America’s Arrogance and Humility

If we make a public opinion poll worldwide and ask the interviewees to describe America in one word, many people will for sure choose “arrogance.” In their eyes, the world’s only superpower has already become synonymous with “conceit and haughtiness.” Just as John Acton, an English Lord, said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Many see the arrogance of America but fail to see its humility. In the international arena, the U.S. government might appear to be arrogant. But it is humble everywhere when serving the general public domestically. That’s because under their constitutional system, government’s power is considerably limited, and people’s rights are greatly protected. Their arrogant attitude, shown when dealing with international affairs, contrasts remarkably to their humility when handling domestic political affairs.

In fact, without their domestic humility there would be no international arrogance. A government of the people, by the people, for the people can enormously arouse the self-identity, sense of pride and creativity of its people. Such a government that wins the hearts and the minds of the population, together with the country’s unique natural resources make America a powerful country, and results in its arrogant attitude in international affairs.

To the contrary, a government that is arrogant in front of its people has to act humbly in international affairs. Because arrogance of power will only kill people’s self-identity, sense of pride and creativity, and will further lead to the legal crisis of the government. When domestic politics are unstable, a government is unlikely to be arrogant when dealing with internal affairs. Even if it acts arrogantly, that is just like slipping on its own face until it’s swollen to make itself look fat, so it would not last long. 　

America’s Arrogance

American arrogance is natural. Americans have believed that they are the chosen people of God since the year 1607, when the first permanent colony was established in North America. If it is not for God’s gifts, how could there be such a fertile land waiting for the Puritans, who were persecuted for their religious beliefs, to settle down? In 1630, North American Puritan leader John Winthrop said in his sermon, “we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” “City upon a hill” does not only mean that the eyes of all the people around the world are watching America; more importantly, it means America is the example for the other countries of the world. “City upon a hill” soon spread widely in America and became the most famous symbol of America.

After the victory of the Revolutionary War, the U.S. was not satisfied with the narrow territory along the Atlantic coast and tried to take the entirety of North America. As they expanded westward, “Manifest Destiny” emerged. “Manifest Destiny” has at least two connotations. First is about the land area: America is destined to expand to the limits of the entire North American continent, including Oregon and Texas, which belonged to Mexico at that time. Second is emotional: Americans, as the people chosen by God, have a unique moral quality, and therefore they are obliged to promote democracy and freedom to wherever their territory reaches. No matter if the reason is because they are God’s chosen people, a city upon a hill, or because of Manifest Destiny — they all convey the same concept: the U.S. is an “exceptional” country in the world.

Democracy and freedom, the geopolitical advantage (the east and west shores face oceans), rich natural resources, wide lands, and continuous migrants — all these enabled America to develop into a superpower 100 years after its founding. The U.S. victory in the Spanish-American War symbolized that the U.S. had become the regional superpower. By the end of World War I, the U.S. had jumped to become the most powerful country of the world. Before the Pacific War broke out, the founder of Time Magazine, Henry Luce, wrote an article calling on America to abandon isolationism in foreign policy — which it had practiced since World War I — and instead be responsible for defending and promoting freedom; Americans should work together to create the American Century. By the end of World War II, the strength of America was like the sun at high noon. The world had entered “a peaceful time under America’s governance.”

After more than 300 years, from the very early 13 colonies along the Atlantic coast to the superpower that spread across North America, the developmental path of the U.S. has almost no obstacle. In the eyes of many Americans, all these are the arrangements of God. With a strong sense of responsibility and superiority, ambitious Americans began to defend and promote democracy and freedom around the world. So there came the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and the Korean War and Vietnam War, which cast a permanent scar on Americans.

In 1967 when the Vietnam War reached its peak, J. William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, published a book called “The Arrogance of Power.”* In this book, he made a deep reflection on and criticism of U.S. foreign policy. He believed, due to its special foundational background, that Americans tend to assume the airs of the redeemer, trying various means (especially through bilateral intervention) to “save” those countries and nations they think unfortunate. Nevertheless, such wishful thinking (economically or militarily) does not make the people of these countries feel appreciative of America. To the contrary, this foreign policy, which bears a strong sense of superiority and religious color, evoked hatred and resistance among many nations. He also pointed out, as America was not established out of a social revolution, that its society is born to have strong conservativeness, which makes it hard for Americans to understand the radical change of other countries unless that change eventually leads to American democracy and freedom. In his opinion, the reason why Americans cannot pull themselves out of the Vietnam War is that their foreign policy, driven by their redeemer sense, sees the political turmoil in Southeast Asia with a colorful ideological eye.

The publication of “The Arrogance of Power” made the book a classic in the discussion of American foreign policy. However, we shall take a dialectical approach when reading the arrogance of America rather than take a completely negative attitude. On the one hand, the arrogance of America has brought disastrous results to some countries, for example Afghanistan and Iraq. On the other hand, without arrogant America, people of many nations would perhaps still be in deep distress. Generally speaking, the contribution made by Americans to world peace and development is far greater than the negative effect it brought. I remember someone said that one Beethoven can make the world forgive all the crimes committed by Germans under Hitler. If so, having turned post-war Japan and Germany into rich and democratic countries could adequately make the world forgive the arrogance of America, let alone the various welfare brought by American technological innovation to the world and its great contribution to the economic recovery of post-war Europe.

In the anarchy of international relationships, there should be one country to uphold justice and maintain world peace and development. A country without powerful strength cannot play that role well, yet a powerful country without the power to persuade cannot play such a role either. In today’s world, this role only belongs to America.

The Humility of Power

The humility of power is also natural for America. The first inhabitants fled to North America to escape from religious persecution. In this new land they could establish a country with religious freedom. The Mayflower Compact signed in 1620 symbolized the establishment of the first municipal government. When the Revolutionary War broke out, 13 colonies in North America already had an autonomic history of more than 100 years. The Declaration of Independence signed in 1776 announced to the world the political belief of Americans that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” For Americans, the government is to secure the sacred rights of people. The rights of America’s government were further limited by the establishment of the American Constitution in 1787, which prevent the government from infringing upon human rights. The Bill of Rights passed in 1791 made America the first country in history to use Constitutional law to protect individuals’ rights. In front of the sacred rights of people, the power of government loses its arrogance and becomes very humble.

The pioneering founders, who were deeply affected by European Enlightenment, believed that the best limitations to power are the separation and balance of powers. James Madison, who played a most important role in drafting the American Constitution, wrote a famous phrase: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angles were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Simply put, Madison advised people neither to innocently pin the hopes of human rights on the angel-like leaders nor to believe too much in people’s ability to supervise the government. It’s better to believe in the system than to believe in the people.

In short, in a country in which people believe “all men are created equal,” presidential elections are held every four years, and where separation of power is executed and the Bill of Rights is obeyed, the power can only be humble in front of people. From my own experience, I can deeply feel that power without arrogance. While studying in America, I once participated in a young students’ seminar held by the National Committee on United States China Relations where I met Joseph Prueher, admiral and former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. I can still clearly remember that he wore casual clothes, one jacket and came on his own. After the meeting, I excitedly chatted with him for a few minutes then walked him to the gate. I thought that even though he had already retired, at least there should be a special car waiting outside for him. But to my surprise, he told me he was going to take a taxi to another place. When he waved good-bye to me in the taxi, I could not believe what happened in front of my eyes.

Another example concerns Donald Henry Rumsfeld, former U.S. secretary of defense. On May 27, 2003, on the road from the defense department to Andrews AFB [Joint Base Andrews, a military facility in Maryland], Rumsfeld’s car was knocked by a small car driven by a woman. Afterwards, the spokesmen of the Defense Department said the car lost control when turning and knocked into the special car of the secretary. The policeman came and issued a ticket to the woman; it’s over now. As the accident happened in a time when domestic security was in high tension after 9/11, it was reported by many media sources. I later read the report and learned that his pool only had two cars at that time.

Troops are the symbol of the power of a nation. In any country, the military is an institution that enjoys plenty of privileges. However, these two examples adequately illustrate the humility of state power in American society. Such examples are not limited to the American army; they can be observed everywhere in government institutions. For example, when Americans come to Washington with valid certificates, they can enter the Capitol to visit their congressmen, or to visit the Supreme Court, or pay a visit to the White House or the Defense Department. These things are too small to illustrate, however, just how much the basic principles of [how the] U.S. government rules the nation are fully reflected, that all the powers are from the people, before their masters; power shall only be humble.

The American government’s humility in domestic politics does not have any conflicts with its arrogance in dealing with international affairs. As a matter of fact, the former is the prerequisite of the latter. Without democracy and freedom, though possessing unique natural resources, America cannot necessarily develop into a superpower. We do not have to model ourselves on America’s arrogance when dealing with international affairs, but we shall learn from the U.S. government its humility when it faces its own people. If China wants to make its mark in international affairs, above all the government must make its power lose arrogance in front of its people.

I have said really too much. An old Chinese adage came into my mind suddenly: Only by being internally kind can one be strong externally.

*Editor’s note: Fulbright published “The Arrogance of Power” in 1966.