The Pros and Cons of Confidence

Miguel pointed his readers to an essay by Bill Wittle about confidence and why it contributed to America's greatness.

I read most parts of Bill's essay. (It is way long) What he says about confidence really hits the spot in terms of how Americans think in my opinion.
Most things are achieved in the US because of this absolute belief that they can be achieved.
Other countries lack that spirit. My country (Germany) for example is not confident at all.
Well, we all know the reason for that... last time we were confident we killed millions of people because we thought we were the best.
Anyway, as good as confidence is... overconfidence can be dangerous. And I don't mean as grim an example as the German one here. But maybe sometimes confidence leads you to errors, wrong decisions and you might fail your purpose although you acted with great confidence and meant really well.

The Iraq war is one of the main sources fueling this kind of discussion but it is not a good example because it hasn't ended, yet. I'd say we could talk about that in like ten or even twenty years. If by then a working democracy based on the free will of the Iraqi people is in place we can all bow down to the spirit of confidence that led there. If Iraq is still in trouble with terrorists, rebels who think of themselves as freedom fighters or if a corrupt and/or oppressing system is in place we might acknowledge that overconfidence led to the situation.

A nice quote from Bill's essay is:

"...if we actually believe the US is the source of all the misery in the
world,... then something is indeed very wrong with our foundation..."

Of course it isn't. And everybody who thinks otherwise is in need of a quick reality check.
But what if I said:
The US is the source of all the greatness in the world.
Or
Nothing other than greatness has come from American soil.
Wouldn't I need a reality check as well?
Now, I don't know a single person who actually and literally would have claimed that. The confidence, however, with which the US is trying to spread its opinions, its way of life, its products and anything maybe disturbing for others.

Look, I really try to understand the American psyche. A nation founded on the principle:
We can! I lived in the US and tried to embrace that principle. But please don't take it to extremes!
If you think, we must because you can then you are at the point of overconfidence clouding your view for reasonable arguements. (And promoting the rule of the fist over the democratic culture of debate, which is ironic because you are actually trying to promote democracy)

I have observed that a plea like mine is received very defensively in the US. If I question your judgement then I am favoring "the enemy". Don't paint in black and white.

Recently, so called "Old Europe" sometimes acted as if it knew everything better while it actually didn't. Please don't do the same.

Not everyone who dares to criticize certain decisions of your politicians is either a well meaning, naive hippy or a "stinking commie".

(Those paragraphs about the stinking commies, the losers and so on... they remind me of the communist witch hunts in McCarthy's era. Please don't start seing a communist in everyone who has a stronger social conscience than the bootstraps-belief. You can only pull yourself out of a mess by your bootstraps if society gave you the opportunity to have boots.

I think, communists are the tiniest group among the people criticizing US government's decisions. But it is pretty convenient not having to deal with arguments if you can cry "commie!" instead.)

In any case,
finally I think I found the fundamental difference between the American and the Old-Europe psyche: In contrast to the confidence of "We can" in Europe there is this belief in the law. The way to the war in Iraq seems to be a good example for that. (Iraq is not a good example however to measure whether America's action was driven by confidence or overconfidence as I mentioned above)

This belief in law has flaws, arguably. Sometimes we are rigid. We didn't want to start a war in Iraq because we were not sure wether the outcome would be better than the current situation. When the US decided they wanted to wage that war (in order to install a democratic Iraqi regime) but not all by themselves, they searchedUN approval. But none would come because the UN couldn't agree on that Saddam's breaches of UN resolutions were important enough to wage war. So some guy in the US government or in an association closely related to it may have felt the obligation to forge evidence about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Either that or the people analyzing data about possible WMD were just incompetent for the job.

So in a way, the European rigidness of believing in law may have forced that forgery because America wanted to appeal to our kind of reasoning in order to convince us of what they (confidently) knew: That they were right as well as the war was right(eous) .

Maybe a departure from both sides would be a good idea. If Europeans understood that law is not always more important than human life and if Americans understood that they can be wrong even though they are confident of their decisions then we could all grow as people and help create a better world, couldn't we?

Sometimes, everything that is needed is the courage to admit to have been wrong. That goes to Europeans and Americans alike. As I said, for the Iraq situation it is too early to tell.

But, I may be wrong about that. :-)

Fahrenheit 9/11

Well, I finally got to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. I had mentioned in an earlier post that Michael Moore might influence the election but I am not so sure about that anymore.

I have to say, the movie transports its message in a very powerful fashion. However, I am not the one Moore was trying to convince. I am an outsider, a foreigner, a German living in Germany. What good does it do that I know that there where no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that no link could be found between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

The American public ought to have been convinced by this movie but obviously it wasn't. President Bush may very well be re-elected. Or maybe the public even acknowledges that it was being lied to but doesn't think that Senator Kerry would be any better.

This film is meant to drive Bush out of office. It is propaganda. Is it bad because of this?
I think Fox News is as one-sided. Propaganda goes both ways.

Anyway, so many people talked about this movie, praising it, denouncing it... in the end it won't make a difference. The DVD release probably was meant to boost the Democratic Candidate Kerry. I don't know whether it does. But I guess the impact of the film on the election could have been greater if it had been released only one or two months prior to the election.

Good thing though it wasn't released on September 11th. That would have appeared tasteless.

Some more movie recommendations

I have been a lazy blogger, recently.

But I went to the movies. :-)

I really enjoyed Girl with Pearl Earring. This is the title of a painting by Dutch 17th century artist Vermeer.
The movie is a fictional version of how that painting came to be.

Also interesting but not so recent:

Open Range by Kevin Costner. Beautiful landscape shots! I especially liked the slow, slow build up to a thrilling "bullet-intensive" climax.
Not your conventional Western movie, if you ask me.

I don't know whether it will be released in the US but it's worth it:
Der Untergang.
This movie is about the last days inside the Führerbunker based on the autobiography of Hitlers secretary Traudl Junge.
Quite a shocking movie for me. I think this is as close as it gets to see Hitler's menace and yet the reason why he was so appealing to the folks at the time. (He could appear quite charming or caring in private life.)

Next movie I am planning on watching is Fahrenheit 9/11. Let's see what all the fuzz is about.