A Nation of Individuals
America is a nation of individuals. Individualism is in their blood. It colors the national character. By itself, this fact is neither good nor bad. However, for everyone who wants to build a productive friendship with the U.S. and its people, it is worth remembering.
From childhood, the older Russian generation learned that the group is more important than the individual. Americans prefer to think that individuals are responsible for their own happiness, and not someone else. In the U.S., the pursuit of happiness is a personal right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Those who rush to condemn individualism should remember that it is a fundamental part of human dignity. Conscience, decency, love and compassion cannot be collective. These traits are individual. In addition, there is no better veil for indifference, irresponsibility, hypocrisy and cruelty than anonymous collectivism. Remember the joke about an obituary signed by "a bunch of friends"? * Scientific questions are not solved by putting them to a vote. True faith can only be personal. People can observe rituals as part of a community, but individuals either believe or don't. For Americans, the desire to live with freedom of individual thought and personal belief wins out.
Many visitors, especially from the former Soviet Union, are surprised by the degree to which Americans do not tolerate lies. As a group, they sincerely believe that deception — whether in school examinations, marital relations or tax payments — is unacceptable in and of itself, not just because of the possibility of exposure and punishment. It is funny and sad that to new arrivals this quality sometimes seems to be almost a sign of the natives' simple-mindedness.
Above all else, for Americans, principled individualism reflects the core of their inner freedom. Interestingly, among those who instilled Americans with this attitude is our former compatriot, Alisa Rosenbaum, who after moving to the U.S. in 1925 became the famous writer and philosopher Ayn Rand. In her 1943 novel “The Fountainhead”, she defines a true egotist. According to her, egotists are not people who put their own desires above others' interests. Egotists are not concerned with others' interests at all. Egotists do not exist for other people, and do not expect any help from them.
For Rand, being an egotist was synonymous with being a truly free man, who could do his job however he saw fit, and live his own (as opposed to a "borrowed") life. Rand had said that she is not so much an advocate for capitalism as she is for egoism and reason. In the U.S., her book, which at first no one wanted to publish, can now be compared with the Bible in terms of mass circulation.
Another classic neo-liberal, Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, has publicly argued with the famous (and, incidentally, very Soviet in nature) John F. Kennedy quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." In his book “Capitalism and Freedom”, he wrote, "Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society... To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them... The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather 'What can I and my compatriots do through government to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?' "
When Friedman published his book in 1962, it was ignored. By its jubilee edition in 1982, the author and his work were famous. In 2002, during a tribute ceremony at the White House, U.S. President George W. Bush noted that Friedman's ideas live and succeed not only in America, but also around the world, including in Russia.
On the other hand, we know how much trouble Bush and his chief of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan (formerly one of the closest disciples and followers of Ayn Rand), have caused in the name of freedom. Prior to the recent "Great Recession", Greenspan was considered an unquestioned authority in the world of finance. Now, he must justify himself. Nevertheless, to this day, Greenspan defends Rand's ideas, arguing that there is nothing better in a democracy than free market competition with minimal state regulation.
Now however, regulations are in fashion again, in order to save capitalism from its own excesses. In America, freedom is not unlimited. Everything is allowed, other than what is prohibited by law, which also essentially carries a cult power. In a country where people are used to defending their own interests, it could not be otherwise.
Perhaps it is appropriate here to mention Hollywood and its ideal: the lone hero, who overcomes countless hordes of enemies. In the story, the hero can stand up for others as well. He does so for strictly personal reasons though, and not out of duty or under duress.
In real life, on the other hand, Americans prefer not to face cares and troubles alone. They self-organize into grassroots communities. Wherever you look — from fighting some rare disease to lobbying private matters — you will certainly find an association, where the personal interest of each member works toward a shared goal.
All of this projects easily onto foreign policy. If for Americans personal egoism is more worthy of praise than its criticism, then they do not see anything wrong with national self-interest either. For example, the same politicians and diplomats who broadcast high ideals and values from international platforms, essentially assure Congress and the American people that these values are handy tools for defending U.S. national interests, and any international partner will pay through the nose for them.
A good example of how the U.S. uses its "friends and allies" was Washington's recent public criticism of "Old Europe." The Pentagon and the White House sold out its old friends for new friends, because the new friends were more amenable. Moreover, if the excessive concessions had a negative impact on these new friends, then it is their problem. It was their choice to demonstrate trans-Atlantic solidarity, and at their own expense. They should have learned from the Americans' example. In this type of situation, it would be absurd to expect Americans to show self-restraint and, especially, self-sacrifice. It is simply not in their nature.
Now, U.S. leaders say and write in their policy documents that the key contemporary issues cannot be solved in isolation, even by America. That is indisputable, and it is good that they have understood and recognized this fact.
Nevertheless, this absolutely does not mean that Washington has decided to abandon its claims to "American leadership" in world (including individual) affairs. It is more likely that Washington is finally convinced that, as the current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in the 2008 election campaign, "You cannot be a leader if no one is following." Now, once again, Washington is gathering under its banners all those who are ready to capitulate.
* [Translator's note: The joke is about wolves, who are writing an obituary for a rabbit. If they had signed it "A Pack of Wolves," everyone would have figured out the rabbit's cause of death.]
From childhood, the older Russian generation learned that the group is more important than the individual. Americans prefer to think that individuals are responsible for their own happiness, and not someone else. In the U.S., the pursuit of happiness is a personal right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Those who rush to condemn individualism should remember that it is a fundamental part of human dignity. Conscience, decency, love and compassion cannot be collective. These traits are individual. In addition, there is no better veil for indifference, irresponsibility, hypocrisy and cruelty than anonymous collectivism. Remember the joke about an obituary signed by "a bunch of friends"? * Scientific questions are not solved by putting them to a vote. True faith can only be personal. People can observe rituals as part of a community, but individuals either believe or don't. For Americans, the desire to live with freedom of individual thought and personal belief wins out.
Many visitors, especially from the former Soviet Union, are surprised by the degree to which Americans do not tolerate lies. As a group, they sincerely believe that deception — whether in school examinations, marital relations or tax payments — is unacceptable in and of itself, not just because of the possibility of exposure and punishment. It is funny and sad that to new arrivals this quality sometimes seems to be almost a sign of the natives' simple-mindedness.
Above all else, for Americans, principled individualism reflects the core of their inner freedom. Interestingly, among those who instilled Americans with this attitude is our former compatriot, Alisa Rosenbaum, who after moving to the U.S. in 1925 became the famous writer and philosopher Ayn Rand. In her 1943 novel “The Fountainhead”, she defines a true egotist. According to her, egotists are not people who put their own desires above others' interests. Egotists are not concerned with others' interests at all. Egotists do not exist for other people, and do not expect any help from them.
For Rand, being an egotist was synonymous with being a truly free man, who could do his job however he saw fit, and live his own (as opposed to a "borrowed") life. Rand had said that she is not so much an advocate for capitalism as she is for egoism and reason. In the U.S., her book, which at first no one wanted to publish, can now be compared with the Bible in terms of mass circulation.
Another classic neo-liberal, Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, has publicly argued with the famous (and, incidentally, very Soviet in nature) John F. Kennedy quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." In his book “Capitalism and Freedom”, he wrote, "Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society... To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them... The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather 'What can I and my compatriots do through government to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?' "
When Friedman published his book in 1962, it was ignored. By its jubilee edition in 1982, the author and his work were famous. In 2002, during a tribute ceremony at the White House, U.S. President George W. Bush noted that Friedman's ideas live and succeed not only in America, but also around the world, including in Russia.
On the other hand, we know how much trouble Bush and his chief of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan (formerly one of the closest disciples and followers of Ayn Rand), have caused in the name of freedom. Prior to the recent "Great Recession", Greenspan was considered an unquestioned authority in the world of finance. Now, he must justify himself. Nevertheless, to this day, Greenspan defends Rand's ideas, arguing that there is nothing better in a democracy than free market competition with minimal state regulation.
Now however, regulations are in fashion again, in order to save capitalism from its own excesses. In America, freedom is not unlimited. Everything is allowed, other than what is prohibited by law, which also essentially carries a cult power. In a country where people are used to defending their own interests, it could not be otherwise.
Perhaps it is appropriate here to mention Hollywood and its ideal: the lone hero, who overcomes countless hordes of enemies. In the story, the hero can stand up for others as well. He does so for strictly personal reasons though, and not out of duty or under duress.
In real life, on the other hand, Americans prefer not to face cares and troubles alone. They self-organize into grassroots communities. Wherever you look — from fighting some rare disease to lobbying private matters — you will certainly find an association, where the personal interest of each member works toward a shared goal.
All of this projects easily onto foreign policy. If for Americans personal egoism is more worthy of praise than its criticism, then they do not see anything wrong with national self-interest either. For example, the same politicians and diplomats who broadcast high ideals and values from international platforms, essentially assure Congress and the American people that these values are handy tools for defending U.S. national interests, and any international partner will pay through the nose for them.
A good example of how the U.S. uses its "friends and allies" was Washington's recent public criticism of "Old Europe." The Pentagon and the White House sold out its old friends for new friends, because the new friends were more amenable. Moreover, if the excessive concessions had a negative impact on these new friends, then it is their problem. It was their choice to demonstrate trans-Atlantic solidarity, and at their own expense. They should have learned from the Americans' example. In this type of situation, it would be absurd to expect Americans to show self-restraint and, especially, self-sacrifice. It is simply not in their nature.
Now, U.S. leaders say and write in their policy documents that the key contemporary issues cannot be solved in isolation, even by America. That is indisputable, and it is good that they have understood and recognized this fact.
Nevertheless, this absolutely does not mean that Washington has decided to abandon its claims to "American leadership" in world (including individual) affairs. It is more likely that Washington is finally convinced that, as the current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in the 2008 election campaign, "You cannot be a leader if no one is following." Now, once again, Washington is gathering under its banners all those who are ready to capitulate.
* [Translator's note: The joke is about wolves, who are writing an obituary for a rabbit. If they had signed it "A Pack of Wolves," everyone would have figured out the rabbit's cause of death.]
Previous article![]( "Economic Growth Without Jobs")
