The Entity America: "Get a Grip, People!"

It confuses, amazes and dismays me as to how people view individual acts of Americans as representing the government to which they are attached. Filipinos are very good at this.

The U.S. should drop the motto "In God We Trust" and replace it with small-print legalism "The ideas, expressions, or opinions of individual Americans and institutions do not represent the ideas, expressions, or opinions of the United States."

I've been tracking a recent Rappler article, and the comments attached thereupon, regarding a U.S. agency lawsuit against the Visayan Forum Foundation (VFF). The American agency, USAID, provides funds to VFF and accuses the agency of misusing those funds. VFF is a non-governmental Philippine agency working to stop human trafficking and provide assistance to those harmed.

The lawsuit will work out as it will. That is not the subject here. One of the comments illustrates the subject, when a reader "My Mom" wrote:

• THERE must be a non-fiduciary reason for the U.S. to sue VF. The U.S. has tolerated and doggedly supported the most corrupt and despotic regimes of the world without flinching nor suing.

How in the world did we get from a legal action by an agency of the U.S. government to an opinion on who the U.S. backs in the pursuit of self-interest globally? My response to "My Mom" was as follows:

• The reason the U.S. "doggedly" supports authoritarian governments can be seen in the Mid-East riots now on display. Some people are not grown up enough to handle democracy. Furthermore, this entity "the U.S", is not a single institution. It is made up of agencies and groups and collections of people (like huge Filipino communities) that are empowered to do things. It was an agency of the U.S. that filed suit, not President Obama or even Joe America. The agency believes its money did not get to where it should have gotten.

That's what is going on in the Middle East riots. People are attaching the opinions of an extreme extremist, a film made in the U.S. by a transplant from Egypt, to the policies and values of the United States. It is clear that the rioters are: (a) emotionally hyper-charged by their religious faith and susceptible to propaganda from Al Quaeda, (2) unable to grasp the concept of plurality of views and freedom of expression, and (3) unable to grasp that America does not "sponsor" these extreme views. It permits them.

The alternative evidently preferred by rioting Arabs is a very slippery path back to the totalitarianism they just got rid of. The rioters are free to riot (express themselves) in large part because the U.S. has supported the rise of democracy in the Middle East. Even though the situation was quieter and more stable under Mubarak (Egypt, now rioting) and Kaddafi (Libya, now rioting) and whoever ran Tunisia (now rioting).

Most assuredly these rioters are not mature enough for democracy.

On bad days I also question whether or not American congressmen and presidential aspirants are mature enough for democracy. Partisan acrimony undermines the security and stability of America. What part of "undermining" does Romney not grasp when he criticizes the American response to the Libyan Embassy murders?

And I question whether or not Filipinos are mature enough for democracy when I see comments like My Mom's, or recall the Nicole affair and how every American male was painted as sex mad, as if all the babies in the Philippines were ordered from Amazon.com.

Also, when the Philippine Senate fails to enforce ethics (Sotto), it demonstrates a clear lack of passion for high values that make democracy work. And when the courts are bastions of favor and money instead of justice, then you know there is a short in the democracy maturity circuit.

Here's a long sentence. Work through it.

• America is a single entity only in the sense that it promotes an ideal of a nation that guarantees freedom of expression and the Christian values of compassion and caretaking that allow all the many disparate nationalities and cultures and opinions to fit together harmoniously. 

And America will act in her self interest to make sure her peoples are well cared for. That's what a nation is for.

So if you wish to criticize America the entity, criticize the ideal of freedom of expression and freedoms associated with the richest meaning of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Don't take some weird movie or some angry individual as "America". Or the independent act of an aid agency that doesn't like getting ripped off.

Or, if you want to be honestly critical of America, criticize the idea that people should be well cared for under a national umbrella of self interest. You know, advocate the opposite. Advocate for poverty and sickness and subjugation as a national cause.

Sometimes I think that is the Philippine national cause.

The Egyptian film-maker is not America. USAID is not America. JoeAm is not America. The murdered Libyan Ambassador is not America. Private Smith is not America.

But together, with millions of sometimes opposing interests and views, we are America.

So get a grip. Get the difference.