Centerfield

Are Americans from Mars and Europeans from Venus

Isiah Berlin is generally considered one of the great political philosophers of the 20th Century and a doyen of political pluralism. In recent years, some conservatives have questioned his legacy due to the aspect of cultural relativism in his work. Berlin spend most of his career at Oxford (he was born in Russia), but spent the war years in the United States. He reflected a very European view of the world (even in the 40s) and was generally uncomfortable with (although not hostile to) the United States.

Simon Schama reviewed a book of Berlin's letters in The New Republic recently and one part of the article really struck me as being relevant to the current transatlantic divide. It discusses Berlin's somewhat negative view of American optimism.

Early in his stay in the United States, where he arrived first in 1940, hoping to move on to Moscow (via Japan), Berlin realized that his skeptical and finally tragic view of history made him a cultural misfit. In New York, where Berlin was employed at the British Press Service in Manhattan, and in Washington, where he became head of the political survey section at the British Embassy, he blinked at the sunlit intensity of American optimism. Though he genuinely admired American energy and forthrightness, the mistaken conviction that exhaustive iteration was the same thing as comprehension depressed him. Ultimately he thought that the national passion for the unequivocal could only be sustained through an exercise of eye-shutting make-believe akin to a children's party game: the conversion of the world from what it was to what America wished it would be. This optimization of the world, he thought, was a willed self-deception about the reality of human behavior; namely, that there were no conflicts that, with the application of enough goodwill, money, and robust determination, could not be resolved.

Clearly, this reflects a still existing divide between European and American thought and, IMO, explains a lot of the policy differences. Largely because of history, the Europeans have a much more tragic view of history than we do and are much more skeptical in the ability of humans to shape their environment. Americans, on the other hand, believe in finding a clear cut solution. Contrary to what people might like to think, these different perspectives predate Bush and really have existed since the United States broke away from England. People on both sides of the ocean are often frustratrated by the inability of the other to see things their way, without realizing that the differences reflect, not just disagreements on particular policies, but completely different world views.

Obviously, for example, this explains a lot of the difference on Iraq. Where Americans want to get to the root and apply our resources and energy to solving the problems in the Middle East, Europeans are much more skeptical about the human ability to deal with complex issues and are much more comfortable with an incremental, cautious approach.

Thus,

Those exasperated by the reluctance of Sunni Iraqis to be reasonable and take their coming electorally rendered punishment on the chin could do worse than read Berlin on the tenacity of social magic in the allure of tribal nationalism.

Conservatives were traditionally skeptical of man's ability to solve problems and against efforts to change the status quo. Liberals were usually more receptive to change. Now, to some extent, this has reversed and many conservatives seem willing to embrace action for the sake of action with the idea that, at least with respect to the Middle East, the world is susceptible to change and improvement.

I think there is a lot to be said for both viewpoints, but I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for the Berlin perspective. I know there is not a lot of sympathy for Europe here, but the world is complicated and sometimes the best you can do is to muddle through. Expecting to bend the world (or a region) to your will can be counterproductive. I think the European view is often the more realistic. On the other hand, the fatalism inherent in the European attitude can lead to complacency (as I think it has) and a willingness to compromise with evil (as I think it has at times). Both perspectives have some validity and Europeans and Americans are making mistakes by ignoring (or dismissing) each other.