Why Anglos Lead
By Lawrence Mead
OVER THE last few years, due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many commentators have discerned the emergence of a new American empire. Some critics blame the Bush Administration, arguing that, but for Bush, there would be no crisis over American "unilateralism" or "hegemony." Others blame the end of the Cold War for "unleashing" America on the world.

Actually, American pre-eminence extends much further back--to World War II or before. It really continues a British primacy that dated back at least to 1815. During the 20th century, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia challenged the Anglo ascendancy, but they were turned back. So today the world order bears a remarkable resemblance to the late Victorian era. Now as then, the world is globalizing, and English is its lingua franca. The United States has merely supplanted Britain as the leading power.

American primacy is not an accident of this or that administration. It reflects the special capacity of English-speaking countries to lead the world order. These "Anglo nations", or the "Anglos" as I will call them, include Britain and the chief territories that were settled initially from Britain--pre-eminently the United States but also Australia, Canada and New Zealand. What makes a country Anglo is that its original settler population came mainly from Britain. So even though a minority of Americans today have British roots, they inherit a political culture initially formed by the British. Some other countries that Britain ruled, such as India or South Africa, are not Anglo in this sense because British settlers never formed the bulk of their populations. They may be English-speaking, and their public institutions have British roots, but British culture did not form the society as it did in the Anglo countries.

The Anglo nations--singly or in concert--have taken a special responsibility for the world order. Somehow, they are available to deal with chaos and aggression abroad, as other countries usually are not. One or another of the Anglos has led all the major military operations of the last fifteen years. Besides the current Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, instances include the 1991 Gulf War, the ensuing no-fly zones over Iraq, military operations in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999, and humanitarian interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Sierra Leone and East Timor.

What explains Anglo primacy? One immediate cause is that other rich countries that might show leadership have abdicated. Following the devastating wars of the 20th century, the continental nations and Japan sought to banish war by subordinating themselves and other states to international institutions--the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. Germany and Japan even adopted legal curbs on the use of their militaries abroad or for offensive purposes. The ethos of most of the developed world now runs strongly against war, even for a good cause. Thus, in moments of military crisis, America seems "bound to lead" because no other country can do so.

But beyond this, the Anglo nations also possess, to an unusual degree, the resources needed for war--wealth, a capacity to project force, confidence in war and the deference of other countries. Other commentators have noted these assets. What I add is chiefly the argument that all these resources ultimately stem from the Anglos' political achievements: Good government at home is the ultimate reason for Anglo leadership abroad.

Wealth and Law

BRITAIN AND America came to primacy in part simply because they were the richest countries of their day. They had the wealth and the technology to build dominant militaries and sustain them. The British built a bigger and better navy than rival European powers. The United States has overwhelmed its major opponents by both quantity and quality of arms. Washington funds high-tech weapons development on a scale that no other country can approach. The Anglos also buy influence abroad. The British financed alliances against their European rivals. They exported capital overseas just as they did colonists. The United States lavishes economic and military aid on its clients.

But why are the Anglos so rich? Principally because they are comfortable with capitalism. A special propensity to "truck, barter and exchange" appeared in England even in medieval times. The English became rich by developing a larger and freer internal market than rival countries. They also had an aristocracy more open to enterprise than continental rivals, and other entrepreneurs arose outside the landed elite. Due to these assets, the Industrial Revolution appeared first in Britain. The resulting wealth largely explains Britain's hegemony during the 19th century. It took Britain's European rivals most of a century to catch it.

The United States, lacking any premodern social order, built its culture and institutions even more fully around the market economy. And where Britain was an island, the United States was a continent. The American combination of confident capitalism with massive scale is equaled nowhere else. So the United States became a powerhouse of wealth and innovation with which it seems no other country can compete.

In recent decades, it did seem that Anglo economies were losing ground to eager rivals in Europe or Asia, pre-eminently Japan. But over the last quarter-century, the Anglos have trimmed taxes and subsidies, deregulated markets, curbed trade unions, cut welfare benefits and exposed their private sectors to ruthless restructuring. The end result is that the United States remains the world's richest country, while the British have the most dynamic large economy in Europe. At the end of the 20th century, the five Anglo countries led the world in overall economic policy. Not by accident, they also rank high in military....

More at http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=F8A686FC861D4DE99CE3A08477BAF970

Ah, "The Anglo nations--singly or in concert--have taken a special responsibility for the world order.". It's the white man's burden to conquer, plunder and exploit.
See Marx for the original.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

That isn't the point of the article. It isn't about race it is about the history of cultural institutions.

B

I understand that. But the sentence I quoted implies that the anglos have taken on a morally upright and noble cause to spread capitalism around the world. Adam Smith would see thru this crock of sh** in a split second. The spread of capitalism around the world by anglos has everything to do with self interest and nothing to do with nobility.
That sentence is the justification for the Iraq war writ large.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Bod-da-bingo!!!

Since Alexander the Great conquered most of the world, the propensity of folks to follow any leader stronger than the current one was well known. That GB and later the USA brought this craft to the forefront is only an exercise in objectifying the obvious. What is less obvious is that the very social systems which capitalism espouse, serves primarily the end of capitalism rather than as a tool in any pretense of a noble goal. While capitalism is not entirely a bad thing, there is ample room for improvement. Yet were it not for capitalism the green revolution would have never happened, countless millions of folks would have starved as a result, and most medicines would not exist. You could even call capitalism the hallmark of the age of reason. The results of these accomplishments should not be trivialized as entirely evil deeds.To that end, even Marx would have never been able to write his world challenging ideology, were it not for the assistance and influence of capitalism.

Human rights is probably the newest social phenomena to begin to take foothold. The idea is not old as society goes and it is showing rapid spread, but it is still a pawn. Because of the elements mentioned above, most of the world is able to better feed and maintain the health of its human population. It will be interesting to see if “Anglo leadership” will ever put the broader arena of human rights at the forefront of cultural institutions, rather than to continue to use it as a pawn of convenience.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

When was this article written? It sounds kind of old. There is some truth in it, but it seems rather biased. Japan has been the second largest economy in the world for a long time now, and Germany has the biggest economy in Europe. And watch out for China. They have the fastest growing economy and a modernizing military that will soon make them a force to be reckoned with. History has proven that no empire lasts forever.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

You took a quote out of context to make a point that was not made by the author, thus redefining his argument to suit your own perspective.

According to the author, Adam Smith is both the result and cause of the institutions that have resulted in anglo supremacy.

Self-interest is neither noble nor ignoble. It is the natural state of all life on Earth. It is not unique to anglos nor any other pseudo-race.

Excellent.

B

There's no conflict between what I wrote and what Tracy wrote. The reason I said, see Marx for the original, is that Marx could have written the piece, minus the moral delusion sections. Marx did not deny that capitalism advanced human societies. He simply saw thru capitalist propaganda as class interested bullsh** and argued that capitalism was simply a stage in a process and the quicker we got thru it the better.
That's why I focused on the 'moral responsiblity' nonsense. The author chose that phrase instead of 'a special ability to impose their will on reluctant participants'. The difference is substantial because one sentence leaves the reader with the impression they live in a great society with no need for change, whereas the other raises troubling questions.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

"I understand that. But the sentence I quoted implies that the anglos have taken on a morally upright and noble cause to spread capitalism around the world. Adam Smith would see thru this crock of sh** in a split second. The spread of capitalism around the world by anglos has everything to do with self interest and nothing to do with nobility."

If I understand you correctly, I disagree with your interpretation as I think it is exactly the reverse of the lesson that the author has learned from his analysis. He says that it is the institutions that have evolved from accidents of location in England have in turn, bequeathed upon the English (and their derivative peoples) a unique relationship between the people, trade, and governance.

The author's argument is EXACTLY the argument that people take who say that democracy in Iraq is impossible: They don't have the historical and cultural institutions of liberal government and free trade.

A lot of good stuff here, but the jury is still way out on the green revolution. Could be it just enabled us to get more people further out on a limb. The green revolution will not do so well when rapidly diminishing groundwater starts to hiccoup rather than flow, or when increasing population worldwide spreads out onto farmland, the easiest land to build on. These factors, plus the increasing rates of soil erosion worldwide are not winding down, they're amping up. You heard about the huge dust storms of Mongolia and the spreading deserts of China? How about the unbelievably rich topsoil of the Palouse region of Washington and Idaho, where topsoil as thick as 60 feet (!?!) in some places has been reduced by half in no more than 150 years of cultivation.

Sorry to be such a downer, there is a lot to admire in Anglo land, I mean hay-ell, I speak the damn language, but the greater Anglo empire of the last 100 years made a lot of enemies along the way. One of the biggest of them has a lot of oil and is on the verge of getting nukes. Their neighbor has a long history of being used and abused by Anglos, ongoing. For a real eye-opener on some of the history of England/Iran, check out Stephen Kinzer's "All the Shah's Men."

Lao Tzu spoke of wise leadership, the sort that gave rise to peaceful periods of prosperity lasting 1000 years plus (2500 BC to 500 BC range). Anglo leadership has enjoyed much success but it may not last as long as Rome's run, and it's aftermath could be terrible indeed.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I thought it reflected the fact that we had more petroleum than anybody at the beginning of the petroleum era. It didn't hurt that we just happened to be developing a strong industrial base at about the same time. Our political system encouraging inventiveness by allowing the innovator to keep the fruits of his genius (as the article mentions) didn't hurt either.
What hurts now is the way our system rewards watching TV and breeding while waiting for your next government assistance check. We paid for WWII without the 1954 income tax act, why can't we dial the clock, and the tax rates, back to 1940?

__________________
'79 300SD W116
'86 190E 2.3-16V W201
'92 300D 2.5 W124
'99 E320 4MATIC S210

When are you running for office? I want my vote to count for something.

B

A more local perspective.

Bot


Are Conservative Republicans Now America's Permanent Ruling Class?

Related materials
List: Books discussed in this essay

By JOHN J. DIIULIO JR.

Following the 2002 midterm Congressional elections, Democrats were blue about their party's future. With the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks still uppermost in the American public mind, and with President Bush enjoying record-high job-approval ratings, most voters favored Republican candidates and voiced conservative opinions in polls. Several pundits proclaimed that the GOP was now America's "permanent majority" at the national level, becoming so at the state level, and even resurrecting itself in some cities where Democrats had long reigned supreme.

Supposedly this political realignment was, if anything, long overdue. Since the early 1970s, public opinion had been trending conservative. By the early 1990s, lower taxes, tougher crime policies, and traditional moral values all consistently polled popular majorities. Southern voters began bolting from the Democratic Party in 1964 when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Nixon's law-and-order "Southern strategy" iced the break. In 1980 and again in 1984, Reagan attracted one in four votes cast by Democrats. In 1994 Newt Gingrichled Republicans ended Democrats' 40 years at the House's helm.

In 2002 here it supposedly was: the long-predicted shift to Republican Party dominance and conservative ideological hegemony. Two years later, Bush's bigger-than-expected win over Sen. John F. Kerry ostensibly confirmed that conservative Republicans had become America's ruling class.

Besides, the 2004 election results supposedly revealed deep culture-war differences concerning religion that sealed the Republicans' permanent majority status. About two-thirds of people who attended church regularly (weekly or more) voted for Bush. As the analysts John C. Green and Mark Silk have documented, the small plurality of Americans who chose "moral values" as "the one issue that mattered most" to their presidential vote in 2004 — so-called "moral values" voters — put Bush safely over the top in the South, the Mountain West, and the Midwest. Millions more evangelical Christians voted in 2004 than had voted in 2000.

But what a difference a year makes. According to the Washington chattering class, Bush and the Republicans' governing majority are suddenly but surely in decline. Many among the selfsame talking heads who were only recently talking Republican realignment, conservative hegemony, and Bush's lasting Reagan-like legacy, are now talking conservative crack-up, the lame-duck president's political meltdown, and the Democrats' winning back the House in 2006.

All the pundits point to much the same reasons for this apparent reversal in conservative Republicans' political fortunes: rising popular sentiment against the U.S. occupation of Iraq; news-media spotlights on the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina; prosecutorial probes into alleged misdeeds by high-profile Repub-lican leaders; revolts by conservatives against the president's second pick for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers; and retreats by the White House on Social Security privatization and several other domestic-policy priorities.

There is only one problem with this latest conventional political wisdom. It is, like the conventional political wisdom that immediately preceded it, almost completely wrong in virtually every respect.

Today's true big political picture is mostly gray shades against a purple (red mixed with blue) canvas. Conservative Republicans, beset by deep ideological divisions, are not even close to becoming the country's permanent ruling class. Neither the post-Reagan Republican Party in general, nor the present Bush White House in particular, ever actually rode so high politically.

Just the same, neither the GOP nor the president is in any definite long-term political trouble. Conservative Republicans, even without permanent-majority clout, are still more potent politically than liberal Democrats, and likely to remain so. Centrist and neoprogressive Democrats could credibly compete for power with conservative Republicans, but they must first pry their party's presidential nomination process and key leadership posts from the old-left hands that still primarily control them. Despite strenuous efforts to do so since the mid-1980s by various New Democrat groups, the party is still led mainly by its liberals. Not even the New Democrats have ever really reached out to the culturally conservative and anti-abortion Democrats who have been defecting to the Republican Party since the Reagan years.

True, Bush won over two-thirds of regular churchgoers, but Kerry won two-thirds of voters who said they never went to church. Together the "churched" (a sixth) and the "unchurched" (a seventh) constituted less than a third of the total electorate. As the political scientist James Q. Wilson, of UCLA and Pepperdine University, stated in his November Tanner Lecture at Harvard, "religion makes a difference, but very religious and very irreligious voters are only a minority of the electorate." Amen, and as studies by the Stanford political scientist Morris P. Fiorina have shown, even on most hot-button issues, the electorate is far less polarized than ideological elites on each side would like them to be.

The political pundits are wrong, but your high-school civics teacher was right: Thanks to federalism, separated powers, checks and balances, staggered elections, and myriad other constitutional contrivances, the party in power has to govern by the ABC's — forging interparty alliances, striking bargains with officials in other branches and at other levels of government, and effecting compromises that usually induce less loyalty from the winners than enmity from the losers.

(Much more at http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=qwpwwylvlnnbkl9whz8ycwcvyzzlzthp)