her disciples. The saddest part of it is how her views have poisoned the work of at least two artists of great talent, Sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein and comics writer-artist Steve Ditko (who created Spider-Man). I sometimes think I can perceive her influence in what little I have read of Philip Pullman, although he would never admit it.

From:

Hmmm... well, I wouldn't know about Phillip Pullman, and... no, I'm not getting into this argument again. ;) I still like his books. And NOT because of their anti-religious message. And that's all I'm going to say.

Personally, I doubt if the people I'm talking about are Rand followers. There's enough stupidity in this world coming from a variety of sources, that they have plenty to choose from. One is a huge follower of "Black Metal" - a music style which most would hesistate to actually call music, and whose songs/bands/albums feature such beautiful names as "Kill the Christian" and "Nokturnal Goat Sodomy". I once reluctantly allowed myself to be dragged to this guy's concert, and was treated to an hour-and-a-half speactacle of drinking pig's blood, playing awful music and ripping up Bibles (how original). When I've seen something like that, I think you might forgive me for thinking that Phillip Pullman is really quite tame by comparison.

From:

Just wanted to add - it's possible this Ayn Rand person never penetrated to this corner of the Earth. Australia seems quite selective about with parts of American culture we pick up - some things penetrate completely, others not at all. The best example is language - I have an American beta-reader, and we are constantly finding how selective the language is. Some words, for which he expects we'd use the British version, have been completely Americanised, whereas others have stayed strictly British. Others, of course, are uniquely Australian, and still others are interchangeable.

Now I'm going to look up Ayn Rand, just out of curiousity.

From:

That's an interesting remark about the selectivity of Australian word-choices. You could write an essay on that. As for Rand, I view her as a pathological phenomenon, and one that is only really relevant to America, so I have little trouble in believing that her views never crossed the Pacific. She is, however, important in understanding the non-religious areas of the American Right, which I personally find more threatening than the religious ones.

From:

Well, we came across one just today - "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Christmas". Am I right in thinking that in England, people mostly say "Happy Christmas"? My beta thought that'd be the norm for Australians as well, but it's not. We say "Merry Christmas". But there are heaps of things. We've had a few clashes over punctuation - punctuation! All these little rules that differ just slightly.

From:

chthonya

(Hope neither of you mind me answering this... in my experience it's usually 'Merry Christmas' and 'Happy New Year'. 'Happy Christmas' isn't unheard of, but sounds a little unnatural to my ears.

Anyhow, I hope yours was Happy, Merry, and whatever else you might wish for!)

From:

I thought so too, but, not being native-born English, that sudden question had just sent me into a tizzy. After all, I might have been getting it wrong all these years....
Glad to hear from you, C, and the same to you, along with many decades of rude health!

From:

I fail to see the difference. One is rabble-rousing, one intellectualoid. Comes to the same thing - Christiani ad leones!. AT any rate this was not my point, except for the fact that Rand is as anti-Christian as Pullman and has a similarly idolatrous worship for her brand of human reason.

From:

We-ell... Okay, bear with me for a moment. Please? From my basic reading of the Rand websites, her main point seems to be that self-sacrifice is pointless, that altruism is a ridiculous notion enforced by religious doctrines. Right so far? Well, whatever else Pullman writes, that certainly doesn't seem to be his message. Asrael and Mrs Coulter sacrifice themselves for Lyra, Lyra and Will sacrifice themselves - or their chance to be together - for the world, for the countless others who will suffer if they leave a window open between the worlds. Just a basic example.

Look, I could be missing something. In fact, given how little I know about Rand, I probably am.

From:

Don't be scared. You like the sod. I don't. You're not the only person I know who likes some writer or other I consider execrable or even dangerous. Doesn't mean that you have to go all trembly every time you defend him. (Especially since the Dan Brown phenomenon has made me reconsider Pullman's relative importance.) Merry Christmas and happy New Year!

From:

Well, you know what they say. The burnt hand teaches best, or something like that. :)

Now Dan Brown I can happily diss, though probably for different reasons to you. I find his plots predictable, his characters boring and his importance blown completely out of proportion. Having said that, I actually did enjoy "The Da Vinci Code". Something about it just kept me reading. But it's only good as a sort of mindless entertainment, like an action movie. Well, at least it made me look more carefully at some of the artworks he mentions. That's something, I guess.

Merry Christmas to you, too. Or is it "Happy Christmas"?

From: (Anonymous)

Amazing. There IS one thing we might actually agree on--that Ayn Rand and her followers are both deluded and obnoxious.

From: