This is a recent discussion, between a friend and me, on whether the new Bourne movie is anti-American or not. His comments have the ">" in fron tof them. My replies follow.

>As I see it, Americanism is made up of principles like individualism,
>economic and political freedom (like property rights, economic opportunity,
>the right of free speech), self-responsibility, democracy, etc.  I don't
see
>Americanism as equivalent to the policies and actions of the U.S.
government
>or its agencies, or any particular administration.  If it were, then yes,
>the Bourne Ultimatum is anti-American, since it is gives a negative
>portrayal of the CIA.  But that's an incredibly superficial understanding
of
>what Americanism is.  So, I don't agree that it's anti-American.

Red herring. I don't think he's equating Americanism with the government's
policies and actions. I think he's making a comment about the very existence
IN the government of the kind that would do the things he represents the CIA
of taking part in. Not just that they do them, but that they're
(apparently)sanctioned and encouraged to do them.
 
>
>Present-day Conservatives need to take a deeper look at what really matters
>about this country, and whether this president or the U.S. government is
>acting in ways consistent with that.  I actually believe that
conservativism
>is as great a threat to the well-being of this country and its citizens
than
>are the liberals.  I know you'll find that preposterous. 

A bit presumptuous, perhaps, at the very least to suggest that conservatives
have somehow lost sight of what it means to be an American on a basic level.
That's what the movement's about, in my opinion. Individualism,
self-responsibilty, the rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and
seeing to it that these are all conserved, if you see my tie-in. You really
think Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were of equal detriment to the idea of
democracy and individual freedom? George W. and Hillary? I find that
preposterous.
>
>Anyway, I think the essence of Americanism is more consistent with a
>distrust (and a negative portrayal) of governments and their secretive use
>of powers than an advocacy of them.

Don't you think the negative portrayals of "secret U.S government agencies"
and the secret things they do have come to be a caricature? I'm sure these
things DO happen, as there is an actual need for covert action on occasion.
And if there's no agenda of anti-Americanism how come we never see anyone
with any power in an official position stand up and put a stop to that sort
of crap, as happens all the time in real life? It's always up to Bourne, or
some other maverick like him, to see to justice.


>The only thing that makes this country
>any good is the remnants it still has of respect for the rights of the
>individual.  That is what underlies its wealth, freedoms, and beauty. 

I don't disagree one bit and the farther we get away from those things the
worse off we are.

>And the greatest threat to individual rights that has ever existed has been
>the unrestrained power governments over its own citizens. 

Couldn't agree more.

>To paraphrase Reagan...

or Carter; same thing, really, conservative, liberal...

>...the Government is the problem.  That is as true in this country as in
any
>other.
>
>If the last Bourne movie had given a negative portrayal of the social
virute
>of property rights, or the profit motive, or individualism, or the personal
>pursuit of happiness, or some broad principle underlying the institutions
>and culture of this country (and no, I'm not including chritianity in
that),
>then I would agree that it was anti-American.

They don't have to get that specific. The clear implication is that the
government is corrupt, dishonest, and willing at any time and at any cost to
deprive it's citizens (in this case Jason Bourne) of their most basic right;
their right to live their lives as free individuals, uncoerced into acting
in a fashion inconsistent with their free volition. That's what this movie
says about the U.S. government, in my opinion.
>
>But the movie only portrayed some rouge members of a government agency, and
>not even all of them (Pamela Landy is a good-guy), as misguided and
corrupt.

Come on, they're not rogue members; they're the CIA and Landy is the rogue.

>And it's certainly no stretch to say that some members of the CIA have done
>bad things

Agreed...

>-- things that I believe are actually against the best principles
>on which this country is built, and so that that extent things that are
>actually anti-American. 

This would have to be addressed on a case by case basis. Things that
threaten the freedom we enjoy are justifiably targeted and should be dealt
with with severe measures, aain, depending on the threat.

>And no, I don't have any specifics in mind; it's
>not the main point.

May not be the main point but serious enough to have been raised means it
may be an important one.
 
>What baffles me is this: are the detractors of this film saying that
>professional assinations squads run by rouge US government bureaucrats a
>good thing? 

No, and I don't think you really think that.

>As anything representative of America?

But that's the point: I think it's supposed to BE representative of America.
I find THAT offensive or at least hugely objectionable.

>As an American, both
>legally and ideologically, I find that idea incrediby offensive.  I
actually
>like the anti-government aspects of the whole Bourne series.  I suspect
that
>much of what the CIA has done has probably worked against this country's
>long-term self-interest.
 
Well, that's an interesting thesis but, as you go on to say, totally
hypothetical.

>Again, I'd rather not get into specifics, so I
>phrased that as vaguely as possible (e.g., 'I suspect', 'probably').
>
>An "anti-American" movie is one like Oliver Stone's "Wall
Street" or
Michael
>Moore's "Roger and Me", since they give a thoroughly negative
portrayal of
>the legitimate selfinterested actions of American financiers and
>businessmen. 

So to be truly anti-American it has to give a negative portrayal of big
business and its' motivations? Kind of a narrow definition of anti-American,
in my opinion.
>
>The reviewer also comments on Bond films, though his tie-in to the Bourne
>films isn't clear. 

Action spy movies. Same genre, admittedly different tone.

The attraction of the Bond films is not the wittiness of
>its quips, but the heroic representation of its protaganist. 

I disagree. I think the attraction of the Bond films is multi-faceted. The
physical attraction of Bond himself, as a heroic handsome guy; exotic
locales; cool cars and gadgets; beautiful women; and yes - Bond's coolness
under fire, which includes his glibness.

>The same is
>true of the Bourne films. 

The Bourne films rely on Damon's star power and perception as a strong male
figure together with the romanticism of action-packed globe-hopping and
driving fast cars at high speed.

>Roger Donway wrote a great piece recently called, "The Genealogy of
>Heroism".  http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1968-Hero_roots.aspx.
>O'Connor should read it, since he obviously has no clue why people love
the
>Bourne movies, or I supect, why people want heroic stories generally.
>Donway defines heroism as, "the choice of a highly efficacious man to
>preserve the characteristic habits of virtue that constitute his personal
>identity, in the face of great opposition or temptation."  A little wordy
>for a definition, but it gets to the idea.
>
>Bourne is efficacious.  His basic identity is good.  And he must fight a
>very powerful antagonist to regain it. 

Yes, a powerful and evil antagonist. Sounds anti-American to me.

>The hero struggles against great
>obstacles to reach his virtuous goal, but eventually, he overcomes.  Those
>are the basic ingredients of a heroic tale.  Bourne is a hero.  So is Bond,
>or Mel Gibson's characters in "The Patriot" and the "Lethal
Weapon" movies,
>or Bruce Willis's "Die Hard" character, or Sylvester Stallone's,
or
>Arnold's, etc., etc. 

We all like heros, it's true. Most of these guys are underdogs too.

>And, as an aside, one of the most pro-American movies I've seen in a long
>time was "The Pursuit of Happyness", since it positively portrayed
this
>country's economic freedom and opportunity and stressed one's individual
>responsibility for achieving one's goals, despite whatever disadvantages
one
>might have.  Chris Gardner is a real-life American hero. 

Very fine film. What an incredible man he must be.

>I saw and liked "The Kingdom", and agree that it was a good movie,
and that
>its politically motivated critics are knee-jerk PC liberal types who need
to
>get a clue.

Yeah, it was fun