Perhaps a second question needs to be asked, one which focuses outside the mainstream “left” and “right” and instead looks outside the mainstream. One of the things that has repeatedly struck me (and this site is a prime example) is how people on the “right” and “left” who have begun to question the myths that have become accepted as conventional wisdom often arrive at such similar conclusions with regards to many of the problems we face, and the necessary solutions toward solving those problems. The conclusion I have increasingly come to is that the old divisions of “right” and “left” are essentially meaningless, because they offer little more than mirror-images of the same decrepit, bankrupt ideology of neverending growth and expansion in a world of limits. The more effective solutions — based upon individuals acting within an actual community as opposed to a wholly imagined one (as described by Benedict Anderson) — seem to be found in that strange nexus of people from the right and left who have jettisoned those outdated ideologies in favor of something more practical and, more importantly, more human.

I think another day, Patrick, you should give us your “top ten desirable laws that would restrain acquisitiveness,” beginning the piece by using that McIntyre quote. That would be quite useful. Maybe two lists–one containing laws that could have some chance of being adopted in the next ten years, and another more ambitious.

BTW, your initial riff in the essay on Dionne’s comment is probably wrong because Dionne is–that is, it is highly questionable that we see more devotion to having a #1 economy in the Democrats than in the Republicans.

Now to the main dish. The whole #1 thing comes down to the tension between the sin of pride and the cultivation of greatness. At the communal/national level, this tension must play out amid the issue of what sort of patriotism to promote.

That is, don’t we want a non-imperialistic version of Pericles’s funeral oration? Even that version is going to exaggerate, is going to be taken by some uncharitable persons (within and esp. without) as a bird-flippin’ ape. But isn’t there an FPR vision of what an Athens could be that would justify a leader trying to promote devotion to Athens? So can we really be fully against “#1-ism”?

AMERICA’S BERRY-NOMICS IS #1! Right? Wouldn’t you pee-in-your-pants for that kind of crowing to become possible?

And isn’t it cool, right now, for example, when Americans can crow, “HAITIAN AID, WE’RE #1!!” ? I mean it drive the French nuts, but even that is cool, because it shows you that the French nation, unlike some wastelands of Euro indifference, remains capable of pride and shame and competitive spirit and (Christian) charity. A Pericles can still speak to them, for good or ill.

And of course, I’m with Mr. Merrell on the foreign policy. Yeah, in our day we either have to try for a) military pre-eminence, or b) being a major player in a reliable global balance of power in which our alliance can be pre-eminent. Since b) isn’t possible now, we stick w/ a). And we’re patriotic about sticking w/ a). To the deluded, covetous, and hateful elite opinion and thus media opinion in Germany, Russia, and (less so)in France, we rightly have CONTEMPT.

As a character said in the great movie Barcelona: “They’re against NATO? What are they FOR? The Soviets storming across Europe eating all their croissants?”

I do remember the debates, (thinking of D.W. Sabin’s recent post) back in the 80′s centered around the fact the US was ‘forced’ to spend so much money on our military, while other countries were free to spend on education, infrastructure and so on. A good bit of frustration was directed at Japan.

The two ideas are connected for me – I am thinking the idea that it’s either us or another country may be a false alternative, and that there is a joint responsibility among nations to provide security. That could mean many things, from someone else flying emergency supplies to X, or conducting the bombing campaign or even finally reforming one’s political structure so one’s country is no longer a seething monarchy propped up by a foreign army.

It’s important to have strong arms if you’re confined to a wheelchair, but what if one day the doc says you can get up and walk?

There is an ascetic tradition in most religions that encourages strict self-discipline and denial. I agree denial and discipline are important in helping us set limits – in hopes of preventing excess. Too much, we have the flagellants.

There are the hermits, whose only focus is prayer in whatever form they strive – perhaps they are the exception that proves the rule?

I have read very ‘flowery’ and erudite treaties on virtue – some I admit are above my grasp. In the end, it seems that the simplest definition/understanding prevails: virtue is the avoidance of excess, be it negative or positive.

I would happily look into any recommended reading that suggests otherwise. As I see it, we are a country of excess. One can only gorge so long.

I fear that the question is not one of strength. If any locales are to be preserved in which folk can be localists, without becoming survivalists, there must be a right-power sufficient to resist the will to power untempered by good morals. What I fear is that we may be becoming that unfettered power. If that is the case, I’m not sure who I want to be #1.
Really, I know who is, but that’s another post.

Interesting post on a subject about which I have given some thought. The quote from McIntyre is spot on. One may want to settle for being poorer but more virtuous. A couple of questions, though, meant to be honest challenges. First, if the US is not “#1,” who would you prefer be #1? Does not the world reap benefits from the fact that the richest and most influential nation is relatively benign and, in fact, quite generous in some respects? What would the world like if China was #1? America’s power has the effect of keeping some of the world’s worst regimes in check. Thoughts?

Second, one can recognize the value of “poor but virtuous,” but if your kid gets, say, childhood leukemia, there’s an obvious interest in living in a nation the produces great amounts of wealth such that we have the money to do research on this kind of disease. This is a blog comment so I will not tease out all the implications here, but I simply wish to make note of the very real human interest in wealth production so as to buy luxury items. Luxury doesn’t just mean Ipods and big screen TVs; it also means things like modern dentistry, MRI machines and artificial joints. While a proper attitude towards the tragic in life might give one a better appreciation of the inevitability of human suffering, it is not unreasonable that humans wish to escape it.

Again, I am largely sympathetic to your argument, but these challenges should be met, in my opinion.

Aristotle, and many others after him, always focused on moderation – virtue is nothing more than moderation. Courage – virtuous. Cowardice – vice, lack thereof. Foolhardy – Vice, too much. The middle road is the virtuous path. Not sure that bodes well for a nation of excess.

Loved your essay.

Your post today reminds me of one of the many perceptive passages in MacIntyre’s Whose Justice? Which Rationality?:

“[M]odern societies…recognize that acquisitiveness is a character trait indispensable to continuous and limitless economic growth, and one of their central beliefs is that continuous and limitless economic growth is a fundamental good. That a systematically lower standard of living ought to be preferred to a systematically higher standard of living is a thought incompatible with either the economics or the politics of peculiarly modern societies….But a community which was guided by Aristotelian norms would not only have to view acquisitiveness as a vice but would have to set strict limits to growth insofar as that is necessary to preserve or enhance a distribution of goods according to desert” (p. 112).