US STUDENT’S FILE
AMERICAN DIVERSITY
(5 weeks: 5 October – 7 November)
PLAN
I. Lead-in
 Mock US Citizenship Test
 Reading 1: THE BASIC AMERICAN VALUES
II. Obligatory material
 Reading 2: THE VICES OF OUR VIRTUES
 Reading 3: THE REVISION THING
III. Additional texts
 Reading 4: ANTI-AMERICANISMS
 Reading 5: AMERICAN CNSUMERISM AND THE NEW
CAPITALISM
 Reading 6: PROSPECTS FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH
RUSSIA
IV. Essay topics
1
I. Lead-in
 Mock US Citizenship Test
1. What was the Mayflower?
2. Who do the Americans thank on Thanksgiving day and what are the
ingredients of a traditional American Thanksgiving dinner?
3. What do the terms “melting pot” and “salad bowl” mean to US society
and culture?
4. Who got the right to vote first: American blacks, women or people
under 21 year of age?
5. What are the names of the two major political parties in the USA and
what animals and colours symbolize each party?
6. What event in American history is known all over the world as the
Boston Tea Party?
7. Who was the youngest and the oldest elected President in the history
of the USA?
8. Which famous American document begins with the words, “We, the
people of the United States…”?
9. Which country presented the USA with the Statue of Liberty? What
was the occasion?
2
 Reading 1: учебное пособие. “Speaking English for Graduate
Students of International Relations”/ Составление С.В. Мухин –
М.: МГИМО(У) МИД России, 2004. - Unit 3-4.
THE BASIC AMERICAN VALUES
The United States probably has a greater diversity of racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious groups
than any other nation on earth. From the beginning of the history of the United States, there has been
diversity — Native Americans throughout the North American continent, Spanish settlers in the
Southwest and in Florida, French missionaries and fur traders along the Mississippi River, black slaves
brought from African countries, Dutch settlers in New York, Germans in Pennsylvania, and, of course,
the British colonists, whose culture eventually provided the language and the foundation for the political
and economic systems that developed in the United States.
Most early Americans recognized this diversity, or pluralism, as a fact of life. The large variety of
ethnic, cultural, and religious groups meant that accepting diversity was the only practical choice, even if
some people were not enthusiastic about it. However, in time, many Americans came to see strength in
their country's diversity. Today, there is more recognition of the value of cultural pluralism than at any
other time in the history of the United States.
When we examine the system of basic values that emerged in the late 1700s and began to define the
American character, we must remember this context of cultural pluralism. How could a nation of such
enormous diversity produce a recognizable national identity?
Historically, the United States has been viewed as "the land of opportunity," attracting immigrants
from all over the world. The opportunities they believed they would find in America and the experiences
they actually had when they arrived nurtured this set of values. In this article, we will examine six basic
values that have become "traditional" American values. Three represent traditional reasons why
immigrants have been drawn to America: the chance for individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and
material wealth. In order to achieve these benefits, however, there were prices to be paid: self-reliance,
competition, and hard work. In time, these prices themselves became a part of the traditional value
system.
Individual Freedom and Self-Reliance
The earliest settlers came to the North American continent to establish colonies that were free from
the controls that existed in European societies. They wanted to escape the controls placed on their lives by
kings and governments, priests and churches, noblemen and aristocrats. To a great extent, they
succeeded. In 1776, the British colonial settlers declared their independence from England and established
a new nation, the United States of America. In so doing, they overthrew the king of England and declared
that the power to govern would lie in the hands of the people. In 1789, when they wrote the Constitution for
their new nation, they separated church and state so that there would never be a government-supported
church. This greatly limited the power of the church. Also, in writing the Constitution, they expressly
forbade titles of nobility to ensure that an aristocratic society would not develop. There would be no ruling
class of nobility in the new nation.
The historic decisions made by those first settlers have had a profound effect on the shaping of the
American character. By limiting the power of the government and the churches and eliminating a formal
aristocracy, they created a climate of freedom where the emphasis was on the individual. The United
States came to be associated in their minds with the concept of individual freedom. This is probably the most
basic of all the American values. Scholars and outside observers often call this value individualism, but
many Americans use the word freedom. Perhaps the word freedom is one of the most respected popular
words in the United States.
By freedom, Americans mean the desire and the ability of all individuals to control their own destiny
without outside interference from the government, a ruling noble class, the church, or any other organized
authority. The desire to be free from controls was a basic value of the new nation in 1776, and it has
continued to attract immigrants to this country.
There is, however, a price to be paid for this individual freedom: self-reliance. Individuals must
learn to rely on themselves or risk losing freedom. This means achieving both financial and emotional
3
independence from their parents as early as possible, usually by age 18 or 21. It means that Americans
believe they should take care of themselves, solve their own problems, and "stand on their own two feet."
This strong belief in self-reliance continues today as a traditional basic American value. It is
perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of the American character to understand, but it is profoundly
important. Most Americans believe that they must be self-reliant in order to keep their freedom. If they
rely too much on the support of their families or the government or any organization, they may lose some
of their freedom to do what they want.
If people are dependent, they risk losing freedom as well as the respect of their peers. Even if they are
not truly self-reliant, most Americans believe they must at least appear to be so. In order to be in the
mainstream of American life — to have power and/or respect — individuals must be seen as self-reliant.
Although receiving financial support from charity, family, or the government is allowed, it is never admired.
Many people believe that such individuals are setting a bad example, which may weaken the American
character as a whole.
The sight of beggars on city streets and the plight of the homeless may inspire sympathy but also
concern. Although Americans provide a lot of financial support to people in need through charities or
government programs, they expect that help to be short-lived. Eventually, people should take care of
themselves.
Equality of Opportunity and Competition
The second important reason why immigrants have traditionally been drawn to the United States is
the belief that everyone has a chance to succeed here. Generations of immigrants, from the earliest
settlers to the present day, have come to the United States with this expectation. They have felt that
because individuals are free from excessive political, religious, and social controls, they have a better
chance for personal success. Of particular importance is the lack of a hereditary aristocracy.
Because titles of nobility were forbidden in the Constitution, no formal class system developed in
the United States. In the early years of American history, many immigrants chose to leave the older
European societies because they believed that they had a better chance to succeed in America. In "the old
country," their place in life was determined largely by the social class into which they were born. They
knew that in America they would not have to live among noble families who possessed great power and
wealth inherited and accumulated over hundreds of years.
The hopes and dreams of many of these early immigrants were fulfilled in their new country. The
lower social class into which many were born did not prevent them from trying to rise to a higher social
position. Many found that they did indeed have a better chance to succeed in the United States than in the
old country. Because millions of these immigrants succeeded, Americans came to believe in equality of
opportunity.
It is important to understand what most Americans mean when they say they believe in equality of
opportunity. They do not mean that everyone is — or should be — equal. However, they do mean that
each individual should have an equal chance for success. Americans see much of life as a race for success.
For them, equality means that everyone should have an equal chance to enter the race and win. In other
words, equality of opportunity may be thought of as an ethical rule. It helps ensure that the race for
success is a fair one and that a person does not win just because he or she was born into a wealthy family,
or lose because of race or religion. This American concept of "fair play" is an important aspect of the
belief in equality of opportunity. President Abraham Lincoln expressed this belief in the 1860s when he
said:
We... wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. When one
starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he
knows that there is no fixed condition of labor for his whole life.
Material Success, Hard Work, and Self-Discipline
The achievement of material success is probably the most widely respected form of selfimprovement in the United States. Many scholars believe that the nation's Protestant heritage is largely
responsible for bringing this about. The idea of mixing materialism and religion may seem contradictory;
religion is considered to be concerned with spiritual matters, not material possessions. How can the two
mix?
Some of the early European Protestant leaders believed that people who were blessed by God might
be recognized in the world by their material success. Other Protestant leaders, particularly in the United
States, made an even stronger connection between gaining material wealth and being blessed by God.
4
American Protestantism, however, has never encouraged the idea of gaining wealth without hard work and
self-discipline. Many scholars believe that the emphasis of Protestantism on these two values made an
important contribution to the industrial growth of the United States. The Protestant view of hard work and
discipline differed from the older tradition of the Catholic Church where the most highly valued work was
that performed by priests and others whose lives were given completely to the organized church. The
work and self-discipline of those whose occupations were outside the church might have been considered
admirable but not holy. Protestant leaders brought about a different attitude toward work, first in Europe,
and later in the New World, by viewing the work of all people — farmers, merchants, and laborers — as
holy.
Protestants also believed that the capacity for self-discipline was a holy characteristic blessed by God.
Self-discipline was often defined as the willingness to save and invest one's money rather than spend it on
immediate pleasures. Protestant tradition, therefore, may have played an important part in creating a good
climate for the industrial growth of the United States, which depended on hard work and willingness to save
and invest money. The belief in hard work and self-discipline in pursuit of material gain and other goals is
often referred to as "the Protestant work ethic," or "the Puritan work ethic."
It is important to understand that this work ethic has had an influence far beyond the Protestant
Church. Many religious groups in the United States share belief in what is called the Protestant work
ethic. Americans who have no attachment to a particular church, Protestant or Catholic, have still been
influenced by the work ethic in their daily lives.
The Protestant idea of self-improvement includes more than achieving material gain through hard
work and self-discipline. It includes the idea of improving oneself by helping others. Individuals, in other
words, make themselves into better persons by contributing some of their time or money to charitable,
educational, or religious causes that are designed to help others. The philosophy is sometimes called
volunteerism, or humanitarianism.
Historically, some of the extremely wealthy Americans have made generous contributions to help
others. In the early 1900s, for example, Andrew Carnegie, a famous American businessman, gave away
more than 300 million dollars to help support schools and universities and to build public libraries in
thousands of communities in the United States. John D. Rockefeller, another famous businessman, in
explaining why he gave a large sum from his private fortune to establish a university, said: “The good
Lord gave me my money, so how could I withhold it from the University of Chicago?" The motive for
humanitarianism and volunteerism is strong: Many Americans believe that they must devote part of their
time and wealth to religious or humanitarian causes in order to be acceptable in the eyes of God and in the
eyes of other Americans. Many businesses encourage their employees to do volunteer work, and
individuals may get tax credits for money given to charity.
Answer the questions:
1. Which term describing the American character do you find more precise: individualism or
freedom?
2. What is self-reliance?
3. What is Americans' attitude toward those who receive financial support?
4. Why is it believed that everyone has a chance to succeed in the USA? Do you share this
belief?
5. How is equality of opportunity understood in the USA?
6. Can spiritual matters and material possessions be mixed?
7. How does the Protestant view of hard work and discipline differ from the Catholic view?
8. What is Puritan work ethic?
9. What is the American idea of self-discipline?
5
II. Obligatory material
 Reading 2: учебник Е.М.Зелтынь, Г.П. Легкодух Английский
для будущих дипломатов. English for future diplomats.М,;МГИМО(У)МИД России,2005 – Unit 9.
UNIT 9
The Vices of Our Virtues
The American Creed is what makes us great as a nation - and also what fosters some big
problems
Robert J.Samuelson
I am proud to be an American; most of us are. Our patriotism is fierce, if often quiet. A recent
Gallup poll asked respondents in 16 countries whether they would like to live elsewhere.
Americans finished almost last. Only about 11 percent of us would move. By contrast, 38
percent of Britons, 30 percent of Germans, 20 percent of Japanese and 19 percent of Canadians
would. Why, then, are we so mad at our leaders and society? One neglected answer is this:
America's glories and evils are tightly fused together.
The things that we venerate about America - its respect for the individual, its opportunity, its
economic vitality, its passion for progress - also breed conditions that we despise: crime, family
breakdown, inequality, cynicism, vulgarity and stress, to name a few. Naturally optimistic,
Americans reject any connection between our virtues and vices. We refuse to see, as sociologist
Seymour Martin Lipset argues in an important new book, that "seemingly contradictory aspects
of... society are intimately related."
But they are, and in an election year, the relationship is highly relevant. Only by grasping it
can we keep our perspective on the campaign's inevitable excesses. Already, we are deluged with
anguished analyses of our faults and vast schemes for self-improvement. Both exaggerate our
problems and our capacity to cure them: some national conditions aren't easily changed.
The American Creed - our distinct set of values - blends freedom, individualism and
egalitarianism. This mix has fired economic advance. Why do we lead the world in computers?
The answer is mostly culture. We love to create, experiment and tinker. We are the land of Apple
Computer and Netscape. Every year, more than 600,000 new businesses incorporate. We have
the largest global pool of venture capital. But the same emphasis on individual striving, success
and liberty can also inhibit social control and loosen people's sense of communal obligation.
Crime becomes just another path to "making it." Divorce rises if marriage seems to imperil selffulfillment. Because we worship individual effort, we are more tolerant of failure and inequality
than other nations. In 1987, a poll asked whether "government should provide everyone with a
guaranteed basic income." Only 21 percent of Americans agreed - about a third of the number of
Germans (56 percent) or Britons (61 percent). Naturally, our welfare state palls next to theirs.
Nor should we be surprised that:
• Among advanced societies, we are the richest - and the most unequal. In 1995,
Americans' incomes averaged roughly 20 to 30 percent above those of Europe and Japan. But
the richest 90th percentile of Americans have incomes nearly six times higher than the poor at
the 10th percentile. In Germany, the same ratio is 3 to 1; in Canada and Italy, it's about 4 to 1.
• We have the most successful democracy - and among the lowest voter turnouts. In the
Gallup poll, more Americans (64 percent) were satisfied with democracy than people
anywhere else. Canadians (62 percent) were closest; Britons (40 percent) and Japanese (35
percent) were well behind. Yet, in nonpresidential elections, less than half of eligible
Americans vote.
6
• Although decidedly moralistic, we have one of the world's most violent societies. In
1990, the American murder rate was more than twice as high as Germany's and nine times
higher than Japan's.
Contradictions abound. "Concern for the legal rights of accused persons and civil liberties in
general is tied to opposition to gun control and difficulty in applying crime-control measures,"
writes Lipset. Naturally, Americans are among the world's most gun-owning peoples. In 1993,
29 percent of U.S. households had handguns, compared with 5 percent of Canadian and 2
percent of Australian.
To some extent, the proof that our virtues and vices are connected comes from abroad, where
the advance of American values has created a natural experiment in social change. The loosening
of tight social controls in Russia, China and South Africa has led to more freedom -and crime. In
Europe and Japan, prosperity and the celebration of individuality have coincided with more
divorce and crime. Between 1970 and 1991, divorce rates rose 40 percent in Germany and 50
percent in Japan (though both remain well below U.S. levels).
The American Creed was already well established by the 1830s, when Alexis de Tocqueville
first described it. Even in Colonial times, America was less rigid socially than Europe. Land was
a great leveler. In America, most farmers owned it; in England, 60 percent of the population
didn't. Still, Colonial America brimmed with hereditary privileges and arbitrary power. In a 1992
book, historian Gordon S. Wood of Brown University argued that the decisive break occurred
during the Revolution itself, which created a social and intellectual upheaval.
Loyalists decamped to Canada, which (like Europe) remained a more deferential, communal
and paternalistic society. But in America, the legitimacy of unchangeable social distinctions
collapsed. Jefferson said that men would advance based on "virtue and talent", and not on birth.
The Revolution "made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people - their pursuit of happiness
- the goal of society and government" wrote Wood.
The resulting mind-set often means disappointment and division. All authority is suspect,
because it elevates some over others and triggers an inbred distrust of "aristocracy" - now "elites"
or callous CEOs. Popular culture is democratic and, therefore, sometimes shallow and offensive.
Talk radio and trash TV are only new expressions of old impulses. Progress is never sufficient,
because happiness - though constantly pursued - can never be guaranteed. Politicians fall short of
the ideals that we (and they) set: one reason why we attack them even while admiring our
system.
The election will expose these contradictions but not dispose of them. It's great to be an
American, but we are burdened as well as blessed by our beliefs. That defines the American
Drama.
NEWSWEEK
March 11, 1996
Reading notes
Creed - a summary of articles of religious beliefs, any system of beliefs or principles.
Gallup poll - assessment of public opinion by questioning a representative sample of people, esp. in order
to forecast voting at an election.
Gallup polls are named after the American statistician, George Horace Gallup, who invented them.
individualism - is closely allied to ideas of freedom. It encompasses a number of goals which individuals
may wish to attain including maximizing personal opportunities, realizing one's potential, the fulfillment
of aspirations, enjoyment of wealth, property and privacy as well as the security which results from a
well-ordered and peaceful society, egalitarianism - political theory that all members of society have equal
rights and should have equal treatment.
welfare state - a term used to describe a national system when all citizens are required to contribute
through taxation or other contributions to the provision of social services such as health, education,
financial benefits, pensions, etc. These services are available to all according to need on a free or
subsidised basis.
to pall - to become boring, insipid, wearisome or tiresome; to become cloyed or satiated.
percentile - a) in statistics any of 99 points at which a range of data is divided to make 100 groups of
equal size; b) any of these groups.
7
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) - French democratic theorist, author of De La Democratie en
Amerique (Democracy in America) and De L'Ancien Regime, which set out nineteenth century liberal
ideas. Tocqueville used the term "democracy" meaning a society where there is social equality and an
absence of class hierarchy and privilege. Over a century later, in the 1960s, Tocqueville's ideas on
democracy were echoed in the sociological studies of American political scientists.
Colonial times. In 1765 British America was comprised of thirteen colonies which came under the
jurisdiction of Parliament in London, and whose people were subjects of the King (George III at that
time). Each of the colonies had its own political institutions, but these were relatively powerless, with no
legislative and few executive powers.
The American Revolution (1775-1783) -the war that established the 13 American colonies as
independent from Britain, often called the American War of Independence.
Loyalists - Colonial Americans who remained loyal to Britain during the American Revolution.
Jefferson, Thomas (1743-1826) - US politician and 3rd President. A delegate to the Second Continental
Congress (1775), he drafted the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was Governor of Virginia
(1779-1781), Minister to France (1785) and Secretary of State (1790). He served as Vice-President under
John Adams (1797-1801) and as President (1801-1809).
paternalism - a tendency among some, especially politicians, to claim that they have a deeper
understanding of how to improve the condition of individuals and society than the people themselves.
They may suggest they know what is best for people, who, having inferior knowledge, do not understand
what is in their own best interests. The relationship between paternalists and the people can be described
as similar to that of father and child.
the pursuit of happiness - a quote from the American Declaration of Independence. "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (American
Declaration of Independence).
CEO - (US) chief executive officer.
Exercises
1. Look for words and expressions in the text to match the following definitions.
1. to help the growth or development of (sth.)
2. to respect deeply, regard as sacred
3. to lead to (sth.), to cause
4. connected with what is being discussed, what is happening, what is being done,
5. to understand
6. to fill or overwhelm with a great quantity
7. to mix together
8. to fiddle, or work in an unskilled way, with machinery, etc.
9. an undertaking or scheme that involves some risk
10. to stop or hinder (someone from doing sth.)
11 .to endanger
12.one who would remove all social or political inequalities
13.not decided by rules or laws but by a person's own opinion
14.respectful, considerate, reverential
15.activity; hobby; interest; occupation; pastime
2.
Comment on the notions expressed by Robert J.Samuelson.
1. The things that Americans venerate about America breed conditions that they despise.
However they reject any connection between their virtues and vices.
2. The American Creed (the Americans' distinct set of values) has fired economic advance.
3. The emphasis on individual striving, success and liberty can inhibit social control and
loosen people's sense of communal obligation.
4. Because Americans worship individual effort, they are more tolerant of failure and
inequality than other nations.
8
5. To some extent, the proof that American virtues and vices are connected comes from
abroad.
6. Even in Colonial times, America was less rigid socially than Europe. Land was a great
leveler.
7. Colonial America brimmed with hereditary privileges and arbitrary power.
8. But in America, the legitimacy of unchangeable social distinctions collapsed. Jefferson said
that men would advance based on "virtue and talent" and not on birth.
9. The Revolution "made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people - their pursuit of
happiness - the goal of society and government."
10.Progress is never sufficient, because happiness - though constantly pursued - can never be
guaranteed.
11.Popular culture is democratic and, therefore, sometimes shallow and offensive.
3. Seymour Martin Lipset argues that "seemingly contradictory aspects of... society are
intimately related."
List all the contradictions mentioned in the article. Comment on the relationship.
4. Write a summary of the article.
5. Support or challenge the following quotations.
1. It is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail.
Thomas Jefferson
2. The best of all governments is that which teaches us to govern ourselves.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe
3. The great hope of society is individual character.
William E. Channing
4. The more corrupt the state, the more laws.
Tacitus/Publius Cornelius/
9
 Reading 3: учебник Е.М.Зелтынь, Г.П. Легкодух Английский
для будущих дипломатов. English for future diplomats.М,;МГИМО(У)МИД России,2005 – Unit 16.
U NI T 1 6
The Revision Thing
American mythology paints the past in rosy pink. The reality is altogether a different
hue, according to a new civic history
America, it is often said, has a history-sized hole in its imagination. Henry James groaned
about his country's "perpetual repudiation of the past" while another Henry (Ford, this time)
called history "bunk". A few years ago, Hollywood marketed Alan Bennett's play, "the Madness
of George III", as "the Madness of King George" in case audiences got the idea they had missed
parts I and II. Nowadays, "you're history" is a handy insult. As a popular columnist, Christopher
Hitchens, recently reminded American readers, Communists used to air-brush people out of
history rather than consign them to it.
And yet it could just as well be said that America is fascinated by history, or at least a
mythologised version of it. In the political and legal debate on impeachment, Americans
constantly invoke the country's founders, citing 18th-century writings to support modern views.
Whenever they fret about their country, somebody appears to tell them that things were better in
a past era, real or (usually) imagined. The rancour over impeachment appears to represent a fall
from some former Eden of civility. The cliché is that American politicians are obsessed with the
vision thing. In truth, the revision thing is big in Washington too.
One of the most popular kinds of historical revisionism concerns the virtue of the nation's
citizens. The earliest Americans, according to the popular imagination, were models of virtue,
governing themselves wisely through the fabled town-hall meetings of New England, and
through a variety of voluntary associations. In the 1830s Alexis de Tocqueville arrived from
France to marvel at the vigour of America's civic society, while another Gallic flatterer, J.Hector
St.John de Crevecoeur, earlier demanded, "What then is the American, this new man?" Short of
more up-to-date French compliments, Americans seem captivated by these ones. Politicians wax
lyrical about voluntary associations, and hold their own town-hall meetings with constituents.
Recently, Internet conferences have come to be called "electronic town-hall meetings", as though
the old intimacy of New England can be replaced by a new kind of deliberation, face-tointerface.
Actually, those New England town meetings were a far cry. from the myth they inspired. As
Michael Schudson writes in "The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life", his recent
history of American civic society, these meetings were open only to property-owning men, and,
in some cases, only to church members. Far from being models of pure democracy, they usually
followed the agenda and preferences of the chosen few, who tended to be the richest figures in
the town. Far, again, from being models of devoted political participation, the town halls suffered from citizen apathy: in 18th-century Massachusetts, for example, attendance ranged from
20% to 60% of eligible voters.
Finally, the notion that these meetings served the modern ideal of political freedom is pure
"bunk". New England town halls were meant to show-case harmony and consensus, not be a
forum for free opinions. When contemporaries spoke of liberty, they meant the liberty of a town
against outside influence, not the liberty of the individual.
If 18th-century New England has been mythologised, what of the early republic that followed
it? The constitution of 1787 brought into being equality based on competing interests;
deliberation was no longer expected to yield consensus. Hierarchy was also softened. The constitution's opening words, "We the people", summed up the new spirit of the times. And yet, though
10
these changes were remarkable for their era, it is odd that the early republic is so admired two
centuries later. At that time, slaves, women and the poor remained excluded from the ballot box.
America's sense of its more recent past seems just as faulty. It is often assumed, for example,
that the America of the 1950s exuded civic solidarity; indeed, Bob Dole based his 1996
presidential campaign partly on a promise that he would speak for the pre-baby-boomer certitudes that Americans seemed to crave. But the 1950s did not appear so perfect to many
contemporaries. Robert Dahl, a celebrated sociologist, studied New Haven, Connecticut, in the
late 1950s, and found people unwilling to bestir themselves for altruistic community life.
President Eisenhower was sufficiently worried about the national aimlessness to commission a
study of "Goals for Americans". Americans then may have been more trusting of government
than people are these days, but this was not necessarily an advantage. Perhaps they should have
been less trusting of a government that denied rights to blacks, withheld welfare payments from
eligible supplicants, and tested radioactive fall-out on unwitting citizens.
In sum, the past for which Americans pine was far from perfect, and probably not even
preferable to the America of today. Of course it is true that prosperity has weakened some
community bonds, for instance by encouraging grandparents and adult children to live independently: in 1950 only three in ten unmarried adults lived alone; by 1970 six in ten did. But it is
not clear that this is a bad thing. The rise in solo living may increase loneliness, but it also
increases privacy and freedom. This must on balance be a benefit, otherwise the extended family
would still be thriving now.
All this may seem obvious, but it has not saved Americans from nostalgia yet. On the contrary,
America clings to an array of historically derived ideals of citizen participation - 18th-century
town-hall meetings, 19th-century mass parties, early 20th-century direct democracy - even
though it cannot possibly live up to all at once. These are the "successive coats that laminate our
political ideals", as Mr.Schudson puts it; and each coat is tattered, so that the earlier ones show
through. It is reassuring to find Mr.Schudson pleading that "We can gain inspiration from the
past, but we cannot import it." It would be even better if his countrymen read his book.
THE ECONOMIST January 9th, 1999
Reading notes
James, Henry (1843-1916) - an American writer who wrote about the effect of Europe on Americans
who travelled there. His books include Washington Square, The Bostonians, and the supernatural
story Тле Turn of the Screw.
Bennett, Alan (1934-) - a British writer and actor from the North of England, best known for his many
humorous television plays.
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1805-1859). (Reading notes to The Vices of Our Virtues.)
Crevecoeur, J.Hector St.John (1735-1813). (Reading notes to The Cult of Ethnicity, Good and Bad.)
Dole, Robert (1923-) - US Senator. He trained as a lawyer, entered the US House of Representatives, as a
Republican (1961-1969), and became member of the US Senate from Kansas in 1969. In 1976 he stood as
a Republican vice-presidential candidate alongside Gerald Ford. Between 1984 and 1986 he was majority
leader of the Senate, and later minority leader, and in 1993 became senior Republican representative in
Washington. He ran unsuccessfully for presidential nomination in 1980 and 1988. In 1996 he ran for
president against Bill Clinton on the Republican ticket and lost.
baby-boom - a period when there is a large increase in the number of babies born, esp. the period after
the Second World War: the baby-boom of the 1950s, a baby-boomer - a person born during the 1950s.
Dahl, Robert - a celebrated American sociologist, professor of political science at Yale University. In the
1960s Alexis de Tocqueville's ideas on democracy were echoed in the sociological studies of American
political scientists who rejected elitist theories, observing that much of American society was pluralist in
nature and that the true character of the political system was extremely complex. It was simplistic, they I
claimed, to see power as lying exclusively in the hands of a few political elites. In 1999 Robert Dahl
published On Democracy, where he discusses the history and forms of democracy, and the prospects for
democracy.
11
Exercises
1. Explain and expand on the following sentences from the text.
1. America, it is often said, has a history-sized hole in it's imagination.
2. Nowadays, "you're history" is a handy insult.
3. Communists used to air-brush people out of history rather than consign them to it.
4. In the political and legal debate on impeachment, Americans constantly invoke the
country's founders.
5. The rancour over impeachment appears to represent a fall from some former Eden of
civility.
6. Short of more up-to-date French compliments, Americans seem captivated by these ones.
7. Politicians wax lyrical about voluntary associations.
8. Actually, those New England town meetings were a far cry from the myth they inspired.
9. New England town halls were meant to show-case harmony and consensus, not be a forum
for free opinions.
10.The constitution of 1787 did bring into being a polity based on competing interests;
deliberation was no longer expected to yield consensus.
11.It is often assumed that the America of the 1950s exuded civic solidarity.
12.Robert Dahl... found people unwilling to bestir themselves for altruistic community life.
13.America clings to an array of historically derived ideals of citizen participation... even
though it cannot possibly live up to all at once.
14.These are the "successive coats that laminate our political ideals."
2. Think of other ways of expressing the following. Give Russian equivalents.
civic history
a civic society
civic solidarity
perpetual repudiation
a handy insult
historical revisionism
the fabled town-hall meetings
voluntary associations
the chosen few
eligible voters
eligible supplicants
a celebrated sociologist
altruistic community life
community bonds
national aimlessness
welfare payments
unwitting citizens
citizen participation
solo living
the extended family
3. Consult the dictionary and learn the derivatives of the following words.
perpetual, successive; to repudiate, to consign, to invoke, to supplicate, to laminate
4. Look for words and expressions in the text to match the following definitions.
1. to refuse to have anything to do with; refuse to acknowledge
2 . to assign to an undesirable position or place; relegate
12
3. to call on sb. for help, inspiration, support, etc.
4. to worry about; feel irritated, annoyed or querulous
5. to be filled with admiring surprise; be amazed, wonder
6. to capture the attention or affection of; fascinate; charm
7. to have an inclination, tendency to do sth.; incline
8. an opinion held by all or most; general agreement
9. a political or government organization; a state
10.careful consideration and discussion of alternatives
11.defective, blemished, imperfect or erroneous
12.to diffuse or seem to radiate; to ooze; discharge
13.a feeling of absolute sureness or conviction; certainty
14.to long for eagerly; to desire strongly
.
15.to stir to action; to exert or busy (oneself)
16.to give an order for (sth. to be done); authorise
17.to refuse to grant or give; to refuse the use of or access to
18.to hold back; keep back; restrain; to refrain from permitting or granting
19.fit to be chosen; legally or morally qualified
20.a person who supplicates (asks for sth. humbly)
21.not knowing or aware; unintentional
22.to have an intense longing or desire; yearn
23.considering everything; all in all
24.to prosper or flourish; to be successful
25.to hold fast; stick to; adhere to
26.coming in succession; following one another in sequence
27.to cover with thin layers; to build up in layers
28.torn and ragged; reduced to tatters
5. Explain the difference in meaning or usage of the following groups of words. Think of
situations in which they would be appropriate.
1. to consign - commit - relegate
2. to fret - complain - worry - feel querulous
3. to thrive - prosper - flourish - succeed
4. to repudiate - disown - refuse to accept - deny
5. to captivate - attract - fascinate - charm
6. celebrated - famous - renowned - distinguished
7. unwitting - unaware - unintentional
8. faulty - defective - imperfect - erroneous
6.
Fill in the missing verbs. Paraphrase the sentences and translate them into Russian.
1. to _____ people out of history
2. to _______ people to history
3. Americans constantly __ the country's founders.
4. American politicians with the vision thing.
5. New England town halls were meant harmony and consensus.
6. The constitution a polity based on competing interests.
7. deliberation was not expected consensus
8. ...the America of the 1950s
civic solidarity
9. Americans seemed___ pre-baby-boomer certitudes.
10. Eisenhower___ a study of “Goals for Americans”.
11.... a government that ______ rights to blacks and _______ welfare payments from eligible
supplicants.
12. The past for which Americans _____ was far from perfect.
7. Give your understanding of the headline. What does the author imply?
13
8. Comment on the notions expressed by the author. Choose a topic for an essay.
1. Henry Ford called history "bunk".
2. People are prone to fret about their country.
3. Things are always better in a past era, real or imagined.
4. American politicians are obsessed with the vision thing.
5. Repudiation of the past often leads to historical revisionism.
6. People are loath to find fault with the past. Many see the past in rosy pink.
7. We can gain inspiration from the past, but we cannot import it.
9.Write a summary of the article.
10. Suggest an English translation for the following quotations. Discuss the subject matter.
1. Наши взгляды - как наши часы: все они показывают разное время, но каждый верит только
своим.
Эдгар По (Edgar Allan Рое)
2. Всемирная история есть сумма всего того, чего можно было
бы избежать.
Бертран Рассел (Bertrand Russell)
3. Захватывающая история редко бывает правдивой.
Самюэл Джонсон (Samuel Johnson)
4.
В политике нет ничего более достойного восхищения, чем короткая память.
Джон Кеннет Гэлбрэйт (John Kenneth Galbraith)
14
III. Additional texts
 Reading 4:
Anti-Americanisms
By Peter Katzenstein and Robert Keohane
October 20, 2006
Around the world, not just in the Middle East, when bad things happen there is a widespread
tendency to blame America for its sins, either of commission or omission. When its Belgrade
embassy is bombed, Chinese people believe it was a deliberate act of the United States
government; terror plots by native British subjects are viewed as reflecting British support for
American policy; when AIDS devastates much of Africa, the United States is faulted for not
doing enough to stop it.
These outbursts of anti-Americanism can be seen simply as a way of protesting American
foreign policy. Is "anti-Americanism" really just a common phrase for such opposition, or does it
go deeper? If anti-American expressions were simply ways to protest policies of the hegemonic
power, only the label would be new. Before World War I Americans reacted to British
hegemony by opposing "John Bull." Yet there is a widespread feeling that anti-Americanism is
more than simply opposition to what the United States does, but extends to opposition to what
the United States is -- what it stands for. Critiques of the United States often extend far beyond
its foreign policy: to its social and economic practices, including the public role of women; to its
social policies, including the death penalty; and to its popular culture, including the flaunting of
sex. Globalization is often seen as Americanization and resented as such. Furthermore, in France,
which has had long-standing relations with the United States, anti-Americanism extends to the
decades before the founding of the American republic.
Since we are interested in attitudes that go beyond negative opinions of American foreign policy,
we define anti-Americanism as a psychological tendency to hold negative views of the United
States and of American society in general. Such negative views, which can be more or less
intense, can be classified into four major types of anti-Americanism, based on the identities and
values of the observers. From least to most intense, we designate these types of antiAmericanism as liberal, social, sovereign-nationalist, and radical. Other forms of antiAmericanism are more historically specific.
Liberal anti-Americanism. Liberals often criticize the United States bitterly for not living up to
its own ideals. A country dedicated to democracy and self-determination supported dictatorships
around the world during the Cold War and continued to do so in the Middle East after the Cold
War had ended. The war against terrorism has led the United States to begin supporting a variety
of otherwise unattractive, even repugnant, regimes and political practices. On economic issues,
the United States claims to favor freedom of trade but protects its own agriculture from
competition stemming from developing countries and seeks extensive patent and copyright
protection for American drug firms and owners of intellectual property. Such behavior opens the
United States to charges of hypocrisy from people who share its professed ideals but lament its
actions.
Liberal anti-Americanism is prevalent in the liberal societies of advanced industrialized
countries, especially those colonized or influenced by Great Britain. No liberal anti-American
ever detonated a bomb against Americans or planned an attack on the United States. The
potential impact of liberal anti-Americanism would be not to generate attacks on the United
States but to reduce support for American policy. The more the United States is seen as a self15
interested power parading under the banners of democracy and human rights rather than as a true
proponent of those values, the less willing other liberals may be to defend it with words or deeds.
Since liberal anti-Americanism feeds on perceptions of hypocrisy, a less hypocritical set of
United States policies could presumably reduce it. Hypocrisy, however, is inherent in the
situation of a superpower that professes universalistic ideals. It afflicted the Soviet Union even
more than the United States. Furthermore, a prominent feature of pluralist democracy is that its
leaders find it necessary to claim that they are acting consistently with democratic ideals while
they have to respond to groups seeking to pursue their own self-interests, usually narrowly
defined. When the interests of politically strong groups imply policies that do not reflect
democratic ideals, the ideals are typically compromised. Hypocrisy routinely results. It is
criticized not only in liberal but also in nonliberal states: for instance, Chinese public discourse
overwhelmingly associates the United States with adherence to a double standard in its foreign
policy in general and in its conduct of the war on terror specifically.
Social anti-Americanism. Since democracy comes in many stripes, we are wrong to mistake the
American tree for the democratic forest. Many democratic societies do not share the peculiar
combination of respect for individual liberty, reliance on personal responsibility, and distrust of
government characteristic of the United States. People in other democratic societies may
therefore react negatively to America's political institutions and its social and political
arrangements that rely heavily on market processes. They favor deeper state involvement in
social programs than is politically feasible or socially acceptable in the United States. Social
democratic welfare states in Scandinavia, Christian democratic welfare states on the European
continent, and developmental industrial states in Asia, such as Japan, are prime examples of
democracies whose institutions and practices contrast in many ways with those of the United
States.
Social anti-Americanism is based on value conflicts that reflect relevant differences in many
spheres of life that are touching on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The injustice
embedded in American policies that favor the rich over the poor is often decried. The sting is
different here than for liberals who resent American hypocrisy. Genuine value conflicts exist on
issues such as the death penalty, the desirability of generous social protections, preference for
multilateral approaches over unilateral ones, and the sanctity of international treaties. Still, these
value conflicts are smaller than those with radical anti-Americanism, since social antiAmericanism shares in core American values.
Sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism. A third form of anti-Americanism focuses not on
correcting domestic market outcomes but on political power. Sovereign nationalists focus on two
values: the importance of not losing control over the terms by which polities are inserted in
world politics and the inherent importance and value of collective national identities. These
identities often embody values that are at odds with America's. State sovereignty thus becomes a
shield against unwanted intrusions from America.
The emphasis placed by different sovereign nationalists can vary in three ways. First, it can be
on nationalism: on collective national identities that offer a source of positive identification.
National identity is one of the most important political values in contemporary world politics,
and there is little evidence suggesting that this is about to change. Second, sovereign nationalists
can emphasize sovereignty. In the many parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa where state
sovereignty came only after hard-fought wars of national liberation, sovereignty is a muchcherished good that is to be defended. Anti-Americanism rooted in sovereignty is less common
in Europe than in other parts of the world for one simple reason: European politics over the past
half-century has been devoted to a common project -- the partial pooling of sovereignty in an
16
emerging European polity. A third variant of sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism appears
where people see their states as potential great powers. Such societies may define their own
situations partly in opposition to dominant states.
Sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism resonates well in polities that have strong state
traditions. Encroachments on state sovereignty are particularly resented when the state has the
capacity and a tradition of directing domestic affairs. This is true in particular of the states of
East Asia. The issues of "respect" and saving "face" in international politics can make antiAmericanism especially virulent, since they stir nationalist passions in a way that social antiAmericanism rarely does.
China is particularly interesting for this category, since all three elements of sovereignnationalist anti-Americanism are present there. The Chinese elites and public are highly
nationalistic and very sensitive to threats to Chinese sovereignty. Furthermore, China is already a
great power and has aspirations to become more powerful. Yet it is still weaker than the United
States. Hence, the superior military capacity of the United States and its expressed willingness to
use that capacity (for instance, against an attack by China on Taiwan) create latent antiAmericanism.
Radical anti-Americanism. We characterize a fourth form of anti-Americanism as radical. It is
built around the belief that America's identity, as reflected in the internal economic and political
power relations and institutional practices of the United States, ensures that its actions will be
hostile to the furtherance of good values, practices, and institutions elsewhere in the world. For
progress toward a better world to take place, the American economy and society will have to be
transformed, either from within or from without.
Radical anti-Americanism was characteristic of Marxist-Leninist states such as the Soviet Union
until its last few years and is still defining Cuba and North Korea today. When Marxist
revolutionary zeal was great, radical anti-Americanism was associated with violent revolution
against U.S.-sponsored regimes, if not the United States itself. Its Marxist-Leninist adherents are
now so weak, however, that it is mostly confined to the realm of rhetoric.
The most extreme form of contemporary radical anti-Americanism holds that Western values are
so abhorrent that people holding them should be destroyed. The United States is the leading state
of the West and therefore the central source of evil. This perceived evil may take various forms,
from equality for women, to public displays of the human body, to belief in the superiority of
Christianity. For those holding extreme versions of Occidentalist ideas, the central conclusion is
that the West, and the United States in particular, are so incorrigibly bad that they must be
destroyed. And since the people who live in these societies have renounced the path of
righteousness and truth, they must be attacked and exterminated.
Religiously inspired and secular radical anti-Americanism argue for the weakening, destruction,
or transformation of the political and economic institutions of the United States. The distinctive
mark of both strands of anti-Americanism is the demand for revolutionary changes in the nature
of American society.
It should be clear that these four different types of anti-Americanism are not simply variants of
the same schema, emotions, or set of norms with only slight variations at the margin. On the
contrary, adherents of different types of anti-Americanism can express antithetical attitudes.
Radical Muslims oppose a popular culture that commercializes sex and portrays women as
liberated from the control of men and are also critical of secular liberal values. Social and
Christian democratic Europeans, by contrast, may love American popular culture but criticize the
17
United States for the death penalty and for not living up to secular values they share with
liberals. Liberal anti-Americanism exists because its proponents regard the United States as
failing to live up to its professed values -- which are entirely opposed to those of religious
radicals and are largely embraced by liberals. Secular radical anti-Americans may oppose the
American embrace of capitalism but may accept scientific rationalism, gender egalitarianism,
and secularism -- as Marxists have done. Anti-Americanism can be fostered by Islamic
fundamentalism, idealistic liberalism, or Marxism. And it can be embraced by people who, not
accepting any of these sets of beliefs, fear the practices or deplore the policies of the United
States.
 Reading 5:
American Consumerism and the New Capitalism
Essay by R.Cronk
The traditional cultural values of American society are degenerating under the influences of
corporate politics, the commercialization of culture and the impact of mass media. Society is
awakening from its fascination with television entertainment to find itself stripped of tradition,
controlled by an oppressive power structure and bound to the credit obligations of a defunct
American dream.
For the public at large, the integrating and transformative experiences of culture have been
replaced by the collective viewing experience and by participation in consumer trends. The
American public has been inundated by an unending parade of commodities and fabricated
television spectacles that keeps it preoccupied with the ideals and values of consumerism.
Consumerism is the myth that the individual will be gratified and integrated by consuming. The
public fetishistically substitutes consumer ideals for the lost acculturating experiences of art,
religion and family. The consumer sublimates the desire for cultural fulfillment to the rewards of
buying and owning commodities. While consumerism offers the tangible goal of owning a
product, it lacks the fulfillment of other cultural mythologies. Consumerism offers only short
term ego-gratification for those who can afford the luxury and frustration for those who cannot.
The egocentricity of American society made it an easy target for the transition to a consumer
society. As deceptive advertising and academic nihilism gutted culture of its subjectively
realized values, the public was easily swayed onto the path of consumerism. In the midst of a
major identity crisis, will America realize the lack of morality and humanitarianism in a world
based on media image and the transient satisfaction of ownership? The reduction of cultural
values to economic worth has produced a situation in our 'enlightened' society where product
availability becomes ethical justification for political oppression.
The hallowed dollar is a cheap substitute for cultural values lost to greed and ambivalence in
post-modern America. Economic worth has displaced traditional cultural values defining selfworth. Self-worth is gauged by buying power. The acts of buying and owning reinforce selfworth within consumer society. You can see it in the haughty and demanding attitude of the
consumer as he stands before the cashier. No longer does the purchase have to be justified by
purpose.
18
Mass media perpetuates the myth of consumerism as a priority of the New Capitalism. As
America settles into its nightly routine of television viewing, corporate profiteers are quick to
substitute material luxury and consumer gratification for the fading spirit. Media advertising sells
an image -- an empty shell. Corporate America placates its flaccid public with despiriting
pastiche. There is only fraudulent illusion. Who cares as long as it looks good?
In its duplicitous plot to throttle the public, corporate policy assumes only the self-interested
exploitation of the consumer market and environmental resources. Corporate priorities and the
business ethic are not intrinsically humanitarian or ecologically sensitive. The humanitarian ethic
associated with small business is lost. The consumer is no longer courted by the competition of
small businesses. The small business has been crowded out by the corporate capitalist to insure
less competition and greater profit. Big business is too often the enemy of the people.
In corporate (monopolistic) capitalism the consumer is a target -- he is acted upon. Selection is
reduced, not to what the public wants, but to what it will accept at a greater profit for the
stockholder. Our choices and freedoms are limited by corporate policy. As we become
acclimated to life around the television set, collectively striving for a media-produced image, our
choices are made for us. Choice is reduced to brand name. We sacrifice self-knowledge for
consumerism. Consumerism, like communism and fascism, is a secular religion restricting
freedom of choice.
Beneath its smug persona lies an insecure America striving to fill an image projected in media
advertising. Self-awareness and self-worth have been distorted. We are what we wear. Who we
are merges with roles and images portrayed in the media. Ever so subtly we, Americans, are
losing something we have always been proud of - our ability to act independently.
 Reading 6:
Prospects for Engagement with Russia
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Stephen Sestanovich (Council on Foreign Relations/Columbia University )
March, 2009
Of all the world’s major states, Russia is the only one whose relations with the United States
have deteriorated in the past five years. It’s not a case, moreover, of “failure to thrive” – sickly
underperformance without specific ailments. Nor is the problem simply the result of inattention
by leaders in both Washington and Moscow who have other pressing things to worry about. The
worsening of Russian-American relations has involved real clashes of policy and perspective –
and active involvement by policymakers on both sides.
Although contemporary scholars of international relations believe that our time is marked by an
absence of fundamental antagonisms among the great powers, Russian officials are saying, in
effect, that they disagree. For them, security – and what they insist is an American drive to
weaken them -- is still the core problem of Russian-American relations. In his famous speech in
Munich two years ago, then-President Putin also complained that the United States “imposes
itself on other states, in the economy, in politics, and in the human-rights sphere.” On another
occasion, he compared American policies to those of the Third Reich. Here in Washington,
Russia’s image has suffered very severe damage as well. Moscow’s frictions with its neighbors
19
are widely seen to reflect neo-imperialist aspirations – and are, yes, sometimes compared to the
policies of the Third Reich.
Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration’s aim to press the “reset” button is welcome
and needed. Many opportunities are available for re-fashioning the relationship in ways that
benefit both countries. But it should probably be said at the outset that neither in coping with
modern gadgetry nor in diplomacy is pressing a “reset” button a guarantee of improved
performance.
There are some reasons to hope that, despite several years of testiness, the resetting of relations
between Moscow and Washington can be a relatively smooth process, certainly smoother than
many people expect. Leaders and policymakers in both countries seem, in general terms, to want
warmer, more productive relations. They regularly speak of a number of common interests–from
nuclear non-proliferation to counter-terrorism to stable international energy markets—that ought
to make it possible for Russia and the United States to cooperate. Today, not surprisingly,
economic recovery and growth also make the list of goals that could, and should, unite Russian
and American policy.
If President Obama and President Medvedev want to show that Russian-American relations are
re-booting nicely, it will be easy enough to do so. They should be able to announce the prompt
opening of talks on the extension of the START1 treaty–or, even better, on a successor
agreement that further reduces strategic arsenals. They could also re-commit themselves to
practical measures that will discourage Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including
diplomatic and military cooperation and missile defense. They might further renew their
determination to support a successful counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan. They can
announce an agenda of steps to address the concerns of both sides on issues of European
security. This is a very substantial but hardly exhaustive list. It’s not difficult to spell out
comparable measures in other areas, whether it’s trade and investment, energy cooperation,
climate change, or the work of the NATO-Russia Council.
The steps I have described for improving Russian-American relations would amount to a
textbook “reset.” But what if the process isn’t so smooth? Perhaps, instead of merely switching
things off and starting over, we actually have to inquire into the relationship’s deeper underlying
problems? Some thoughtful observers argue that we need to pay closer attention to the way in
which Russia views its interests. The Commission on U.S. Policy toward Russia made this point
just days ago, and I completely agree with it.
To get a feel for Russian thinking, it’s not necessary to explore the dark recesses of relations
with the Bush administration over the past eight years. Even in the past few months, Moscow’s
actions and statements have provided ample evidence of an approach to security that is likely to
complicate the re-booting of Russian-American relations. Consider, for example, the Russian
response to President Obama’s suggestion that if the problem posed by Iranian nuclear and
missile programs went away, so too would the need for American radars and interceptors to
counter them. For many Americans, this linkage is no more than a statement of the obvious–and
a constructive, common-sense place to start discussion. Yet Russian spokesmen, including
President Medvedev himself, have rejected it. Other Russian policies demonstrate the same
approach to security. We see it in the regularly repeated demand that Ukraine give up ownership
of the gas pipelines on its territory. It shows up in the suggestion that Europe needs new security
institutions so as to limit NATO’s ability to carryout the policies of its members.
What ties all these policies together–from missile defense to energy –is a seeming conviction
that Russian interests and those of other states, especially the U.S. and its European allies, are
inevitably in conflict. This is why, when Russian officials propose to work with us on countering
a possible missile threat from Iran, their proposals always involve reliance on Russian radars,
usually on Russian territory. And it’s why, for more than a decade, Russian policy has sought to
block the construction of pipelines that would bring oil and gas from Central Asia and the
Caucasus to international markets without crossing Russian territory. We saw the same pattern
20
this week when President Medvedev addressed the Defense Ministry, explaining his proposals
for military reform as a response to the growing threat from NATO.
Russian security, in short, continues to be viewed in unusually prickly zero-sum terms. The
result is that real cooperation with other states is generally considered risky and undesirable,
even dangerous. This Russian outlook hardly means that a new American approach cannot
succeed. And it certainly does not mean we should not make the effort. Our interests in expanded
cooperation with Russia are real, and they call for sustained diplomacy to create a more
productive relationship.
Yet the mismatch between our strategic outlook and Russia’s does have implications for the way
in which we think about this effort. Our goal is not simply the mundane mutual accommodation
of interests that our diplomats pursue on a daily basis with other states. Alone among the great
powers, Russia presents us with the challenge of trying to get it to conceive its interests in a
fundamentally different, less confrontational way.
Expanded cooperation with Russia is possible even within the prevailing conception of its
interests, but far more would be possible if its leaders viewed security in ways more congruent
with the outlook of other European states. Is such a transformation possible? Of course. Nothing
is more contrary to historical experience–or for that matter, insulting to Russia--than to suggest
that it alone among the world’s major states must remain permanently hostage to outdated,
counter-productive conceptions of its interests, goals, and identity.
American policy, then, should pursue practical opportunities for cooperation with Russia. That
means advancing its integration into the multilateral institutions of international life where it is
ready to contribute to them. (Right now, Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization is
the most important unexploited opportunity.) We should do better in expanding bilateral
cooperation as well. (Here, arms limitation talks offer significant possibilities.) And, particularly
where Russia’s leaders have themselves acknowledged the legitimacy of the enterprise, we
should not miss openings to address the connection between the country’s internal
transformation and its place in the world. (On this point, there is no more tantalizing invitation
than President Medvedev’s observation that whether Russia enjoys respect abroad depends on
whether it observes the rule of law at home.)
In pursuing these cooperative steps, we should not forget the larger goal of our engagement with
Russia–a relationship not limited to re-fighting battles of the last decade, or of the last century.
That “reset” button remains to be pushed.
IV. Essay topics
1. “In America the biggest is the best.”
Roy Lichtenstein
2. “There is one word in America that says it all, and that one word is, “You
never know.”
Joaquin Andujar
3. “America is a place where we all come together. It is a place of consensus.”
Charles Schumer
4. “In America your worth, your identity, can be boiled down to the job title on
your business card.”(Cara Lockwood)
5. “Americanism demands loyalty to the teacher and respect for his lesson.”
Bainbridge Colby
21
6. “True Americanism recognizes the enormous gravity of the social and labor
problems which confront us.”
Henry Cabot Lodge
7. Americans... still believe in an America where anything's possible.
Barack Obama
8. “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried
everything else.”
Winston Churchill
9. “Only Americans can hurt America.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
10.“America: It's like Britain, only with buttons.”
Ringo Starr
11.“Only a blind fool, or a person who lies to himself (because of other interests)
would think that the export of American democracy would work.”
12.“Democracy was exported to the world from one country only, which is
America.”
22