Thanks Mike for the compliment. I absolutely agree with you that America was essentially the big brother we all looked up to. The majority of humanities major achievements in the earlier part of the last century were the result of American ingenuity, Wright bro’s first flight, space exploration, Capital markets etc, and it was the Marshal Plan that allowed the rest of post war “Western Economies” to flourish.

A Caveat: this may stray way off point

Frank Castle;
In response to Franks comment “love the touting of the european system with all it’s free this and free that, of course one never mentions how much taxes are paid for these “free” things. Also people neglect to mention it’s easy to provide social services when your national defense is being subsidized by the US…..”

I would consider myself moderately socially conservative, idealistically capitalist, and feel similar frustrations with my own political system (Irish in America). It irks me to see 3rd generation social welfare families who in no way contribute to the national well being or national productivity, I do feel that these people are a burden, who decide not to contribute (In Ireland an individual can claim approx $300 a week basic, before rent, child allowances, free health care etc from social welfare) and rely on tax payers to fund there relatively avaricious life style, But…..

…..Like a lot of Europeans I feel there is a balance to be struck between the free market and social welfare policies (this does not make us socialists!). A balance to be struck between the initiative and ambition created by capitalism and the belief in the nation state fashioned by social systems. A social welfare system like the ones seen in many parts of Europe ensure that people don’t fall under a certain base level of poverty, below which people often descend into serious criminal or anti social behaviour. The ideology behind it from a capitalist stand point is that by giving these people something to lose, they are far less likely to engage in behaviour that results in their imprisonment etc, allowing the residents and visitors to the country to live without that level of fear, hence enjoying there life and expressing themselves to a greater degree.

And without trying to antagonise people, it’s impossible to estimate Europe’s required defence spending without U.S involvement – It is possible for instance it may be less if European countries weren’t allied to the U.S. I personally don’t feel like it’s the U.S.A’s spending on defence infrastructure in Europe that allows E.U countries to provide social welfare to it’s citizens.

Jen
I completely agree with what you said and I didn’t mean to sound so presumptive as to suggest what was “Real American” or “Un-American”. My reasoning for mentioning the “God” issue was primarily because America is so staggeringly diverse, and rapidly evolving due to it’s relatively recent beginnings that I always found it an interesting irony that the God Issue held so much weight on a cumulative stage. I didn’t mean to say it was wrong to do so, but religions in general have always been something I’ve found interesting and it’s not that I get particularly annoyed when I hear it mentioned, but more that I find it intriguing that it holds such weight in a country whom most people would identify as secular. So while I agree with you that my point may not be relevant in the context of this election, I do feel that it’s always worthwhile to be aware of how other countries approach similar situations
Very good point about that possibly being what it means to be real American.

I’d be interested to hear how people would identify a “Real” or “Unreal” European? An American (Canada and Mexico included) would be particularly interesting.

I am astonished that some “americans” believe that others are “non american” because they have different views? How can the USA be the most free country in the world etc. if this is true?

And im not being funny but surely if anyone is a “real” american its native americans and not the european settlers who claim to be?

“how disappointing that intellectual elitism
and progressive humanism have so deeply gouged
the roots of “real” America - hard work, fierce
individualism, and a revolutionary spirit that
resists the encroachment of federal interference
in all aspects of life. These ideals should transcend
geography, race, class, and religion - that they no
longer do is a sign of the waning spirit that was once America.”

-Posted by da6d

So, I reread this ‘best comment’ and offer my own aphoristic rebuttal—and then some:

Dearest da6d,

Out of your grandiosely ambiguous ROOTS has grown a TREE which—quite simply put—is much more complex and diverse then whence it grew from a seed.

The moral of my trite maxim you ask? If you haven’t already deduced for yourself I will help you. Although the roots have their place, there has been an additional base added (which would be the trunk if I am to continue using this boring analogy). On top of this base, or trunk, has even more complexity added to it with branches and leaves. Basically, I am suggesting you are far oversimplifying things and looking how things were and how things now aren’t (which is a conservative impulse in thinking—this idea of looking back at how things were).

And I believe you were aiming for “RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM” rather than “FIERCE INDIVIDUALISM” ; from which has been borne the notion that people simply can ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps’ and elevate their social class through “HARD WORK” (I used the bootstrap cliché hoping that it might resonate with my idea of the likes of you).

Be careful not to too quickly jump into categorizing me with YOUR concept of ‘intellectual elitism’ and ‘progressive humanism’…. And as far as I can tell YOUR ‘progressive humanism’ is only a website, not some larger school of thought as you seemingly suggest. You might have meant secular humanism? I can only infer. Cheers!

Some brilliantly written pieces on the Nation that could Still stand as the quintessential result of Enlightenment thought in action. How could any real member of the American nation exclude the products of Ivy League universities or the animal-righters who may squirm at the thought of gun toting governors blasting God’s creatures off the face of the tundra?

Not that God has anything to do with anything; tell my fellow atheists who happen to live in America that they are not real Americans because they have dismissed a fairy tale.

I’m not surprised at this direction in tactics; the politics of division is alive and well and stalking the TV screens in bumble bee hair style and glasses.

I read and liked the commentary. But your choice of best comment was a perplexing. How is the best comment on the column an article about negative retoric - a comment which espouses negative retoric? Either the writer never fully read the column or he didn’t fully understand the column. Perhaps the commentary should have been about how dense people can be. Or perhaps how missing the point is the point! Either way I sure am looking foward to the election ending. Then all of this poorly disguised republican hate speech will go away. Because you can soften criticism of it but we all know its meant to be mean and divisive, you bet ya.

I live in California and I support Obama, as much of the state does. I have noticed among Obama supporters a level of intolerance that I had not seen before, and it is disturbing. Tolerance is the cornerstone of our country - without it we are not America. One might even say, intolerance is truly “un-American.” In a campaign of gray issues, the one clear distinction, is Sarah Palin’s ploy of playing off rural America against urban America. Whereas, Obama or Biden has argued for inclusion and unity. The fact that Palin is unqualified is undeniable (read the Anchorage endorsement for Obama), but the fact that Palin seeks to polarize Americans, makes her un-American and dangerous.

I confess that simply hearing the phrase “real American” puts me on guard and especially so in connection with a political campaign. Somehow we have forgotten how difficult it would be to describe such an ideal. We are, after all, constructed as a nation on a foundation of diversity. That construction comes about not simply because we were and are a vast land, and that our history of opening the doors to immigration is unparalleled. It has come about because of the wisdom our founders expressed in the construct of the constitution. In this document, hastily written, lie the tenets that eschew eltism and rejects separation of classes based on wealth or perceived birthright. It also provides the basis by which we celebrate our differences, which understandably are many. Villification of the “other” is not an American ideal, yet inevitably and especially in difficult times, it rears it’s threatening menace. The degree to which we individually express and practice tolerance, in my view at least, reaches for the apotheosis of “real American”.

I am glad to see that “real Americans” are reading the news and commenting on it as we are exercising our constitutional right to freedom of speech! I just hope Americans can remember that this nation is wonderful because it has a history of tolerance for differences. I for one do not care to live in a country where everyone looks the same, talks the same, thinks the same, and people self-censor because they fear the actions of their neighbors. We should not set the bar so low, we turn into a nation of bitter and divided individuals. Are there not enough places like that?

If I am an un-real American then perhaps I should start paying my taxes with monopoly money.

Jean mentions that Canadians live in North America, too. True enough. So do Mexicans, who resent that U.S. nationals call themselves Americans, as if they were the only Americans in North America. Now what about uniting Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in one big, new America? No need for the border wall, then, nor Predator spy planes flying along the U.S.-Canadian border.