America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism

by Anatol Lieven

Originally published over half a decade ago, Anatol Lieven's America Right or Wrong has become a classic analysis of the special character of American nationalism. As he demonstrated, America's foreign policy response to the 9/11 attacks flowed directly from a nationalistic tradition that was two centuries in the making. Within that nationalism, Lieven identified two strands. The first was the "American thesis," a civic nationalism based on the democratic values of what has been called the "American Creed." These values are held to be universal, and anyone can become an American by adopting them. The other tradition, the "American antithesis" is a populist and often chauvinist nationalism, which tends to see America as a closed national culture and civilization threatened by a hostile and barbarous outside world. Much has changed since 9/11. The American public has turned inward in the wake of the Great Recession, but interestingly, Lieven's fundamental analysis of American nationalism remains powerful and convincing. In this expanded new edition, he includes and in-depth analysis of the domestic component of both the American creed and the American antithesis. Barack Obama's improbable election to the presidency illustrates well the first strand. The rise of the Tea Party in response to both the financial crisis and the Obama administration's response is highly characteristic of the second strand. Lieven concentrates especially on the Tea Party's hard-edged American nationalism, which is evident in anti-immigration sentiment, hatred of Obama, and opposition to redistributive social programs that allegedly reward the unworthy. His account of Obama's election and the right-wing response to the economic collapse not only bring the story up to the present, but indicate the staying power of the book's hard-hitting thesis.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, History, United States, Americana, American

308 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Anatol Lieven currently reports from Central Europe for the Financial Times. In 1996-97 he was visiting senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. He is the author of The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence, published by Yale University Press.

Reviews

[Mazen · Rating 5 out of 5]

عسكريًا، كانت أمريكا محمية بالمحيطات؛ واقتصاديًا، كانت محمية بالقوة الهائلة والمسيطرة للاقتصاد الأمريكي. من هنا جاءت هذه التركيبة الفريدة من القوة والحضور الكلي في كل زمان ومكان، إلى جانب المثالية، والبراءة، والجهل فيما يتعلق ببقية البشرية. هذه الحال السعيدة لم تعد قائمة. يكمن تشكل وعي الطبقة الوسطى الأمريكية بعظمة بلدهم وقدرها العظيم منذ هجرة المسيحيين البروتستانت لتلك الأراضي البعيدة، وبناء تلك الرأسمالية الأخلاقية التي ضمنت لكل كادح أجرًا طيبًا وحياة سعيدة طالما يعمل ويذهب للكنيسة. ولهذا، تحتوي أمريكا على أغرب تناقض لبلد حديث؛ فهي من جهة دولة حداثية بكل ما تحمله الكلمة من معنى، وفي نفس الوقت مبنية على اعتقادات رجعية دينية شديدة، منها قدر العالم، وإسرائيل الجديدة، والمهمة المسيحانية لاستعمار الأرض وإخراج الكفار إلى نور المسيح. تكمن تلك المشكلة في أن الطبقات الوسطى لطالما أعطت صوتها للجناح اليميني مع أي تأزم اقتصادي، ضمانًا للاحتماء بالرجعية في مواجهة أي تغير في نمط العيش. وما كان اليمين الأمريكي الجمهوري إلا أنه زاد من المشكلة الاقتصادية لتلك الطبقات العاملة وأمنهم المعيشي عن طريق رفع الدعم المقدم للدولة فيما يتعلق بالمعاشات أو الرعاية الصحية. ولذلك، يمكن اعتبار أن الهزائم التي مرت بها الطبقة الوسطى العاملة الأمريكية، التي لم تنل تعليمًا جامعيًا عاليًا، في كل من الحرب الأهلية الأمريكية، وفيتنام، والكساد الكبير، ومؤخرًا في التدهور المعيشي ونهاية الحلم الأمريكي السعيد منذ الاثنين الأسود في الثمانينيات، هو المحرك الرئيسي والعصبي لحالة الشوفينية والرهاب من كل ما هو غريب، يساري، أوروبي، ومهاجر لأرضهم. تلك الطبقة البيضاء التي شنت حملات عنصرية على بعضها البعض قديمًا، وعدم قبولهم للإيرلندي الكاثوليكي أو الألماني في مطلع القرن العشرين، يشعرون بالتهديد الحقيقي لنمط معيشتهم مع تزايد تلك الضغوط.

أشار الكاتب أيضًا إلى كيفية تكون الصقور الأمريكية، دعاة الحرب، الذين ولدوا إبان الحرب الأمريكية في الهند الصينية، وكيف شعروا بالهزيمة المنكرة في فيتنام، ومحاولة التخلص من هذا الأثر في الخيال الشعبي الأمريكي. وبدايتهم لمركز PNAC الذي يذخر بأشد المتعصبين لأمريكا كرائدة للعالم الحر بعيدًا عن أوروبا قليلة الرجولة، أو الصين الشيوعية، أو الشرق الأوسط الإرهابي البائس. وتبين لهذا المركز أن الشعب الأمريكي يعيش في بلد لا يصنفها على أنها إمبراطورية حقًا، وأنه لا يريد أن ينخرط في حروب مكوكية. على الرغم من استغلال حدث 11 سبتمبر من قبل هؤلاء الصقور للإجهاز على العراق، إلا أن تلك الحرب فقدت زخمها بعد سنتين فقط من قيامها. وكذلك الانسحاب المهين من أفغانستان واستهجان الأمريكيين من تلك الحربين بعد عقد من الزمان. فشلت كذلك حملات التجنيد الواسعة في ملء احتياطي الجنود الأمريكي لتلك الحرب. ولهذا، يعتقد الكاتب أن تطوير رامسفيلد وتشيني لنظام ردع صاروخي وقوات خفيفة الحركة، لإيمانهم العميق باستحالة التورط في مستنقعات مثل تلك مرة أخرى، يواجه أمريكا لحظة فارقة بسبب التغيرات الاقتصادية التي تمر بها، خصوصًا بعد أموَلة اقتصادها وتهميش قطاع التصنيع الواسع الذي ازدهر في أربعينيات القرن الماضي. فعندما واجه الألمان نفس التهديد في القرن الماضي، صوتوا للنازيين. ونواجه الآن صعود اليمين الفاشي العنصري في أوروبا في محاولة للطبقة الوسطى للحفاظ على نمط عيشها الذي سيتغير لا محالة ما لم يتم توجيه الغضب نحو الشركات العابرة للقارات.

تتمتع أمريكا بنظام تصحيح ذاتي لا مثيل له في أي دولة في العالم تقريبًا. فالشعب الأمريكي لم يمر بتجربة الاشتراكية أو الشيوعية أو إبادة عرقية تجاه بعضه البعض كما حدث في أوروبا. لطالما لعبت الحرب الأهلية دورًا عميقًا في نفسية الطبقة البيضاء في الجنوب، إلا أنها انصاعت لرغبات الشمال الشرقي في الآخر، والآن أصبحت هي روح أمريكا الحرة التي تمثل ما يجب أن يكون عليه الأمريكي الحر. عندما تعرضت أمريكا للكساد العظيم في الثلاثينيات، انتخبوا روزفلت، واحد من أعمق الشخصيات الأمريكية، والذي قاد أمريكا 12 عامًا وسط الحرب العالمية وبرنامج الـNew Deal، والذي ضمن بقاء أمريكا على قمة العالم سنين أخرى. الشعب الأمريكي يمر بلحظة مشابهة، خصوصًا بعد انتشار التشكيك بقيمة الحلم الأمريكي نفسه، وهل من الصواب التورط في العالم كإمبراطورية والعيش كدولة منزوية في آن واحد؟ الإيمان بأمريكا حرة، ديمقراطية، ليبرالية، تقود العالم هو أحد أعمدة القومية الأمريكية، ويؤمن بهذا الديمقراطيون والجمهوريون من الحزبين. ولكن يبدو أن معادلة الحفاظ على اقتصاد أمريكا مزدهرًا بنفس الدرجة صعب، وهذا ما يعرض الطبقة الوسطى لاختبار قناعتها عن السوق الحرة والعالم الحر مرة أخرى. الكتاب جميل جدًا، خصوصًا فصله عن إسرائيل والـanti-thesis. وأعتقد أن أمريكا بدرجة من التعقيد لا يستطيع كتاب واحد الإلمام بها.

[Tommy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recently while scrolling through Instagram, I came across a flagged video of a man getting shot by his ex-wife’s boyfriend for having a fight with his ex at the aforementioned boyfriend’s porch. There was a heated argument, the boyfriend walked into the home, came out with a gun, pointed it at the ex-husband and asked him to walk away. The husband got quite offended and angry and grabbed the gun. The boyfriend snatched it right back from him and shot him, and the video cut to black. In the comment section, almost everyone was horrified by this incident. One user among them commented that if they were in the position of the boyfriend, they would have done the same thing: After all it was into the boyfriend’s home that the ex was intruding. He had every right to do what he did. To this comment there was a long list of replies: It’s people like you who are the real problem; You can’t simply dispose of a human just because they had an argument with you; If there is an issue we must work it out not shoot people. There is an attempt here, despite the fact that most replies have an accusative tone, to make sense of this attitude. For Lieven this points to not just a different attitude but an entirely different moral paradigm: a pre-modern morality that rests on honor. It is from the roots of this morality that the two faces of nationalism which Lieven calls, the thesis and antithesis, sprout.

The thesis or Civic nationalism believes in democracy, it believes in freedom, it believes in American Exceptionalism, it believes in all of the above religiously. The antithesis believes in almost all the same things and more: It believes that all of the world is against them and must not be trusted; it believes that there are dark forces at work and interprets political conundrums as a war between the warriors of light, them, and dark brooding entities, others; it believes that once a utopia existed but now they have lost it, not because of some fault of theirs but because alien entities trespassed into their world; it believes that their God, A "God of Warr"[sic], is always with them. Like all dichotomies, the line that separates these two isn't clear, both sides bleed into one another and it is the result of this bleeding, Lieven notes, that we can find moderate variants of these attitudes sometimes even within the Left. The question is what happens when this attitude seeps into Foreign Policy? What happens when the above mentioned honor based morality is applied to issues that require diplomacy and compromise? The answer is that we won’t have diplomacy anymore, since any kind of compromise will be seen as a weakness. No discourse can exist: How can it when all criticisms are shouted down as propaganda from distrustful sources? This is true for America, not just America but India too where for the ruling nationalist party all criticisms are considered propaganda and Israel where it becomes anti-Semitism and China were all criticisms are yet again Western propaganda. The object of this study is America but you can take the basic theory and apply it to any country where dominant strains of nationalism rule, Lieven does that to pre-WWII Germany and France, India, Israel and China and the results are illuminating.

This book was published in 2004, almost 18 years back, and it was a surreal experience to find that the predictions that Lieven casually made about what might happen if the antithesis bleeds in too much into the thesis had already come true. Lieven delineates a particularly interesting and wicked feedback loop of populism: One that supports capitalist free market with religious vigor only to find this same disruptive capitalism corroding what was once a safe white middle class space, and this corrosion with the resulting confusion and resentment is then explained as a destruction of western values and the Protestant family values by alien forces and the liberals. This narrative in turn riles up more populist sentiment which shouts for more free market capitalism, rejects all governmental reforms which further disrupts the protestant family values and stability, and this is blamed on wicked liberals and their evil companions. Thus continues this dramatic loop and inevitably influences even foreign policy.

“This nationalist culture, and not only public ignorance, helps to explain how the Bush administration could transfer the anger Americans felt after 9/11 to targets that had nothing to do with the attack, and why the opposition by much of the world to the Iraq War caused such an outburst of chauvinist fury in portions of the American public opinion. This capacity for chauvinist nationalism in the United States is largely to be explained by the fact that the role of defeat in the genesis of nationalism resides not only in the defeat of nations as a whole, but of classes, groups, and indeed individuals within them; the hatred and fear directed abroad by nationalism often emanates in large part from the hatreds and tensions at home, and this is strikingly true in the case of the United States.”

For these populists, Lieven particularly attacks the Tea Party enthusiasts, the constitution is a holy book. For Lieven the constitution is an admirable document that has got immense value in terms of outlining key aspects of a liberal democracy, but it isn’t a religious text. It was written by certain white men who lived during a specific historical era and had their own goals, beliefs, ideas and principles that should be read within that particular historical context.

The last two parts of the book touches on a friend and a foe: China and Israel. What China means for America and American foreign policy is quite important and, as Lieven points out, if the populist strand controls the policies then it is potentially dangerous. When you consider the fact that China isn’t simply some small middle eastern state but a rival economy, a nuclear state, and a country that harbors its own fair share of bitterness and resentment, the seriousness of the situation can be better appreciated. The recent trade war that Trump initiated with China isn’t exactly reassuring, yet Lieven is not entirely hopeless since he finds that when push comes to shove America makes pragmatic policy decisions because populism isn’t the only tune to which the policy makers have to dance but there are other factors that they have to be cognizant of. Now about the friend, Israel. This issue is quite complicated since on one side you cannot forget the gravity of the holocaust but on the other hand there are political issues and border issues for which Israel as a country has to be criticized like all countries are. Lieven adds that this very book was called anti-Semitic for putting forward criticisms of Israel despite the fact that Lieven tries his best to come to a fair conclusion, accommodating both the pros and cons of the Israel-Palestine issue. Lieven writes that the entire terrorist quagmire cannot be properly resolved unless the Israel-Palestine issue is solved. He also writes that for many terrorism is fog behind which much more concrete issues can be hid.

As I pointed out, this book was published somewhere around 2004, much has transpired since then , yet in many ways this book delineates certain patterns that we can find now and, I fear, we will keep on finding as we move forward. Towards the end Lieven isn’t outright pessimistic but a bit hopeful, but he doesn’t hang on to this hope at the expense of realism.

[Brett · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a provocative and smart book, published in 2004 and updated in 2012, that is an extended meditation on the nature of American nationalism, it's uses, and it's effects. Lieven uses the old thesis/antithesis/synthesis device, putting into conversation the idealized nationalism that sees America as a welcoming place where our nationalism leads up to support each other vs. the growing sense that nationalism is being used to exclude and other by a Republican party that seeks to use nationalist sentiment in support of its goals of deconstructing the state and pursuing racist policy.

Much of Lieven's writing feels like a precursor to our present times, and if anything he too secure in his beliefs that public feeling would constrain some of the worst impulses of conservative leaders. For instance, he writes (page 40): "Racist attitudes still remain deeply embedded in the white South and in the Republican Party. However, they have also had to become modified and coded, usually expressed through policies that are not ostensibly racist (especially regarding welfare, immigration, crime, and the 'war on drugs') rather than directly. If they had retained their old crude frankness, then it seems likely that, far from helping to make the Republicans the normal 'party of government' in the United States from 1968 to their defeat in 2008...it would have in fact turned them into pariahs and doomed them to minority status." This may or may not be accurate for the time period in question, but reading it in 2025, it feels quaint.

Lieven also places emphasis on the creation of our national myths and how they serve as a replacement for historical knowledge. I thought this was one of the better insights in the book. He says on page 61: "For America as a whole, the absence of historical knowledge does not mean ignorance, but the presence of myth." He further discusses how the American South is the only region "which history has happened to" and how the white population there processed the humiliation associated with their defeat into an enduring resentment similar to the psychological and cultural anxiety felt by defeated people in foreign countries.

Finally, there is a section at the end of the book dedicated to the phenomenon of Tea Parties, and their role in our politics circa 2010. I liked this observation: "Since it cannot be admitted that American capitalist development itself is largely responsible for hated social and cultural change, the failure of this program must necessarily be explained by the 'devil theory of politics'; the resistance of wicked forces at home and abroad, notably the 'liberal elites,' especially in media, their supposed allies in Europe, and national enemies they supposedly pamper." (page 147).

It's a book that challenges readers and rewards close reading. It's style, as you can see from the quotes, is somewhat academic but its not full of jargon or really difficult to parse. It can still be read profitably though I would very much like to see a new edition for the present age.

[Lyd · Rating 2 out of 5]

I appreciate his perspective and it gave me some food for thought, but I think Lieven steered into bias and stereotypes a little too much. I can see his points and respect his impressive scholarship/resume but we fundamentally disagreed on enough things that I couldn't get on board.

[Jeremy Hill · Rating 1 out of 5]

Anatol Lieven definitely has a different perspective, but he lets personal vendettas get in the way of actually striving for a common ground for us all to meet at so we can reduce the antithesis in his book. Even if you agree that nationalism can harm America, his book doesn’t address why nationalism harms America, but it addresses who is causing detriment to America. He has an obsession with figures like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin. He never says what is wrong with them in detail. He just says they are the embodiment of the antithesis.
He goes farther to compare the right’s devotion to the Constitution as comparable to Mao’s followers devotion to his Little Red Book. One document, the Constitution, represents freedom and the Little Red Book represents oppression. He seems to fail at understanding this concept.
He includes a quote that basically insinuates that not all countries deserve freedom and democracy. Coming from Lieven who was born in Britain, a free government, it shows his immense privilege when he says other humans aren’t inherently deserving of basic human rights and freedoms.

Overall, I would not read this book. It doesn’t even represent the rational side of liberalism. It only addresses his radicalized view and hate of the right.

[Aaron]

I think this book tempered an already shitty Saturday afternoon for me. This book takes a sociological look at why the election in 2004 went the way it did. It also offers some insight on the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden. What it means and how it was designed. I don't wanna spoil it for you.

[Nisar Hussain Mastoi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and well researched book specially last two chapters are thoughts provoking
Author explained Palestine-Israel conflict thoroughly and so-called American vision for democracy in Middle East while supporting Israel aggression, occupation and hypocrisy.

[Daniel Clemence · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent overview of American nationalism from the founding of the US until the modern day, America Right or Wrong is a fascinating critique of American Nationalism and could easily be seen as a prophecy for Donald Trump's style of Republicanism.

[Nicholas Whyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://nhw.livejournal.com/193833.html[return][return]Anatol Lieven's analysis is basically that the driving force of American politics is nationalism; that this has a good side and a bad side; and that at the moment under Bush the bad side is prevailing. I finished the book with a much better understanding of what is going on than I had before.[return][return]I found his second chapter, analysing the "splendour and tragedy of the American Creed", particularly compelling. There are some wonderful things in American political culture and history. The words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, or of Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, are moving for anyone who cares about big political ideas like freedom and equality - however flawed they may have been in implementation, the rest of the English-speaking world hasn't really come up with anything as powerful.[return][return]Writing a book that attacks the dark side of American nationalism does carry the risk of drifting into polemic, but he manages to leaven this with shafts of sympathy, compassion and even admiration for America. I found most of it utterly convincing. His last chapter, which addresses the US/Israel relationship as a special case where American nationalism has overridden any sensible policy on the Middle East ("what use is a strategic ally when you actually have to ask them not to help you in a war in a nearby country?") has made me reconsider my own thoughts on the Palestinian issue; on the whole his analysis is pretty sympathetic to Israel (though I doubt if everyone will see it that way) and he makes a good point that Israel's actions in 1948 should be judged by comparison with what Europeans were doing in Europe in 1948, rather than by later standards.

[The American Conservative]

'Of the scores of good books published in the last year about American foreign policy, the young British scholar Anatol Lieven’s America Right or Wrong stands ahead and apart. An erudite analysis of the historical and cultural strands that have forged contemporary American nationalism, it is the antidote to a view now popular among Bush administration critics: there is little wrong with American foreign policy that reducing the influence of several dozen Beltway neoconservatives would not cure. While Lieven carries no water for the neocons, he will convince many readers that if William Kristol, Richard Perle, and company had not been around after 9/11 to push a unilateralist war plan, Americans would have somehow invented them. Lieven is one of the rare authors who can change minds on a subject where opinions are firmly entrenched.'

Read the full review, "America's New Nationalism," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[Bob Duke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this to get a better handle on the Trump phenomenon. It does do this to some degree but the main focus is on US foreign policy and in particular the Middle East. Lieven argues that the US sense of nationalism is derived in large part from the protestant churches and the settlement of the frontier where religion and nationalism became intertwined. He reasons that this sense of religious mission prevents a coherent foreign policy being developed by the US and especially with respect to Israel and Palestine. This is more persuasive than much of the left critique which pushes the imperialism angle. From an imperialist perspective US support of Israel is a complete bust. Israel receives over 25% of US foreign aid for which the US is encumbered in its dealings with the Middle East. During the two wars with Iraq the US had to implore Israel to stay out lest it raise the whole Middle East against the US.

[T Bendzinski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and I think it is an enlightening look into the American political culture. Initially, I was on the defence, trying to combat Lieven's argument, but once I opened my mind I was able to get a lot out of the book. I think Americans tend to be very inward focused - not really caring how the rest of the world sees us. However, I believe we should be interested in how we are perceived in this increasingly global society, especially after 9/11.

[Jacob]

Finished this on Election Day 2008. Very smart.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Re-read of a book assigned in college.