Wanting to Rule, Wanting to Be Loved

by Lee McCracken

The Washington Times recently reported on a survey conducted of attitudes toward America around the world under the auspices of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The response as summed up in the Times headline was: “ United States admired, reviled.” The story goes on to quote various experts, including former secretary of state Madeline Albright to try and unravel this curious mystery. How can the U.S. be both attractive and repellent to people throughout the world?  

“As she [Albright] studied a new poll last week showing global discontent with the world’s only superpower, the former top diplomat pondered a question that seems ever more relevant as Washington wages a war on terrorism and prepares a possible military strike against Iraq: Can you run the world if it doesn’t like you?”  

“'[Y]ou can’t ultimately run the world if nobody likes you,’ Mrs. Albright said. ‘The British empire ended to a great extent because the people revolted against its huge reach. They wanted out of it.’”

The idea is that if the U.S. is to “run the world,” (benignly, of course!) it needs to undertake a public relations blitz to convince the rest of the world that we’re not really “arrogant, self-indulgent, hypocritical, inattentive, unwilling and unable to engage in cross-cultural dialogue,” in the words of one former official in the Nixon administration. The Bush administration, it turns out, has even hired an advertising executive to act as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy in order to “explain to people in Muslim countries the virtues of American democracy and culture.” After all, if Muslim countries dislike us, it must be because they don’t really understand us, right?

But this approach seems to me in danger of getting the facts precisely backwards. Perhaps people in the Muslim world and elsewhere don’t resent the prospect of being ruled by the U.S. because they resent its democracy or culture. Maybe, just maybe, they, like most human beings, resent being ruled over, period. And the fact that it’s the U.S. doing the ruling naturally results in a general dislike of the country as a whole.

This is not to say that there aren’t groups and individuals that dislike American notions of freedom, democracy, tolerance, capitalism, etc. There certainly are. But would this be a problem (or at least would it be as much of a problem) if these people didn’t perceive the U.S. as aggressively trying to foist its rule on them, either directly (as in the prospect of an invasion-cum-occupation of Iraq ) or indirectly (by funding and propping up regimes of varying degrees of brutality)? Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of various aspects of our foreign policy, but at the very least, there is a widespread perception that the U.S. is out to stamp its will on the rest of the globe, and in this case perception can be just as important as reality. To argue that the root of this resentment is simply a fuming and irrational hatred of all that is good and pure about America is to indulge in willful self-deception.

Interestingly, the results of this poll also highlight something positive that our policy makers seem determined to overlook:

“Although the United States is admired for its technological achievements and cultural exports, the spread of American influence is disliked by majorities.” The context makes it clear that this means military and political influence. Here is a piece of great news. The products of our market economy, products that raise living standards, increase leisure time, and offer a variety of cultural experiences are attractive to people in cultures vastly different from our own. Given the choice, people around the world embrace the products of ingenuity and creativity that the market allows to flourish.

Some simple facts about human psychology seem to be at work here. People don’t like to be ruled, to be dominated by force. This is true even (maybe especially) when the ruler keeps telling them it’s for their own good. They do, however, like to have choices--choices in consumer products, in employment, and in cultural experience. America , as one of the freest societies on earth, is deeply attractive to many people throughout the world. But America as global hegemon can, and will probably continue to be, deeply resented. The choice is between the way of persuasion and attraction vs. the way of force and domination.

The founders of our country appreciated this insight. They believed that the U.S. should act as a beacon of liberty, or a “ Shining City on a Hill” that would inspire other nations to follow its example.  They also knew, through personal experience, that one doesn’t love those by whom one is ruled. John Quincy Adams put it well in opposing American entanglement in the problems of Europe :

“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example . . . .[ America ’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty.”

The use of force in our relationships with other nations when it isn’t strictly necessary for our own defense is bound to create resentment and fear. Force is the primary language of politics. Therefore, political intervention around the world is a dangerous game that is bound to threaten not only our safety, but also the liberty that should be our glory. You can’t rule and expect to be loved at the same time.