OH MY GOD!!!! This is hilarious -- and right to point. I've just sent your link to about 100 people Steve. Your blog is packed with such surprises. Thanks for all the XXX warnings. Guess you better watch out for Michael Powell!? Thanks Much,
d.

Steve, I thought your Fuck Yeah Americans write-up on the election was one of the most insightful pieces I saw on the race.

I think that this brand of American culture has been around for a long time. This just captures the essence of all those Congressmen who were proud of not having passports.

I don't really want a Democratic Party that appeals to these sorts of Americans; that is not the America I want to live in.

So, your comments about this strong current of Jacksonianism are very poignant and appreciated, but Dems need to learn how to win without forfeiting the battle of ideas to those who don't have any.

Now, to dinner; but you have given us our dinner discussion topic.

This kind of America has been here since we started.
The change seems to be it is gaining in popularity, and part of fanatical religion. A prof quoted on this blog, talked about how stress brings out these underling feelings.
We seems to advance 2 steps forward and 1 backward, over time. Glad when we get back on track.

Over on Kevin's blog (I really should get a life) everyone is refighting World War two. I started thinking about WW2 as myth: the heroic Americans save the world! I really don't mean that in a snarky way. My dad and my uncles fought in that war and came back wounded. It was a war of good and evil and we were on the good guys side and we won.
That's the dream behind the Fuck Yeah Americans. They want to be the heroic good guys. Our WW2 experience has imprinted that image on our collective imagination.
Well I would like us to be the good guys, too. I really would.
Framing has been a big subject of blog debate lately. What frame should the Democrats use in future political debates? How about "saving the world" only focus on global warming, over population and the end of the oilbased economy? I'm sort of serious about this. We do need to channel that desire for heroics and we do need to save the world.

"I don't really want a Democratic Party that appeals to these sorts of Americans; that is not the America I want to live in.".........Too late blogwonk, for it is the America you live in. And isn't Bush the ultimate Fuck Yeah American you can think of? Nearly an entire continent gone to seed, evolving into Philadelphia, Mississippi before our very eyes. Just fast forward and replace Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner with gays, atheists, feminists, academics and American-Muslims and you have Rove's New American Dream.

Steve-

I've found your posts on "Fuck Yeah" Americans quite interesting so far. I think the most important issue with respect to the future of the political map, which is what I think you're getting at (having read all the posts on the "Fuck Yeah" crowd), is what the next generation of voters is going to look like. Despite the fact that many of my friends greatly enjoyed "Team America," I'm not ready to give up on 'em as doomed to be part of the "Fuck Yeah" crowd. Why? Because the next generation of citizen-voters (i.e. today's college students, like myself) still are basically apathetic about politics. They may find the type of values of "Fuck Yeah" politics ("erotic sex, but lots of apple pie, Mom, NASCAR, tanks, and patriotic images too") attractive for now, but I'm not sure that they are totally sold on it (at least that's the sense I get from my fellow college students). For example, today's college students are more fascinated by the rest of the world than their parents (just consider how many students here at Princeton want to study international affairs, not to mention the rise in the numbers of courses focusing on the rest of the world all over the country)- thus eschewing "Fuck Yeah" parochialism- and they also have a passionate commitment to social justice (as evidenced by the unbelievably high levels of community service among college students today).

I think these indicators show that there's still hope for sanity from these new voters- before 2008, when many of us will be voting for the first time in large numbers. But the Dems are going to have to appeal to that youthful idealism in my generation, without writing off Eminem and P. Diddy. VP Gore tried the latter, and it didn't work. On this note, maybe they need to take a page out of President Kennedy. C'mon, Dems: how about a new call to young people to get involved in improving America's image around the world? Tell us to stop getting drunk and start using what we've learned in all those Middle East politics classes by engaging with those that hate us. If the Dems did this, they'd lock in the emerging, youthful voters, effectively ensuring a new "progressive majority," to borrow a term from my friend Ben Hubbard at CAP (see http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8850).

In short, there's hope. If we work hard on the young, we ain't gonna be "Fuck Yeah" for long.

Wonkie, I don't want to re-fight WWII on this site either, but the American version of WWII is a lot of revisionist history. The Big 4 of WWII were the Soviets with 13.6 million dead soldiers and 7.7 million dead civilians, the Chinese with 3.5 million dead soldiers and 10 million dead civilians, thet Germans with 3.2 million dead soldiers and 3.8 million dead civilians and the Japanese with 1.7 million dead soldiers and 0.36 million dead civilians. The civilian casualties reflect where the war was fought. So in addition, the Poles lost over 5 million civilians and the Yugoslavs over 1 million civilians. The other big losers in WWII.

The US lost under 0.3 million soldiers with almost no civilian casualties. Over twice as many British and French died as Americans. Combining civilian and military casualties, the Austrians, Italians, Rumanians, Hungarians, and the Czechs had more casualties than the US.

Therein lies the US triumph in taking so few civilian casualties and no damage to infrastructure. Basically, the US entered the war late and ended the misery. This would not have been possible without the damage that our enemies had sustained in conflicts before the point of US entry. Plus the ABomb gave Japan a reason to quit.

As for good guys v bad guys. Sure the US was allied against Nazis and Japanese that were war criminals extraodinaire. However, the British and French colonies were no picnic for the natives. Don't forget that the Soviets and Stalin were a major US ally in WWII. How many did Stalin kill? Without the Soviets fighting to the death against Germany, the Germans could have easily overrun Britain. It wasn't until several years into the war that the Soviet Army had killed enough Germans to weaken the troop strength in France to the point where D-Day was possible.

These facts are conveniently forgotten in American history. Why?

Is it just me? I don't understand why some are surprised that Fuckyeah Americans exist.

Bakho -

The relative absence of civilian casualties in wars that America has fought, not just WWII, may be THE defining factor in America's political climate. We're on an island so to speak, and to a degree we enjoy the luxury of thinking about military action overseas in the abstract, in broad concepts and not in the particulars like civilian casualties. To us, civilian casualties are "worth it" whenever discussion of military action comes up.

Personally, I don't really think that 9/11 changed that much. Many, many folks clearly felt the emotional and psychological impact of that event, and naturally, it certainly pumped up our collective patriotism quite a bit. But by and large I get the impression that most folks believe it was a one-off event, or that we can make it a one-off event by heading to the ME and cracking skulls.

I see a fairly significant difference between the pugnacious American nationalists Lieven identifies and the Fuck Yeah nationalism celebrated in the video.

Both types of nationalists are indeed pugnacious. And they are both unilateralist, emphasizing the need for America to do it alone rather than work through international coalitions.

But the nationalists of of Lieven's American Antithesis are not just pugnacious. They are also xenophobic, anti-immigrant and religiously and racially chauvinistic. They see themselves as at war not just with America's external enemies, but with a large assortment of internal enemies as well. They are consequently bitter, humorless and resentful. It's not just "America vs. the World." It's "Real America vs. the World and all the pseudo-American Traitors"

Yet by contrast, there is a fairly sincere, multiethnic, pro-immigrant, celebration of the American dream in Fuck Yeah Americanism. It is very pugnacious and unilateral, to be sure. And it is vulgar. But it's image of what *is* America is much more inclusive than that of the bitter, chauvinistic and moralistic American Antithesis, which is much more focused on defining a white, Christian and conservative "real America" in opposition to the various liberals, secularists, blacks and non-Christian newcomer cultures that they opposes. About the only American group left out by the Fuck Yeah types is Hollywood liberals

There is a certain full-bellied, bawdy ideal of liberty at work in the Fuck Yeah outlook - a libertarian outlook which is neither the priggish red state moralism of the religious right, nor the the uptight political correctness of blue state liberals. Fuck Yeah types openly celebrate pornography, lusty fun and high times. When Bush talks about defending our freedoms, and people respond to it, I suspect this is what a lot of Americans have in mind. Wheras moral majoritarian American antithesists may respond to a broad war on terror against the Islamic world as a moralistic Christian crusade against the infidel Saracens, Fuck Yeah types are more likely to see it a defense of the precious American rights to drink beer, smoke dope, race cars, browse the internet for porn, punch somebody's lights out and then get laid against the uptight moralistic mullahs of the Middle East.

Fuck Yeah Americanism is profane. There is a celebration of everything from boobs to bandaids in the video. And notice there are lots of flags. But no churches, praying hands or bowed heads. American antithesists fold their hands and close their eyes in fervant prayer - sort of like John Ashcroft - and weep for God to save the righteous and smite the evildoer. Fuck Yeah Americans give the finger.

The spirit of Fuck Yeah Americanism is a multicultural image of The Rock, Jet Li, Apollo Creed and Jenna Jameson joining arms to kick ass overseas and have a party afterwards.

The most important difference is that Fuck Yeah Americanism has a sense of humor, even about itself. Fuck yeah Americans understand irony, and even satire. Rather than looking at NASCAR as the sporting archetype of Fuck Yeah Americans, I think you need to look more at the WWF and Monster Truck rallies. There is a self-consciously comic, over the top quality admired by the Fuck Yeah types. There is a lot of good-humored irony on display in the video, just as there is in wrestling, where the ultra-macho swaggering is a blatantly ridiculous comic indulgence, filtered through an intentionally distorting lens and viewed with a generous helping of ham-handed irony.

My feeling is that if we can get the Fuck Yeah Americans to start to go after corporate robber barons and imperialist foreign policy wonks with the same zeal that they take after Hollywood liberals, then we've really got something. Not great, but a good start.

Dan -- I am short on time today, but I wanted to thank you for this very interesting response about which I need to think a great deal more. I'm writing a review of Anatol Lieven's book right now, and I think you've given my thinking a new angle. Many thanks, Steve Clemons

Here's a random thought: my sense is that the "Fuck Yeah Americans" mindset is mostly a male, heavily blue-collar thing and doesn't explain why so many suburban women voted for Bush. Of course, understanding half of the picture is better than understanding none of it.

The real "Fuck Yeah" Americans that Dan Kervick tells of are the Americans the rest of the world used to love. It's the image of the "crazy wild American" that lit up the faces of people worldwide with a smile. They wished they could be so crudely individualisticly free, like Jack Kerouac "On the Road," -like, and what evolved from such bawdy celebrations of free wheelin' high jinx.

Now we are looked upon as if all that that had made us lovable has gone a step too far and the nation in our foreign relations has turned into a monsterous parody of the crazy American comical individual they used to admire gone bad.

Perhaps it's the nation's present leaders who have embraced profane "over the top" acts of the common folk and turned it into foreign policy knowing they could carry the like-minded crazy American along for the ride with full approval and shouts of "Fuck Yeah," as those who were once higher minded guardians of their freedoms descend to their level of recklessness.

Have our present leaders have become one with the vulgaris? Did they think the lovable crazy image of the American would be equally loved and accepted if they made over American foreign policy to fit that image?

It seems so much like the destruction of the Roman Empire from uncontrollable forces of their own natures coming home to roost.

I just wonder how that kid in the Feijenoord shirt got in (almost at the end, sportsmanship? Just before "books"). That's a Dutch soccer team.

Although Feijenoord shirts do remind me of New York, ever since I saw one hanging from the fence around the church next to Ground Zero.

I agree that Fuck Yeah-ism seems to have been a part of American culture for much longer. With my limited frame of reference as an outsider, I always think of the 1999 movie "Drop dead gorgeous" when I hear the words "proud to be an American", "buy American", "Amer-I-Can". I think of that movie a lot, these days.

In the current climate, I just can no longer be certain that "slavery, fuck yeah" is a joke. Pride, when dosed correctly, can be a virtuous property. But these people seem blinded by their own pride. Unless, as stated above, the irony is thicker than I fathom. Maybe I should watch it again, but then how do I ever get rid of that irritating heavy metal tune in my head?

Boy, did this post unleash a stream of consciousness in me!

Dan,
I’m not sure where you live, but I live in Oklahoma and have daily interaction with both the Lieven and Fuck Yeah Americans. In fact, I’ve got some of them as relatives. Based on my experience, I don’t the differences you identify are quite as significant as you think. They’re more like the two sides of the same coin, not two difference coins.

Take for example the supposed profane nature of the Fuck Yeah-ers. The churches may not be in the video, but rather like the iceberg, they’re there below the surface. I go to church at least once, sometimes two or three times a week, and I read the Bible every day. Based on experience, if you were to select a Fuck Yeah-er who hadn’t darkened the door of a church for a year, except for Christmas and Easter, read more of Penthouse than the New Testament, and had just slammed back a couple of beers and had us engage in a theological discussion, I’d say the odds are pretty good that I’d end up well to the theological left of that guy, who might not be too far of from the position of Jerry Falwell. They may give somebody the finger, but they want Ashcroft and the President praying. A lot of the FY-ers I dealt with wanted Clinton- who had many of the traits of an FY-er- impeached for his moral lapses, despite the fact they’d be bragging loud and long if they’d gotten a blow job. I think you’re confusing hypocrisy with a differing viewpoint.

As for the multi-culturalism, I suspect that is pretty superficial as well. My father is white and my mother is Kiowa and Chickasaw. Oklahoma loves to celebrate its American Indian heritage- we’ve got “Native America” as the slogan on our license plate. Nevertheless, despite the dream catcher they might have hanging from the pick-up rearview mirror and have a great, great grandmother that was part Cherokee, most of those folks are profoundly ignorant about Indians. And if you bring up any of the current conflicts between the state and the tribes, things are likely to get ugly. So much for multi-culturalism.

In an earlier post Steve noted his professor’s advice that the best time to observe the genuine norms of a society is when it is under stress. Despite 9/11 and the resultant stress, I’d say the US, and consequently the FY-ers, are still on top of the global heap. If there are more terrorist strikes, Iraq continues to turn bad, and Steve’s prediction of the decline of the dollar is correct, I suspect you’ll have a much tougher time distinguishing between the FY-ers and Lieven nationalists.

Though I am not a "fuck yeah" american, I realize that I could be if I were a lazy thinker. I think it would be easy for me to say I want my taxes lowered -- its good for me, anyway. And I want to be able to be happy, to drive any car I like, to buy what I want no matter what the consequences, to shop at stores that pay low wages and offer no health insurance, because it benefits me. I get to pay lower prices. I could support the Administration's middle east policies because it means (theoretically, at least) that a steady supply of relatively cheap fuel will be available to me. I support pre-emptive action against supposedly rogue nations because it makes me feel good and patriotic. I support drilling in ANWAR and eliminating environmental protections because it means greater development, possibly more jobs and a larger housing stock for me to choose from. I could go on.
The point is that all of these things are great for me if I did not have a clue that they also hurt me in the long run. That rampant development will eliminate the beautiful park or preserve I used to camp at on the holidays. Or that the middle eastern policies in the long run will deciminate my economy by draining my nation's resources, causing rampant inflation, and, invariably, higher prices. That the suppression of first amendment protections will mean I won't be allowed to moan and complain in the future if I don't like the fact that I lost my job and all my savings and I am living on the street. That's because everything that I may have an opinion on is not as simple as it may seem. And life is like chess; you have to think four or five moves ahead to determine what the real consequence may be. And simplistic views lead to unintended consequences. But those who think simply, and of the moment, can feel comfortable that they are acting consistent with their own personal interests. Its tempting to think that way and a lot of people do because it makes sense to them.

Also because its easier.

with regard to WWII being our "good" war: my uncle, who fought in the Battle of Bulge among others, used to tell me stories about how they would capture groups of Nazis out on the battlefield. they were supposed to take them to some sort of processing center, but there was never enough time and manpower to do that. so whoever was in charge would tell the Americans, "take 'em down to the processing center, but be back in five minutes." It took days to get down to the center and back, but his men knew what he meant. so they'd take the prisoners behind a barn and mow them down, then be back in five minutes.

I think this memory bothered my uncle greatly in later decades, which is why he repeated it so often.

anyway, my point is that although WWII was a "good" war, there is no such thing as a good war when you get up close and look at it personal. our men were committing war crimes as described above even in that obviously worthy fight. in war, there are no good guys or bad guys, just us and them. that's what war is--a suspension of civilization. we should avoid it unless it's absolutely necessary.

I'm no longer convinced we in North America have a clear idea of what "civilization" is anymore.

We're becoming so enshrouded in our brightly pixellated pop culture...

What are we creating that will be admired by humans 500 years from now? Are we creating anything with the intention that it last 500 years? For what will we be admired as we admire some of the creations of civilizations long past?

Will our so called civilization be celebrated? Reviled? Pooh-poohed as inconsequential?

I'm beginning to think Jane Jacobs is right.