Are we the chosen ones?

There is (and has been) a sense of American destiny. The sense that this country is the one and only model for enlightened government, culture and all else. Whether it is the "Shining City on a Hill", "Manifest Destiny" or the more current scents of American imperialism, there is a deeply held belief among much of the American population that we are the example for the rest of the world to follow.

I'm not going to enumerate the ways that world culture can influence this country for the better. Frankly, to me, when it comes to matters of culture, the more the better. Be it music, food, movies or other forms of art, I think the mixing different cultures inevitably create more than the sums of their parts. So, let me put paid to American cultural imperialism once and for all. It is in our best interest to revel in the various world cultures that reach our shores, not to try and override them with mass produced generic Americana.

Now, as for political and economic destiny . . . there is a question. Is corporate capitalism the best economic model for everyone? Is representative democracy the best governmental model for everyone? These are tough questions made tougher still by my lack of in-depth understanding of various world cultures where these questions are more open for debate than others.

As for me, here is what I think. Corporate capitalism is not the best economic model for everyone. In fact, I would go so far as to say it the not the best model for much of anyone. In purer forms of capitalism, the markets exert power over the various entities participating in them. When all forces on the markets are more or less equal, the "invisible hand" works its magic and things tend to work out according to the preferences of consumers as expressed by their buying decisions. I think, though, that large corporations warp that. Perhaps the best analogue I can offer is one of gravitational theory. All bodies exert some gravitational pull. The larger the body, the greater the pull. Thus the Sun has a greater pull than Jupiter which has a greater pull than Earth and so on. Scientists demonstrate this using the idea of bends in the space-time continuum. Imagine empty space as a flat plane. Every celestial body that exists on that plane dimples it to some extent. I might make a barely noticeable dent while the Sun makes a huge one. I think enormous sums of money act in much the same way on the fabrics of markets. Mega-corporations deform the evenhandedness of markets in many ways. Examples of this are purchasing political influence, using their capital as leverage against competitors, using their money to buy prime locations and so on. When these large sums of money are used to overwhelm market obstacles, the invisible hand is tied.

Beyond this, though, there are cultural considerations to economics. The culture of America is a can-do sort of thing. Be it hardscrabble pioneers, lone cowboys, the Horatio Alger stories, or the modern multi-millionaire, we have always valued independence and self-reliance. Given that cultural motif, it is no wonder that capitalism flourished here. What then of economies not based in such a cultural tradition? Could it be that some cultures are more suited to an economic system that promotes collective effort instead of individualism? Could it be that some cultures are more suited to a more top-down ordering? I do not know - this is the sort of deep cultural knowledge I lack, but my gut tells me that this could be the case. If it is, then economic imperialism on the part of America is the wrong thing to do. It is an interesting thought, and one that I'm not sure I have the requisite cultural background to speak to. I think, though, it is worth keeping in mind as we seek to find our way in this world.

As for political destiny, I think much the same logic applies. As Americans, we are, to a large degree, shaped by our culture. As such, certain ideas are inculcated in us by our very exposure to that culture. If a person is not exposed to that same culture, can we assume that they may have different ways of looking at the world? That their idea of good government might be very different from ours?

I think where I'm going with this is a sort of "Prime Directive" for American foreign policy. Politics, economics and culture are three sides of the same coin if you will (hmm, a three sided coin). Any foreign policy which fails to take in to account all three of these is a policy that is likely bad for the countries on which we apply it, but also it is likely doomed to failure as the backlash from the ignored part (usually the culture) will create tremendous dissatisfaction with the other parts. While it is possible to attempt to force a political system or an economic system onto a nation, trying to force a cultural shift has never gone well. The people of a nation have to realize for themselves what they want. The agents for change in any country must always be the citizens of that country. It is unwise in the extreme to effect change in a country from the outside - ultimately the citizenry MUST decide for themselves what they want. So, a wise foreign policy might be a "Hands Off" policy.

There are two major arguments to that. First of all, the world is a quilt of nations, and to imagine each as an independent entity without any influence on its neighbors (for good or ill) is wrong. If our neighbor starts to play with bombs in his back yard, that must cause us to respond - it would be irresponsible not to. So, at some point, the rule of self protection/preservation must overtake the "hands-off" rule. Second, what about grave violations of human rights? In cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and so on, do we not have a responsibility to act? Is there some overarching principle that says that we must intervene in cases of grave human suffering?

The answer is, to both parts, yes. I think, though, the burden must be on those who wish to intervene to prove that this intervention is necessary. It should be the policy to stand aside and let a nation's culture, economy and politics evolve under its own terms. That is the essence of freedom, to be freed from someone else's belief of how you should be.