A few weeks ago on Issues in Perspective, I discussed what I have called the Culture of Smut.  My conviction is that this Culture is one of the most reprehensible aspects of American culture, of which we should all be ashamed.  While on a recent trip to Winnipeg, Canada, I saw evidence that other nations are taking notice of our Culture of Smut—and they do not like what they see.  In the Winnipeg Free Press, Martha Bayles takes America to task for its exportation of what I call this Culture of Smut.  Several thoughts on this article:

• First, Bayles writes that of late “most Americans, including many who make it their business to analyze public diplomacy, seem unmindful of the negative impression that America has recently been making on the rest of humanity—via its popular culture.”  Although America has exported many things, it is Hollywood that has most aggressively been expanding its exports.  Bayles cites a study by the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization that between 1986 and 2000 the fees generated by the export of filmed and taped entertainment went from $1.68 to $8.85 billion—an increase of 427%.  Foreign box office revenue has grown faster than domestic, and now approaches a 2-to-1 ratio.  A similar pattern exists for TV, music and video games.  The 2003 report of the US House of Representatives Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World stated that “Arabs and Muslims are . . . bombarded with American sitcoms, violent films, and other entertainment, much of which distorts the perceptions of the viewers.”  The report clarified that what seems insignificant to us as Americans might have a more profound effect abroad:  “A Syrian teacher of English asked us plaintively for help in explaining American family life to her students.  She asked, ‘Does Friends show a typical family?’” 

• Second, one of the few attempts to measure the impact of American popular culture was done by Louisiana State University researchers Melvin and Margaret DeFleur, who in 2003 polled teenagers in 12 countries:  Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, South Korea, Mexico, China, Spain, Taiwan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria, Italy and Argentina.  Their conclusion, while tentative, is compelling:  “The depiction of Americans in media content as violent, of American women as immoral and of many Americans engaging in criminal acts has brought many of these 1,313 youthful subjects to hold generally negative attitudes toward people who live in the United States.”  Bayles writes that America is exporting many good things in terms of entertainment, but on the whole, it is “exporting more than enough depictions of profanity, nudity, violence and criminal activity to violate norms of propriety still honored in much of the world.”  Most Americans, however, do not see it this way.  Instead, probably most Americans—certainly those in the entertainment industry—believe that what is good for show business is good for America’s image.  During World War II and during the Cold War, the American government promoted the exportation of American popular culture to demonstrate the good aspects of American culture.  American motion pictures, “as ambassadors of good will,” interpreted American culture and its way of life to all the nations of the world, which was invaluable from a political, cultural and commercial point of view.  During the 1970s, the American government worked hard to pry open world markets to American entertainment such that UNESCO and the Soviet Union led a backlash against what they called “US cultural imperialism.”  America’s counterculture did its thing in the cultures of Eastern Europe and Russia—and certainly played a role in the downfall of Communism.  But in the 1980s, things changed.  Today, there is an unquestioned faith in the export of popular culture.  But what possible good is there to exporting the promiscuous “sex kitten” Britney Spears or the foul-mouthed rapper Eminem?  Bayles writes:  “American popular culture is no longer a beacon of freedom to huddled masses in closed societies.  Instead, it is a glut on the market and, absent any countervailing cultural diplomacy, our de facto ambassador to the world.”  Few would see its ambassadorial status as positive.

• Third, what is the answer?  I doubt that censorship is possible.  In fact, the Courts would never permit widespread censorship of song lyrics, movies or video games.  Instead, there must be a major cultural shift within America.  Americans must rise up against the purveyors of this culture of smut and say “enough is enough.”  We must demonstrate to the world that we are not only a nation of liberty; we are a nation that knows how to use its liberty wisely.  To the Muslim world, exporting our culture of smut simply demonstrates that Osama bin Laden’s fears about American culture are correct.  In his words, we are decadent and rotting from the inside out—and we are exporting that decadence to the Muslim world.  The New Testament makes it very clear that the exercise of liberty can quickly become the exercise of license.  And that, unfortunately, is where we are today as a culture.  In the name of freedom and liberty, America is producing a culture of smut and calling it entertainment.  Further, we are exporting that Culture of Smut to a world that sees where American liberty leads—and not all of them like what they see.  The solution is a massive cultural renewal centered on a spiritual life that is vital, vibrant and Christ-honoring.  In short, unless and until there is a massive revival, it is doubtful this nation will have the power or the desire to exercise its liberty wisely.  And, if we cannot exercise it wisely, we will have nothing to export but the self-destructive filth we now call entertainment.  May God have mercy on us as a nation, for we desperately need that mercy.

See Bayles’s article in the Winnipeg Free Press (21 September 2005).

That China is the rising power of Asia is now a given in our world.  China seems to be abandoning its commitment to communism as an organizing ideology and embracing a form of state-sanctioned capitalism.  It is trying to do something no other nation has done:  Stimulate a free market economy all the while maintaining totalitarian control over its people.  The engine for this venture is the Party, which remains in total control of the country.  In every way, China is challenging the United States for Asian dominance.  Its challenge is now extending beyond Asia and includes Latin America and Africa, where its trade initiatives are most significant.  Two thoughts on this emerging Asian giant called China:

• First, there is evidence that China has successfully forced North Korea to accept some form of negotiated settlement on its nuclear program.  How has China done this and why is it important in China’s diplomatic competition with the US?  Columnist Charles Krauthammer has observed that China enjoys significant leverage over North Korea:  It controls 30% of North Korea’s food and at least 70% of the fuel going into that country.   Until recently, China has allowed North Korea to be a thorn in the US side in Asia.  Why the change?  China obviously does not desire North Korea to become a nuclear power, for that would motivate Japan to follow suit—a nightmare for China.  Further, America has many other thorns—Afghanistan, Iraq, the Israel-PLO struggle and major domestic issues.  North Korea’s role as that thorn is no longer as useful.  Finally, by serving as the chief arbiter for this deal, China solidifies its role as the major power of Asia.  As Krauthammer argues, “Its major ambition is to displace America as the major Pacific power.”  If this indeed does succeed, it will have demonstrated that the path to getting things done in Asia is through Beijing, not Washington.  The reality is that no country has the leverage over North Korea that China does.  If this is successful, China will have reached another level of success in terms of its goals in the Pacific Rim.  See Krauthammer’s editorial in the Washington Post (23 September 2005).  

• Second, what is China’s apparent advantage in displacing America in the Pacific?  As Charlene Barshefsky and Edward Gresser have observed, China is “merging its low costs and vast manpower reserves with the financial and technological strengths of its wealthier neighbors.  In the process, it is rapidly creating an informal ‘Asian Union’—a deeply integrated Asian economy with a GDP equal to America’s, a population six times as large, the technological and financial strengths of an advanced economy and the cost advantages of a developing one.”  The US cannot meet this challenge through protective tariffs or bans on Chinese investment.  Consider three trends in Asia that are in distinct contrast to the US:  (1)  Asia is pooling its strengths.  China’s partners are Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia, not the US.  China’s strategy is to mesh its low costs and skilled workers with the technology and capital of its wealthier neighbors.  It is now promoting this same strategy with India, Pakistan, Australia and perhaps Japan.  (2)  Asia’s human capital is improving.  As Barshefsky and Gresser demonstrate, China is building about 200 new research centers a year.  Since the 1980s, China’s college enrollment has quadrupled to 20 million.  Its universities are producing 200,000 engineers per year.  Only 60,000 engineers graduate from American universities.  (3)  Asia is saving money.  China’s families are saving 40% of GDP and savings rates in other Asian countries are high.  In contrast, US families are in debt—and increasing that debt each year.  American savings rates are between 1 and 2% GDP.  What then must the US do?  Americans must be encouraged to save more and the nation must emphasize anew its commitment to research technology.  In almost every area of technological development, it is being challenged by Asia.  Finally, the US government must make a priority to maintain the US position in Asia and in the Asian economy.  We cannot surrender our strategic position to China.  However, this will be difficult because of the war in Iraq and the continued challenges in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East.  Barshefsky and Gresser conclude that there must be recognition “by the administration, Congress, business and the public that we face a powerful competitive challenge, one that cannot be attributed to undervalued currencies or unfair trade.  The plain fact is that our competition has gotten tougher, and we need to match it.”  The US needs significant leadership on this matter of meeting the challenge of the Asian giant.  See the most helpful analysis by Barshefsky and Gresser in the Wall Street Journal (15 September 2005).

The evidence is in:  Divorce is not good for civilization.