It’s perhaps fitting that today—on the anniversary of “9/11”—my Democracy & Democratization class is reading the first chapter of Samuel Huntington’s The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (1991). It’s fitting because “9/11” is both the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 2001 and of the US-supported (if not directly “backed”) Chilean military coup of 1973.
While Huntington’s work has been controversial, he’s made some important insights that aren’t easily dismissed—and shouldn’t be overlooked. One of them is this snippet on pages 29-30:
“… the future of democracy in the world is of special importance to Americans. The United States is the premier democratic country in the modern world, and its identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values. Other nations may fundamentally change their political systems and continue their existence as nations. The United States does not have that option.”
Most of the class discussion will focus on the Huntington’s introduction to the idea of “waves” of democratization, which they’re reading alongside Dankward Rustow’s 1970 classic article, “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.” But I hope we have a chance to parse out this Huntington nugget (which closely follows an argument that increased democratization throughout the world may bring more peace & less violence). Because what Huntington notes in this passage is that US political identity is wrapped up in our belief in liberal, democratic values. The US isn’t only the premier democracy (for all its faults), but the world’s premier case of “civic” (as opposed to organic, ethnic, or cultural) nationalism.
The US wasn’t founded on the belief that “the American people” should govern themselves (in the way that, say, the Serbian nation-state is explicitly Serbian and not for others in Serbian territory—this example could be applied to a host of “ethnic” nation-states), but on the belief that people should. Re-read the first line of the Declaration of Independence; it clearly implies a universal scope. And it suggests that the US has a founding mission to promote the spread of democracy.
Perhaps if we paid more attention to the struggle for freedom & democracy around the world, we wouldn’t be so surprised in international relations. And we may need to constantly remind ourselves that our first priority—or “prime directive”—as a state is to act in ways that promote democratic values around the world. Perhaps the last question made before any policy decision should be this: “Will this policy hinder or advance the cause of freedom in the world?”
Notice how contradictory the post is. One minute you're talking about how the United States helped overthrow Allende and backed Pinochet. The next minute you're approvingly quoting a spokesperson of the Establishment who says that America's "identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if a state periodically resorts to supporting bloody coups led by thoroughly undemocratic figures (Pinochet; the Argentine junta; Rios Montt in Guatemala; Carmona in Venezuela, Latortue in Haiti, etc. etc.), then maybe --just maybe-- our leaders' "identity" is not invariably "inseparable" from a "commitment to liberal and democratic values."
The problem with your discourse of "democracy promotion" is that it cloaks the Establishment's ulterior motives. As Michael Lind (2007) of the New America Foundation suggests, great powers are likely to use the "protection of human rights" as a "pretext" for interventions whose "unacknowledged purposes" are actually strategic and commercial.
Justin,
My point was that (from my reading of Huntington), America's political identity SHOULD be "inseparable" from "a commitment to liberal democratic values." Additionally, both the question on which the post ended & the reference to Pinochet's 1973 coup, clearly demonstrates my knowledge that US policies have not always lived up to that ideal.
Once you've made an honest assessment of American power and the differences between our leaders' rhetoric and reality, what you SHOULD be calling for is institutional constraints on the exercise of American power in the world. But instead, you give us Huntington. That's par for the course.
I quoted Huntington because my class today is reading Huntington (as an introduction to the "third wave" of democracy). Hence, it was on my mind. We will be discussing exactly that (the role of US power in the world in the context of global democratization) ... and watching this YouTube video in class: Chile & 9/11
Sounds interesting. I should start thinking about tranferring YouTube videos onto DVDs.
I try to ensure that my classes are not political indoctrination seminars. It's not my place to tell my students what they should or shouldn't "call for" (or what to think). It's my place to ask questions, spark some discussion, and provide some relevant texts (to help them think critically).
Huntington, for all his "Establishment" status, is part of the comparative politics canon—especially when discussing the "third wave" of democracy. And giving my students access to the great works in the discipline, from different perspectives, is certainly par for my course.
I previously posted the reading list here, though there have been some additions (such as an excerpt from Rueschemyer, Ruescheyer, and Stevens' classic Capitalist Development & Democracy).
what you SHOULD be calling for is institutional constraints on the exercise of American power in the world
I believe that was directly implied in my post, as well as the comments.
needless to say, I find it laugh-out-loud funny that you would quote anyone that describes the Empire as the "premier democracy" in the world.
however, I would only like to present a humble suggestion for the subject matter of such an infamous historical day:
http://stimulator.gnn.tv/
the current post about Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine which of course is to be found in a multitude of other sources.
what effect did the shock of 9/11/2001 have on the usamerican and world psyche, allowing for a reduction in democracy worldwide and fake democratization conducted as savage war?
likewise, the heartbreaking and still enduring effect of Pinochet's shock therapy, which over the course of 20 years rendered large segments of Chilean society absolutely terrified and only by this fact complacent to the neoliberal system.
I found the post interesting, thought-provoking and it made me think in terms of Christianity in terms of goals, purpose, rationalization of worldwide evangelism.
S:
For better or worse, when most people think of "democracy" they think of the United States. Yes, Huntington is clearly an "establishment" (if by that you mean "neocon") figure ... but I don't think many would argue that, for a significant number of people across the world, the US is the standard-bearer for democracy & capitalism.
To say that the US is widely viewed as the "premier democracy" in the world is not to endorse the "American" type of democracy. It merely suggests that the US **is** viewed as synonymous w/ capitalist democracy. Similarly, to identify the USSR w/ "communism" is in no way a statement about the desirability of communism or the quality of Soviet communism. As for whether the US is an "empire" or not ... let me add, provocatively, that even Athens was an imperial power.
Here is what I took away from the Huntington quote:
Unlike other "nation-states", the US is not defined by its ethno-cultural component (though it's clearly part of the Anglosphere tradition), but by its ideological system. Take France, for example. Would a communist France still be "France"? How about a monarchy? What about a military dictatorship? In short, we'd accept "France" as a nation, regardless of its political or economic system. Ditto Russia, Japan, Germany, or any number of "traditional" nation-states.
The US is defined almost entirely by its more abstract value system (the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, etc). Does the US always live up to those standards? No. (And I think even Huntington would concede that.) But what Huntington seems to be saying here is that if the US—in its approach to both domestic & foreign policy—doesn't pursue policies consistent w/ democratic values, it risks losing its very raison d'être.
And, I might add, that the "sins" of acting non-democratically can be both of "things done" and "things failed to do."
It's not my place to tell my students what they should or shouldn't "call for" (or what to think).
That's all well and good, Miguel; I don't tell my students what to think either. I introduce them to various theories and invite them to think critically about my own core assumptions as well.
But, you see, we weren't talking about your class. We were talking about the lessons you draw on your blog.
The US is defined almost entirely by its more abstract value system (the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, etc).
Ah, but now you're reverting to ideological essentialism. We're back to the notion that there is such a thing as a "national ideology" (which is a rather illiberal concept, by the way). This is the same logic that reactionaries use to call dissident viewpoints "Anti-American." It's pure garbage. I don't believe in Huntington's essentialisms or in "democracy promotion" as we know it, but I'm certainly every bit as American as Huntington is.
But what Huntington seems to be saying here is that if the US—in its approach to both domestic & foreign policy—doesn't pursue policies consistent w/ democratic values, it risks losing its very raison d'être.
Well, think about that for just a second, Miguel. This is the same Huntington that counseled U.S. support for anti-communist dictatorships the world over during the Cold War. In fact, that's what he's most famous for. Never did he start counseling "democracy promotion" until the Cold War was coming to an end.
Huntington is a very cynical character whose version of "democracy promotion" is one that is skillfully managed to serve U.S. strategic and commercial interests.
Justin,
I filed this post under the "Teaching" category specifically because it's about a classroom exercise. I think that was obvious from the post.
And I think one can quote Huntington (or Marx, Weber, Schumpeter, etc, etc) w/o necessarily endorsing him. Was there anything about the content of my argument (that the US should pursue policies that encourage, not hinder, democracy in the world) that you found offensive, other than the point that I used a Huntington quote as a launching point?
My point is that your post is sorely missing critical analysis on the subject of Huntington's work. If you want to bring up Huntington's "important insights" but fail to offer any critical analysis of them, don't expect others not to try to fill in the blanks.
The fact that you offer no criticism of Huntington's essentialisms is strange in light of the fact that, in other posts, you've implied that the notion of a national ideology is an illiberal concept.
I didn't realize every post of mine had to be dissertation-length. The post was a brief thought on "9/11 & Democracy" (both 9/11/01 and 9/11/73)—not "A Critique of Huntington's Essentialism" (which you're more than able to write for your dissertation, if you'd like).
Oh dear... Boz's troll has now latched onto you as well, Miguel.
I hear that WD-40 is good for getting rid of barnacles.
Care to debate the issues, Frank? Or are you just plain incapable of doing that?
But doesn't the Bush Administration believe that their policy will advance freedom and development? Now what?
(Nenad, I moved you're comment into this post)
Yes, Bush does believe so. And so you're right to imply that this might be dangerous. But I don't think it erases the idea that US policy tends to be (and perhaps "should" be) based on moral/ethnical impulses. The challenge, of course, will be to wrestle w/ whether our policies are *actually* promoting democracy (in the short, medium, and long-term) or not.
But I don't think it erases the idea that US policy tends to be (and perhaps "should" be) based on moral/ethnical impulses.
Uh, no, Miguel, U.S. foreign policy does not tend to be based on moral/ethical impulses.
Your claims are analogous to saying that a corporation's policies should be based on moral/ethical impulses. Shoulda/woulda/coulda, Miguel. The bottom line is that a corporation's policies AREN'T based on "moral/ethical impulses." They're based on the bottom line, which is profits.
U.S. foreign policy is similar, as its long record shows. Foreign policy is based on strategic and commercial interests, not moral/ethical impulses. The discourse of "democracy promotion" is designed to simply cloak the stategic and commercial interests that undergird policy. Again, "democracy promotion" is skillfully managed to serve U.S. strategic and commercial interests.
Since you mentioned "serving US strategic and commercial interests" isn't it time that you disclosed (for those who aren't already familiar with your background) that you are a paid shill for the Chavez government, Justin?
Ah, yes, Frank, I guess that's an admission that you're simply not capable of debating the issues. Bravo, Franky boy.
Judging by the fact that I have something like $2.11 in my checking account right now, it's quite laughable, Franky, to suggest that I'm being paid by the Venezuelan government.
In case you have't figured this one out yet, Franky, there's a difference between being a "paid shill for the Chavez government" and having analyzed U.S. press coverage for said government for one month in the summer of 2005 (for a whopping $700).
It doesn't surprise me, though, that you have difficulty drawing the distinction.
To everyone:
Clearly, we all come w/ our biases to the table before any discussion. But I'm a fan of disclosure, if necessary. If we're going to accuse someone of being a lacky for a group/organization/state, then it's fair to disclose whether we might also be a lacky for a rival group/organization/state.
To Justin:
I'm pretty sure most presidents have claimed that their policies were based on moral/ethical impulses. I think if you compare European policies and American ones, Europe tends to play "power" politics (historically), while the US claims a higher "mission". Whether we agree w/ that mission (or how it's executed) is a **separate** matter. But I think it's difficult to argue that US politics doesn't play out in an ethical dimension. Even American leftism is based not on "scientific socialist" principles but on "feelings" and ill-defined statements about "social justice" (again, moral principles). The US has a stated policy of "democracy promotion". Regardless of how we feel about how that policy is *executed* (or whether it's hypocritical, or whatever) it does suggest a moral dimension to American politics. At least in the sense of the kind of rhetoric employed in public discourse.
Also, I don't accept your state=corporation analogy. States are political (i.e. public) goods. Economic enterprises are economic (i.e. private) goods. I'm sure few economic enterprises base their decisions on "ethical" impulses (as you seem to define them). But states often do.
And if we're going to justify our "legitimacy" on the basis of our checkbook ledgers. I currently have a negative $31.26 balance. So I win!
If we're going to accuse someone of being a lacky for a group/organization/state, then it's fair to disclose whether we might also be a lacky for a rival group/organization/state.
That you would make such a snide remark goes to show just what an unethical grandstander you are. I'd long ago disclosed everything there is to know about me, not only on Boz's blog but right here on your own blog in the previous discussion about USAID in Bolivia.
I'm pretty sure most presidents have claimed that their policies were based on moral/ethical impulses.
Well, durrr, Miguel. What else are they going to do? Claim they're in this gig to serve the interests of big business and the military-industrial-complex? Of course not.
Anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence knows that you don't assess the foreign policies of states on the basis of what their leaders claim. You assess their foreign policies on the basis of what they do.
My point was merely that US presidents (e.g. Wilson's "14 points") have tended to use "moral" discourse rhetoric rather than "power politics" rhetoric (e.g. the actual treaties that ended the war). My point was merely that American politics has an openly "moral" discourse dimension (on the right & the left) that goes back to the founding. Do you disagree w/ that simple claim?
Justin,
That bit about "disclosure" wasn't aimed at you. If I ever accuse someone, I won't do it hiding behind a "to everyone" abstract statement. I'll do it directly. I may be many things, but a coward isn't one of them.
In the future, please read more carefully. For someone who enjoys parsing the minute potential implications of different statements—and who claims to dislike "essentialism"—you aren't very careful at times.
All statesmen have a moral discourse, Miguel. That tells us nothing about the nature of their actions.
English imperialists had a moral discourse too. The "White Man's Burden," they called it. But logically we don't assess the policies on the basis of the discourse. We assess the policies on the basis of what they signify IN PRACTICE.
That bit about 'disclosure' wasn't aimed at you.
My mistake, then. I won't be so hasty next time.
Justin,
Actually, not all statesmen have a moral discourse. Re-read your Machiavelli (the founder of "amoral" politics).
Also, don't assume that "moral" means "good". Moral (as I'm using it) is a category of discourse that relies on some categorical "right-wrong" distinction. We may disagree w/ whether a certain decision by any actor(s) is "moral" based on our own internal moral compass, even while understanding that the "Other" has used a different set of values that nevertheless still fit into the purvue of "moral" sphere. Re-read your Nietzsche, who distinguished between "master" and "slave" morality. Or the postmodernists, who argue that there may not be a single universal morality (hence, their existentialism, which stands in counter-position to essentialism).
Actually, not all statesmen have a moral discourse. Re-read your Machiavelli (the founder of "amoral" politics).
Indeed, but Machiavelli doesn't support your case. He counseled statesmen to cloak their real intentions with lofty sounding rhetoric. A statesman can be perfectly Machiavellian and still employ "moral discourse."
I don't think I've ever argued that we should take anyone's intentions at face value, as you seem to think I have.
Bottom line: have many (many!) scholars (of different stripes!) argued that there are different "modes" of political discourse, one of which involves a "moral" mode? I think the answer is yes.
Beware of essentialism! (And reductionism!!)
But now you're diverting the discussion in a completely meaningless direction. Suppose that, say, Ronald Reagan's definition of "democracy" is completely distinct from my own. And suppose that he has a "moral code" that undergirds not only his discourse but also his actions. So what? I suppose Hitler had a "moral code" that undergirded both his discourse and actions as well. Nevertheless, Hitler's "moral code" plays no part in my (or your) evaluation of his actions.
In the end, serious social scientists must evaluate the policies of governments on the basis of what they signify IN PRACTICE, not on their leaders' discourses.
But I'm not talking about practice, I'm talking about **modes of discourse** (unless you think discourse analysis is not serious social science).
Or we can accept your pseudo-Randian absolute objectivism, if you prefer (but something tells me you don't think of yourself as an "objectivist").
Justin,
Another way to think of this is to contrast "moral" philosophers w/ "utilitarian" ones. If that helps.
But I'm not talking about practice, I'm talking about **modes of discourse** (unless you think discourse analysis is not serious social science).
Discourse matters, but not in isolation from concrete variables. I study discourse as well, but my intent is to study which concrete variables (if any) it reflects.
Does a discourse of "democracy promotion" actually reflect the state of democracy abroad? Or does it serve as subterfuge for strategic and commercial objectives?
Those are the kinds of questions I'm interested in answering, using concrete and measurable variables.
And I'm only pointing out that, in a historical comparative experience, other countries **have not** used a "democracy promotion" discourse.
Don't always be so eager to engage in meta-arguments that you can't appreciate a minor point in isolation. Don't miss the trees for the forest! ;-)
If I may interrupt...and with all due respect to the blog owner...I think, Miguel, that your point about the motivations behind US foreign policy is irrelevant to the practice of international politics and diplomacy. When the rubber meets the road those lofty "morals," while probably useful in the diplomatic cocktail circuit and around academia, are easily dispensed with when the time comes to formulate policy. American foreign policy might be influenced by the existence of an American ideology based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but when it comes down to it, it is a tough world out there and we will willingly sacrifice our values to advance our interests even if those interests run counter to our values. As a student of Latin America, you should be well aware of this. Heck, even Israel has become a genocide denier in order to make nice with the Turks.
GS:
Like Justin, I think you've missed the original point of my post (which got lost as Justin & I engaged in a rather unnecessary debate). What I got from the Huntington quote was this:
If US policy is actually immoral (in the practical, "rubber hits the road sense") then the US--as a society--risks losing its meaning, if we accept that what defines (in large part) "American" society is precisely its "moral" (in the philosophical sense) underpinnings.
In other words, this is a CRITIQUE of US policy (taking a certain reading of Huntington's first chapter of The Third Wave)!! In context, he's arguing (as I read him) that Americans *should* care about the world, because to not care, to not be concerned w/ the lives of people around the world, would be contrary to America's own ideals.
While I do agree that all nations are social constructs, the nature of their constructs are important. Most nation-states are based on cultural symbols that are, in reality, ethnic. For example: France is French culture, history, language, etc. But the US is built on a series of symbols that are less "ethnic" than "ideological". If the US government (and its public!) cease to act according to those very principles, then it risks ceasing to exist--as "American"--to become something else.
Does that make better sense?
Most nation-states are based on cultural symbols that are, in reality, ethnic. For example: France is French culture, history, language, etc. But the US is built on a series of symbols that are less "ethnic" than "ideological". If the US government (and its public!) cease to act according to those very principles, then it risks ceasing to exist--as "American"--to become something else.
It's a bunch of essentialist doublespeak, Miguel. A "national ideology" is a quasi-fascist concept. There is no such thing.
These are methods by which the Establishment --of which Huntington has long been a part-- seek to rationalize imperialism, all under the guise of "democracy promotion."
And I'm only pointing out that, in a historical comparative experience, other countries **have not** used a "democracy promotion" discourse.
First off, that's not true. Even the Eastern Bloc had a discourse of "democracy promotion." Why do you think East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic (GDR)?
Secondly, your original point was not that "other countries **have not** used a 'democracy promotion' discourse." Your original point was that US policy "tends to be... based on moral/ethical impulses."
After that, you switched tracks, falling back on the point that the United States has a "moral discourse" of "democracy promotion."
I object to the original point, not the point about discourse. To say that American statemen have a "moral discourse" is completely different than saying that their policies are based upon "moral/ethical impulses." You ought to be able to recognize the distinction.
Justin,
Maybe I should write a dissertation! You seem to want to beat my effigy (straw man) half to death!!
Since you like parsing words:
IMPULSE means an "strong and unreflective urge or desire to act" (which is how I meant to use it)
A "national ideology" is a quasi-fascist concept. There is no such thing.
There you've just negated a thing ("national ideology") you claim exists (since you chategorized it as a "semi-fascist" concept). That said, I agree that national ideologies are hegemonizing (and even semi-fascist). But that doesn't mean that "national imaginaries" are content-free. For a good overview of different "types" of nationalisms, see Liah Greenfeld's Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity.
I object to the original point, not the point about discourse. To say that American statemen have a "moral discourse" is completely different than saying that their policies are based upon "moral/ethical impulses." You ought to be able to recognize the distinction.
The word "MORAL" doesn't appear at all my first post (not even in the Huntington quote). Re-read it. But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days. I may have made the point less clearly than I wished to, which is what happens in normal discourse.
Justin,
To go back to your first comment:
Notice how contradictory the post is. One minute you're talking about how the United States helped overthrow Allende and backed Pinochet. The next minute you're approvingly quoting a spokesperson of the Establishment who says that America's "identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values."
Exactly. When the US doesn't show "its commitment to liberal & democratic values" it fails by its own standards. One can use Huntington's quote not as a statement of support for the US, but as a criticism of US policies that don't in reality promote freedom & democracy.
There you've just negated a thing ("national ideology") you claim exists (since you chategorized it as a "semi-fascist" concept).
Uh, no, Miguel, a national ideology has never existed, despite fascists' claims to the contrary. To be German was not synonomous with support for Hitler, even at the height of his power. To be Italian was not synonomous with support for Mussolini either. And to be American is not synonomous with any particular ideology, despite Huntington's quasi-fascist claims to the contrary. A national ideology implies that, to be of a particular nationality, one must hold a particular ideology. It is neo-Orwellian garbage.
But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days.
Actually, no, Miguel, you've yet to make the distinction that to have a "moral discourse" is distinct from basing one's policies upon upon "moral/ethical impulses."
Justin,
Actually, no, Miguel, you've yet to make the distinction that to have a "moral discourse" is distinct from basing one's policies upon upon "moral/ethical impulses."
Does "I agree with you!" qualify as making that distinction? Or is there just no pleasing you?
I've tried to be clearer (on the "moral/ethical impulse" issue) as the conversation progressed. But I'm not going to go back and re-edit my misstatements (talk about Orwellian!), but leave them as testament of how this "conversation" has evolved.
BTW, it's usually considered bad form to gloat over & perpetually hound people for rephrasing an argument more clearly based on further reflection. The "normal" response is to say: "Oh, I see what you meant to say." From there, you can still disagree, if you choose to, by moving on to some other point of contention. But to continue to harp on someone for not being clear at an earlier point is just too perfectionist for my taste. (Is that how you engage in conversation at cockail parties?)
I also think you're using a straw man on the issue of national ideology. A long list of scholars (including Marxist ones like Eric Hobsbawm!!) have long argued that nationalism does, in fact, exist (read Nations and Nationalism since 1780). Your tying German nationalism strictly to Hitler (as if it's the only possible form of nationalism!)--or implying that this is what I thought (for the record, it is NOT!!)--just seems unecessarily crude as a tool for intellectual argument.
BTW, it's usually considered bad form to gloat over & perpetually hound people for rephrasing an argument more clearly based on further reflection.
Yes, provided that you clarify that you're reformulating your argument. You hadn't done that, though.
Huh. I was pretty sure I had.
Scrolling up ...
The word "MORAL" doesn't appear at all my first post (not even in the Huntington quote). Re-read it. But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days. I may have made the point less clearly than I wished to, which is what happens in normal discourse.
Yep.
But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days.
But the point was, Miguel, that you hadn't been making the distinction. You had just switched tracks; no distinction was drawn until today.
But whatever. We'll leave that one to rest for now.
I also think you're using a straw man on the issue of national ideology. A long list of scholars (including Marxist ones like Eric Hobsbawm!!) have long argued that nationalism does, in fact, exist (read Nations and Nationalism since 1780). Your tying German nationalism strictly to Hitler (as if it's the only possible form of nationalism!)--or implying that this is what I thought (for the record, it is NOT!!)--just seems unecessarily crude as a tool for intellectual argument.
The problem is that Huntington's arguments are figuratively made of straw. In fact, they're downright absurd. But that doesn't stop you from moving the goalposts of the discussion to obfuscate the absurdity of his arguments.
Of course there is such a thing as nationalism. Nevertheless, no serious scholar would contend that someone who doesn't subscribe to a nationalist ideology has no national identity.
I am American, Miguel. Born and bred. This is my culture just as much as it is Huntington's. Whether I agree or disagree with Huntington's "democracy promotion" has no bearing whatsoever on my national identity. And, yes, there are many other Americans like me who simply don't buy into Huntington's conception of "democracy promotion."
Anybody who seeks to construct a nebulous concept of "Americanism" in such a way that dissenting views are defined as "Un-American" is working from a quasi-fascist template. If that's the road you choose, so be it.
But notice that, if someone questions your Bolivian friends' national identity on account of the fact that they've worked for USAID, you scream bloody murder.
Again, the contradictions of your arguments are rather glaring. One minute you're screaming to high heaven about your friends being called "anti-national." The next minute, you're approvingly quoting Huntington's assertion that there is such a thing as an "American" ideology and that certain ideas are essentially "Un-American."
The contradictions are rather mind-boggling, Miguel.
Can one quote an author one disagrees with? Some of my undergrad students can't seem to grasp that concept, but I hope a doctoral candidate can.
I don't think I've ever called anyone "anti-American" ... plus I'm not the representative of a state.
Can one quote an author one disagrees with?
But you haven't expressed any disagreement with Huntington on this matter. All you've told us is what "important insights" he has.