Anti-Americanism is One ‘Ism’ That Thrives

Most political "isms" are dead or moribund or past their prime: "totalitarianism," "communism," "socialism," "Marxism," "fascism." Humanity paid too high a price for them in the 20th century, or simply discarded them, and moved on.

Sure, there's a communist government in China, and a lot of humanity lives there. But free-market communism makes as much sense as a multiparty dictatorship. One day this, too, will pass.

With the demise of the other "isms," another has gained prominence, to the point where it's the most virulent global political idea. I refer to "Anti-Americanism," an idea espoused and pondered the world over, a kind of background drone from Brazil to Bahrain.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to "anti-Americanisms." The condition takes many forms.

There is radical anti-Americanism, most virulent these days in its jihadist Islamic form. That's not to be confused with radical-chic anti-Americanism of the globalization-is-evil variety, embraced by Subcommandante Marcos and his oddball Mexican guerrillas.

Another genre is social anti-Americanism, most prominent in Europe, an attitude characterized by angry contempt for a supposedly cruel U.S. capitalism, as contrasted with the Europe's universal health insurance and comfy cushioning for the unemployed.

"The political anti-Americanism of my generation in Germany in the 1960s has given way to a social anti-Americanism, which I provocatively call Social Nationalism," said Alan Posener, a columnist for the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag. "It's a rejection of the American social model in favor of the German and European."

Posener was speaking at a recent conference on anti-Americanism at Princeton University. To illustrate his point, he displayed the May cover of Metall, the monthly magazine of the powerful German labor union, IG Metall.

Entitled "The Bloodsucker," the cover shows a long-nosed, gold-toothed, insect-businessman doffing a Stars-and-Stripes top hat. The tip of the giant nose points to these words: "U.S. firms in Germany."

Germans should be more careful with representations of gold-toothed, long-nosed, avaricious bloodsuckers. That kind of thing got them into trouble before, and we know what happened to the gold teeth. But that's another subject.

On the anti-Americanism register, there is also sovereign or nationalist or regional anti-Americanism, whether of the die-hard North Korean variety, or that of a rising China determined to extend its influence, or even that produced by the European Union's uncertain identity politics.

"The big 'O,' or the big other, can be very useful," said Jan-Werner Mueller, a Princeton political scientist. "There's a school of thinking that says if we are building a European identity, we have to build it against something."

And what better to be against today than America, the hyperpower, the elephant on the world stage, the inescapable country that some Americans call the indispensable nation?

What better way to express angst and unease than to rail against the state that will not mind its own business?

Yes, there is a further category of anti-Americanism that blends something of all the others. Call it "catchall anti-Americanism."

If you don't like the market, blame America. If you don't like modernity, blame America. If you fear open borders, blame America. After all, it must be this restless country that has created such a restless world.

There is perhaps more logic to this position than the grumpiness behind it might suggest. After all, U.S. technology and the unceasing push of U.S. corporations for bigger markets have done much to advance the process called globalization.

This process has benefited hundreds of millions of people. But it has left even larger numbers where they always were, in poverty.

To those that globalization has not helped, globalization looks ugly. It makes the rich, who whisk their capital around the world, richer. It makes the poor, who have no capital to whisk, poorer. It is like a big club requiring a password. If you've acquired the password, fine. But if you're looking on, you may not like what you see.

In modern times, the angry have always needed an "ism" to express and channel ire. Today, nothing better than "anti-Americanism" presents itself. As Mueller noted: "In the 1920s and 1930s, you had many more 'isms' to express your discontentment." But what does all this anti-Americanism amount to? Is it more than hot air? Is it damaging to the United States? And if so, how?

Research led by Robert Keohane, a professor of international affairs at Princeton, suggests that there has been no real impact since 2001 on major U.S. corporations including Coca-Cola, Nike, Pepsi and McDonald's, whose European sales have continued to climb, often at a faster rate than their European competitors. He said "Mr. Big" was not suffering measurable damage.

Anti-Americanism, it seems, often stops where it might hurt: people like to inveigh against the United States but then go on buying the same brands and looking for means to send their kids to be educated here. This pervasive "ism" may be more affectation or attitude than ideology.

Keohane also argued it's essential to distinguish between ingrained "Anti-Americanism," a form of prejudice, and the kinds of anger against America that may be no more than a passing _expression of dissent toward President George W. Bush and his war in Iraq.

But he conceded that, "The problem is, it's sometimes hard to distinguish opinion from bias."

For example, did the French and German decisions not to back America in Iraq simply reflect a policy disagreement, or were the French and German leaders aware they could play to a growing anti-Americanism and so boost their standing?

I suspect anti-Americanism lurked in the brew somewhere - and this is a form that damages America. The picture in Iraq would be very different with two major NATO allies, the French and German armies, at America's side.

A lot of anti-Americanisms are innocuous enough. But some are not. Because if America withdrew from the world, as many people profess to wish, the result would be greater instability and danger - and perhaps a wave of another "ism," revisionism.