Read Online In Defense of America by Bronwen Maddox - Free Book Online Page A

“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.” As advocates of more open markets argue, the lowering of trade barriers helps poor countries. Peter Mandelson, the European Union’s trade commissioner, in a February 2008 speech attacking the “backlash” against trade, said that economic integration had “operated as an unprecedented ladder out of poverty,” noting that developing countries now account for a third of all global trade. 10
    On the whole, the United States has been firmly on the side of opening up trade, although its presidents have proved easy prey for protectionists in Congress. The Farm Bill, signed in May 2002 by President George W. Bush, who has been otherwise vigorously in favor of free trade, was one of the worst pieces of legislation dreamed up for decades, showering $180 billion in subsidies over ten years on the mere two million people who still run a farm in the United States. In Seattle in 1999, President Bill Clinton delivered a speech guaranteed to scupper the talks, in which he declared his sympathy for the rioters, adding that he was part of the generation which had demonstrated in the 1960s. But Seattle aside, Clinton’s instincts did generally come down in favor of trade, and he was justified in saying that trade deals were one of the achievements of which he was proudest.
    In general, it is fair to say that the United States’ actions have been in line with its philosophy —and that the effects, over the last twenty years, have been to help lift millions of people out of poverty. Without American leadership in this area, that would very likely not have happened.
    An Exaggeration of American Power
    The railing against American commercial power and cultural reach is often based on exaggerations. In many cases, the power was never as great as critics made it out to be. There are many examples. The 1980s and 1990s were the height of the Coca-Cola Company’s reach, under Roberto Goizueta, its legendary chief executive officer. But since the start of the twenty-first century, the company has been struggling to push profits ahead in a more health-conscious market, triggering headlines such as “Why Coca-Cola Has Lost Its Fizz.” The company lists competition and consumers’ worries about obesity as threats to its markets in developed countries, while warning that “due to product price, limited purchasing power, and cultural differences, there can be no assurance that the company’s products will be accepted in any particular developing or emerging market.” 11 That is, it’s too expensive for the world’s poorest, and when you come down to it, they prefer their own.
    Similarly, McDonald’s, after the heady days of seeing its golden arches opening throughout the former Soviet Union and Red China, found itself battling against health concerns and the spread of coffee chains. Wal-Mart, having tried to push into Europe, found tight planning laws a choke on the kind of superstore it could set up so easily across all of America.
    It is possible that America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq did even more damage to these iconic brands; commentators were quick to assume that was the case when Coca-Cola’s revenues in Europe fell in 2004 and the sales of McDonald’s were flat. But the trends which have given such companies trouble go well beyond that single event.
    Hollywood
    It is worth a particular word about Hollywood, because it has been one of the greatest provocations of resentment against America, as well as one of its most successful exports.
    Hollywood’s success within the United States and abroad began with its skill at responding to the extraordinary challenge it faced at the start of the twentieth century: trying to appeal to an American audience of immigrants, many not speaking the same language. “These