As others see us

In his 1950 book The Lonely Crowd, American sociologist David Riesman identified contrasting character types. “Inner-directed" individuals steer their life courses by steady principles they’ve internalized. "Other-directed” persons take their cues from those around them. No individual is all one or the other, but many people show decided leanings to one side or the other.

As Riesman's typology entered the lexicon, the inner-directed folks got the better press. They are the leaders you can count on. They are the ones who defy the whims of popularity. They stand their ground.

Yet their ranks also include narcissists and psychopaths, outlaws and dictators. Being wholly governed by the opinions of others is a bad thing. But so is being utterly disdainful of others' views.

This last is especially true if you're trying to persuade others to join you in some enterprise. Candidates who don't heed voters' opinions don't get elected. Countries trying to forge alliances must ask themselves what will attract allies.

Americans have often taken for granted that people in other countries consider America a beacon of freedom and democracy. For a generation or so after World War II, this supposition wasn't outlandish. To be sure, America’s system of racial segregation tainted the message of equality in the Declaration of Independence. But America had led the successful fight against fascism, and it was leading the ongoing fight against communism.

Yet even as Jim Crow was ending in the 1960s, America became bogged down in what to much of the world seemed an imperialist war in Southeast Asia. In the scores of countries newly freed from colonial rule, Ho Chi Minh made a more appealing hero than Lyndon Johnson. America's European allies distanced themselves from America's war in Vietnam.

As the United States belatedly disengaged from Vietnam, it took on a new protégé in the Middle East. Israel had benefited from sympathy for survivors of the Holocaust, but that sympathy wore thin as Israel seized ever more land from its Arab neighbors. By the 1970s, most of the world viewed Israel as an aggressor and America, which supported Israel with military and economic aid, as its facilitator.

America gained friends in Eastern Europe by contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the breakup of the Soviet empire. Several countries of the now defunct Warsaw Pact switched sides to NATO. Respect increased for the United States as the sole superpower. Democracy enjoyed its best decade in history upon the discrediting of communism.

To respect was added sympathy after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. But the administration of George W. Bush squandered the sympathy and diminished the respect by adopting a with-us-or-against-us policy regarding its war on terror. The American invasion of Afghanistan, the training ground for the al Qaeda terrorists of 9/11, was generally viewed as understandable. But the invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and whose regime had nothing but antipathy for al Qaeda, seemed egregiously neocolonial. 

In all of this it was entirely possible for Americans to say that the world was simply wrong and America was right. Which was exactly what one American administration after another said. But this attitude didn't incline other countries to be cooperative when the United States sought their help.

And it is at the heart of America's difficulty with critical issues of foreign policy today. The United States has tried to get other countries to support economic sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Some European countries have been willing to go along. But other countries, including China and Iran, have not. America blames the authoritarian governments of those countries. But there is little reason to think a democratic China or Iran would be more enthusiastic about following the American lead. The Chinese have nothing to gain from a stronger NATO, which is what a Ukrainian victory would produce. Most Iranians today are too young to remember America's support for the brutal regime of the shah, but they’re constantly reminded of America's support for Israel, Iran's sworn enemy.

The attitude of India demonstrates the world's ambivalence, not to say antipathy, toward American policies. India is a democracy, as prime minister Narendra Modi was reminded in recent elections. From independence in 1947, nonalignment has served India well. India's aloofness has often rankled American officials, and it still does in the context of Russian sanctions. But India's policy is akin to America's policy during the first century and a half of America's independent existence. America saw no reason to fight other people's battles then. India sees no reason now.

Indeed, to much of the world, the pertinent question is why America feels so obliged to get involved in other people's affairs. If the United States should go to war with China over Taiwan, regional powers like Japan, South Korea and Australia might join America. But people elsewhere will likely decide that the problem is for Taiwan and China to resolve. In the same way, they're taking the position that the Ukraine question is one for Ukraine and Russia to settle.

They won't be persuaded by American claims to be defending democratic values or universal human rights. What about democracy for Palestinians?, they will say. What about the rights of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib?

Again, Americans may conclude that most countries of the world are venal or foolish. Some are. But many are simply acting according to self-interest. As America does.