US STUDENT’S FILEAMERICAN DIVERSITY(5 weeks: October – November)

PLAN

I. Lead-in Mock US Citizenship Test Reading 1: THE BASIC AMERICAN VALUES

II. Obligatory material Reading 2: THE VICES OF OUR VIRTUES Reading 3: THE REVISION THING

III. Additional texts Reading 4: ANTI-AMERICANISMS Reading 5: AMERICAN CNSUMERISM AND THE NEW

CAPITALISM Reading 6: PROSPECTS FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH

RUSSIAIV. Survey Report

1

I. Lead-in

Mock US Citizenship Test

1. What was the Mayflower?

2. Who do the Americans thank on Thanksgiving day and what are the ingredients of a traditional American Thanksgiving dinner?

3. What do the terms “melting pot” and “salad bowl” mean to US society and culture?

4. Who got the right to vote first: American blacks, women or people under 21 year of age?

5. What are the names of the two major political parties in the USA and what animals and colours symbolize each party?

6. What event in American history is known all over the world as the Boston Tea Party?

7. Who was the youngest and the oldest elected President in the history of the USA?

8. Which famous American document begins with the words, “We, the people of the United States…”?

9. Which country presented the USA with the Statue of Liberty? What was the occasion?

2

Reading 1: учебное пособие. “Speaking English for Graduate Students of International Relations”/ Составление С.В. Мухин –

М.: МГИМО(У) МИД России, 2004. - Unit 3-4.

THE BASIC AMERICAN VALUES

The United States probably has a greater diversity of racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious groups than any other nation on earth. From the beginning of the history of the United States, there has been diversity — Native Americans throughout the North American continent, Spanish settlers in the Southwest and in Florida, French missionaries and fur traders along the Mississippi River, black slaves brought from African countries, Dutch settlers in New York, Germans in Pennsylvania, and, of course, the British colonists, whose culture eventually provided the language and the foundation for the political and economic systems that developed in the United States.

Most early Americans recognized this diversity, or pluralism, as a fact of life. The large variety of ethnic, cultural, and religious groups meant that accepting diversity was the only practical choice, even if some people were not enthusiastic about it. However, in time, many Americans came to see strength in their country's diversity. Today, there is more recognition of the value of cultural pluralism than at any other time in the history of the United States.

When we examine the system of basic values that emerged in the late 1700s and began to define the American character, we must remember this context of cultural pluralism. How could a nation of such enormous diversity produce a recognizable national identity?

Historically, the United States has been viewed as "the land of opportunity," attracting immigrants from all over the world. The opportunities they believed they would find in America and the experiences they actually had when they arrived nurtured this set of values. In this article, we will examine six basic values that have become "traditional" American values. Three represent traditional reasons why immigrants have been drawn to America: the chance for individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and material wealth. In order to achieve these benefits, however, there were prices to be paid: self-reliance, competition, and hard work. In time, these prices themselves became a part of the traditional value system.

Individual Freedom and Self-RelianceThe earliest settlers came to the North American continent to establish colonies that were free from

the controls that existed in European societies. They wanted to escape the controls placed on their lives by kings and governments, priests and churches, noblemen and aristocrats. To a great extent, they succeeded. In 1776, the British colonial settlers declared their independence from England and established a new nation, the United States of America. In so doing, they overthrew the king of England and declared that the power to govern would lie in the hands of the people. In 1789, when they wrote the Constitution for their new nation, they separated church and state so that there would never be a government-supported church. This greatly limited the power of the church. Also, in writing the Constitution, they expressly forbade titles of nobility to ensure that an aristocratic society would not develop. There would be no ruling class of nobility in the new nation.

The historic decisions made by those first settlers have had a profound effect on the shaping of the American character. By limiting the power of the government and the churches and eliminating a formal aristocracy, they created a climate of freedom where the emphasis was on the individual. The United States came to be associated in their minds with the concept of individual freedom. This is probably the most basic of all the American values. Scholars and outside observers often call this value individualism, but many Americans use the word freedom. Perhaps the word freedom is one of the most respected popular words in the United States.

By freedom, Americans mean the desire and the ability of all individuals to control their own destiny without outside interference from the government, a ruling noble class, the church, or any other organized authority. The desire to be free from controls was a basic value of the new nation in 1776, and it has continued to attract immigrants to this country.

There is, however, a price to be paid for this individual freedom: self-reliance. Individuals must learn to rely on themselves or risk losing freedom. This means achieving both financial and emotional

3

independence from their parents as early as possible, usually by age 18 or 21. It means that Americans believe they should take care of themselves, solve their own problems, and "stand on their own two feet."

This strong belief in self-reliance continues today as a traditional basic American value. It is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of the American character to understand, but it is profoundly important. Most Americans believe that they must be self-reliant in order to keep their freedom. If they rely too much on the support of their families or the government or any organization, they may lose some of their freedom to do what they want.

If people are dependent, they risk losing freedom as well as the respect of their peers. Even if they are not truly self-reliant, most Americans believe they must at least appear to be so. In order to be in the mainstream of American life — to have power and/or respect — individuals must be seen as self-reliant. Although receiving financial support from charity, family, or the government is allowed, it is never admired. Many people believe that such individuals are setting a bad example, which may weaken the American character as a whole.

The sight of beggars on city streets and the plight of the homeless may inspire sympathy but also concern. Although Americans provide a lot of financial support to people in need through charities or government programs, they expect that help to be short-lived. Eventually, people should take care of themselves.

Equality of Opportunity and CompetitionThe second important reason why immigrants have traditionally been drawn to the United States is

the belief that everyone has a chance to succeed here. Generations of immigrants, from the earliest settlers to the present day, have come to the United States with this expectation. They have felt that because individuals are free from excessive political, religious, and social controls, they have a better chance for personal success. Of particular importance is the lack of a hereditary aristocracy.

Because titles of nobility were forbidden in the Constitution, no formal class system developed in the United States. In the early years of American history, many immigrants chose to leave the older European societies because they believed that they had a better chance to succeed in America. In "the old country," their place in life was determined largely by the social class into which they were born. They knew that in America they would not have to live among noble families who possessed great power and wealth inherited and accumulated over hundreds of years.

The hopes and dreams of many of these early immigrants were fulfilled in their new country. The lower social class into which many were born did not prevent them from trying to rise to a higher social position. Many found that they did indeed have a better chance to succeed in the United States than in the old country. Because millions of these immigrants succeeded, Americans came to believe in equality of opportunity.

It is important to understand what most Americans mean when they say they believe in equality of opportunity. They do not mean that everyone is — or should be — equal. However, they do mean that each individual should have an equal chance for success. Americans see much of life as a race for success. For them, equality means that everyone should have an equal chance to enter the race and win. In other words, equality of opportunity may be thought of as an ethical rule. It helps ensure that the race for success is a fair one and that a person does not win just because he or she was born into a wealthy family, or lose because of race or religion. This American concept of "fair play" is an important aspect of the belief in equality of opportunity. President Abraham Lincoln expressed this belief in the 1860s when he said:

We... wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor for his whole life.

Material Success, Hard Work, and Self-DisciplineThe achievement of material success is probably the most widely respected form of self-

improvement in the United States. Many scholars believe that the nation's Protestant heritage is largely responsible for bringing this about. The idea of mixing materialism and religion may seem contradictory; religion is considered to be concerned with spiritual matters, not material possessions. How can the two mix?

Some of the early European Protestant leaders believed that people who were blessed by God might be recognized in the world by their material success. Other Protestant leaders, particularly in the United States, made an even stronger connection between gaining material wealth and being blessed by God.

4

American Protestantism, however, has never encouraged the idea of gaining wealth without hard work and self-discipline. Many scholars believe that the emphasis of Protestantism on these two values made an important contribution to the industrial growth of the United States. The Protestant view of hard work and discipline differed from the older tradition of the Catholic Church where the most highly valued work was that performed by priests and others whose lives were given completely to the organized church. The work and self-discipline of those whose occupations were outside the church might have been considered admirable but not holy. Protestant leaders brought about a different attitude toward work, first in Europe, and later in the New World, by viewing the work of all people — farmers, merchants, and laborers — as holy.

Protestants also believed that the capacity for self-discipline was a holy characteristic blessed by God. Self-discipline was often defined as the willingness to save and invest one's money rather than spend it on immediate pleasures. Protestant tradition, therefore, may have played an important part in creating a good climate for the industrial growth of the United States, which depended on hard work and willingness to save and invest money. The belief in hard work and self-discipline in pursuit of material gain and other goals is often referred to as "the Protestant work ethic," or "the Puritan work ethic."

It is important to understand that this work ethic has had an influence far beyond the Protestant Church. Many religious groups in the United States share belief in what is called the Protestant work ethic. Americans who have no attachment to a particular church, Protestant or Catholic, have still been influenced by the work ethic in their daily lives.

The Protestant idea of self-improvement includes more than achieving material gain through hard work and self-discipline. It includes the idea of improving oneself by helping others. Individuals, in other words, make themselves into better persons by contributing some of their time or money to charitable, educational, or religious causes that are designed to help others. The philosophy is sometimes called volunteerism, or humanitarianism.

Historically, some of the extremely wealthy Americans have made generous contributions to help others. In the early 1900s, for example, Andrew Carnegie, a famous American businessman, gave away more than 300 million dollars to help support schools and universities and to build public libraries in thousands of communities in the United States. John D. Rockefeller, another famous businessman, in explaining why he gave a large sum from his private fortune to establish a university, said: “The good Lord gave me my money, so how could I withhold it from the University of Chicago?" The motive for humanitarianism and volunteerism is strong: Many Americans believe that they must devote part of their time and wealth to religious or humanitarian causes in order to be acceptable in the eyes of God and in the eyes of other Americans. Many businesses encourage their employees to do volunteer work, and individuals may get tax credits for money given to charity.

Answer the questions:1. Which term describing the American character do you find more precise: individualism or

freedom?2. What is self-reliance?3. What is Americans' attitude toward those who receive financial support?4. Why is it believed that everyone has a chance to succeed in the USA? Do you share this

belief?5. How is equality of opportunity understood in the USA?6. Can spiritual matters and material possessions be mixed?7. How does the Protestant view of hard work and discipline differ from the Catholic view?8. What is Puritan work ethic?9. What is the American idea of self-discipline?

5

II. Obligatory material Reading 2: учебник Е.М.Зелтынь, Г.П. Легкодух Английский

для будущих дипломатов. English for future diplomats.-М,;МГИМО(У)МИД России,2005 – Unit 9.

UNIT 9

The Vices of Our VirtuesThe American Creed is what makes us great as a nation - and also what fosters some big problems

Robert J.Samuelson

I am proud to be an American; most of us are. Our patriotism is fierce, if often quiet. A recent Gallup poll asked respondents in 16 countries whether they would like to live elsewhere. Americans finished almost last. Only about 11 percent of us would move. By contrast, 38 percent of Britons, 30 percent of Germans, 20 percent of Japanese and 19 percent of Canadians would. Why, then, are we so mad at our leaders and society? One neglected answer is this: America's glories and evils are tightly fused together.

The things that we venerate about America - its respect for the individual, its opportunity, its economic vitality, its passion for progress - also breed conditions that we despise: crime, family breakdown, inequality, cynicism, vulgarity and stress, to name a few. Naturally optimistic, Americans reject any connection between our virtues and vices. We refuse to see, as sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset argues in an important new book, that "seemingly contradictory aspects of... society are intimately related."

But they are, and in an election year, the relationship is highly relevant. Only by grasping it can we keep our perspective on the campaign's inevitable excesses. Already, we are deluged with anguished analyses of our faults and vast schemes for self-improvement. Both exaggerate our problems and our capacity to cure them: some national conditions aren't easily changed.The American Creed - our distinct set of values - blends freedom, individualism and egalitarianism. This mix has fired economic advance. Why do we lead the world in computers? The answer is mostly culture. We love to create, experiment and tinker. We are the land of Apple Computer and Netscape. Every year, more than 600,000 new businesses incorporate. We have the largest global pool of venture capital. But the same emphasis on individual striving, success and liberty can also inhibit social control and loosen people's sense of communal obligation. Crime becomes just another path to "making it." Divorce rises if marriage seems to imperil self-fulfillment. Because we worship individual effort, we are more tolerant of failure and inequality than other nations. In 1987, a poll asked whether "government should provide everyone with a guaranteed basic income." Only 21 percent of Americans agreed - about a third of the number of Germans (56 percent) or Britons (61 percent). Naturally, our welfare state palls next to theirs. Nor should we be surprised that:

• Among advanced societies, we are the richest - and the most unequal. In 1995, Americans' incomes averaged roughly 20 to 30 percent above those of Europe and Japan. But the richest 90th percentile of Americans have incomes nearly six times higher than the poor at the 10th percentile. In Germany, the same ratio is 3 to 1; in Canada and Italy, it's about 4 to 1.• We have the most successful democracy - and among the lowest voter turnouts. In the

Gallup poll, more Americans (64 percent) were satisfied with democracy than people anywhere else. Canadians (62 percent) were closest; Britons (40 percent) and Japanese (35 percent) were well behind. Yet, in nonpresidential elections, less than half of eligible Americans vote.

6

• Although decidedly moralistic, we have one of the world's most violent societies. In 1990, the American murder rate was more than twice as high as Germany's and nine times higher than Japan's.

Contradictions abound. "Concern for the legal rights of accused persons and civil liberties in general is tied to opposition to gun control and difficulty in applying crime-control measures," writes Lipset. Naturally, Americans are among the world's most gun-owning peoples. In 1993, 29 percent of U.S. households had handguns, compared with 5 percent of Canadian and 2 percent of Australian. To some extent, the proof that our virtues and vices are connected comes from abroad, where the advance of American values has created a natural experiment in social change. The loosening of tight social controls in Russia, China and South Africa has led to more freedom -and crime. In Europe and Japan, prosperity and the celebration of individuality have coincided with more divorce and crime. Between 1970 and 1991, divorce rates rose 40 percent in Germany and 50 percent in Japan (though both remain well below U.S. levels).

The American Creed was already well established by the 1830s, when Alexis de Tocqueville first described it. Even in Colonial times, America was less rigid socially than Europe. Land was a great leveler. In America, most farmers owned it; in England, 60 percent of the population didn't. Still, Colonial America brimmed with hereditary privileges and arbitrary power. In a 1992 book, historian Gordon S. Wood of Brown University argued that the decisive break occurred during the Revolution itself, which created a social and intellectual upheaval. Loyalists decamped to Canada, which (like Europe) remained a more deferential, communal and paternalistic society. But in America, the legitimacy of unchangeable social distinctions collapsed. Jefferson said that men would advance based on "virtue and talent", and not on birth. The Revolution "made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people - their pursuit of happiness - the goal of society and government" wrote Wood.

The resulting mind-set often means disappointment and division. All authority is suspect, because it elevates some over others and triggers an inbred distrust of "aristocracy" - now "elites" or callous CEOs. Popular culture is democratic and, therefore, sometimes shallow and offensive. Talk radio and trash TV are only new expressions of old impulses. Progress is never sufficient, because happiness - though constantly pursued - can never be guaranteed. Politicians fall short of the ideals that we (and they) set: one reason why we attack them even while admiring our system.

The election will expose these contradictions but not dispose of them. It's great to be an American, but we are burdened as well as blessed by our beliefs. That defines the American Drama.

NEWSWEEK March 11, 1996

Reading notes

Creed - a summary of articles of religious beliefs, any system of beliefs or principles.Gallup poll - assessment of public opinion by questioning a representative sample of people, esp. in order to forecast voting at an election.Gallup polls are named after the American statistician, George Horace Gallup, who invented them.individualism - is closely allied to ideas of freedom. It encompasses a number of goals which individuals may wish to attain including maximizing personal opportunities, realizing one's potential, the fulfillment of aspirations, enjoyment of wealth, property and privacy as well as the security which results from a well-ordered and peaceful society, egalitarianism - political theory that all members of society have equal rights and should have equal treatment.welfare state - a term used to describe a national system when all citizens are required to contribute through taxation or other contributions to the provision of social services such as health, education, financial benefits, pensions, etc. These services are available to all according to need on a free or subsidised basis.to pall - to become boring, insipid, wearisome or tiresome; to become cloyed or satiated.percentile - a) in statistics any of 99 points at which a range of data is divided to make 100 groups of equal size; b) any of these groups.

7

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) - French democratic theorist, author of De La Democratie en Amerique (Democracy in America) and De L'Ancien Regime, which set out nineteenth century liberal ideas. Tocqueville used the term "democracy" meaning a society where there is social equality and an absence of class hierarchy and privilege. Over a century later, in the 1960s, Tocqueville's ideas on democracy were echoed in the sociological studies of American political scientists.Colonial times. In 1765 British America was comprised of thirteen colonies which came under the jurisdiction of Parliament in London, and whose people were subjects of the King (George III at that time). Each of the colonies had its own political institutions, but these were relatively powerless, with no legislative and few executive powers.The American Revolution (1775-1783) -the war that established the 13 American colonies as independent from Britain, often called the American War of Independence.Loyalists - Colonial Americans who remained loyal to Britain during the American Revolution.Jefferson, Thomas (1743-1826) - US politician and 3rd President. A delegate to the Second Continental Congress (1775), he drafted the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was Governor of Virginia(1779-1781), Minister to France (1785) and Secretary of State (1790). He served as Vice-President under John Adams (1797-1801) and as President (1801-1809).paternalism - a tendency among some, especially politicians, to claim that they have a deeper understanding of how to improve the condition of individuals and society than the people themselves. They may suggest they know what is best for people, who, having inferior knowledge, do not understand what is in their own best interests. The relationship between paternalists and the people can be described as similar to that of father and child.the pursuit of happiness - a quote from the American Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (American Declaration of Independence).CEO - (US) chief executive officer.

Exercises

1. Look for words and expressions in the text to match the following definitions.

1. to help the growth or development of (sth.)2. to respect deeply, regard as sacred3. to lead to (sth.), to cause 4. connected with what is being discussed, what is happening, what is being done, 5. to understand 6. to fill or overwhelm with a great quantity7. to mix together8. to fiddle, or work in an unskilled way, with machinery, etc. 9. an undertaking or scheme that involves some risk 10. to stop or hinder (someone from doing sth.) 11 .to endanger 12. one who would remove all social or political inequalities 13. not decided by rules or laws but by a person's own opinion 14. respectful, considerate, reverential15. activity; hobby; interest; occupation; pastime

2. Comment on the notions expressed by Robert J.Samuelson.

1. The things that Americans venerate about America breed conditions that they despise. However they reject any connection between their virtues and vices.2. The American Creed (the Americans' distinct set of values) has fired economic advance.3. The emphasis on individual striving, success and liberty can inhibit social control and loosen people's sense of communal obligation.4. Because Americans worship individual effort, they are more tolerant of failure and inequality than other nations.

8

5. To some extent, the proof that American virtues and vices are connected comes from abroad.6. Even in Colonial times, America was less rigid socially than Europe. Land was a great leveler.7. Colonial America brimmed with hereditary privileges and arbitrary power.8. But in America, the legitimacy of unchangeable social distinctions collapsed. Jefferson said that men would advance based on "virtue and talent" and not on birth.9. The Revolution "made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people - their pursuit of happiness - the goal of society and government."10. Progress is never sufficient, because happiness - though constantly pursued - can never be guaranteed.11. Popular culture is democratic and, therefore, sometimes shallow and offensive.

3. Seymour Martin Lipset argues that "seemingly contradictory aspects of... society are intimately related."List all the contradictions mentioned in the article. Comment on the relationship.

4. Write a summary of the article.

5. Support or challenge the following quotations.

1. It is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail. Thomas Jefferson2. The best of all governments is that which teaches us to govern ourselves. J o h a n n W o l f g a n g G o e t h e

3. The great hope of society is individual character. W i l l i a m E . C h a n n i n g

4. The more corrupt the state, the more laws. T a c i t u s / P u b l i u s C o r n e l i u s /

9

Reading 3: учебник Е.М.Зелтынь, Г.П. Легкодух Английский для будущих дипломатов. English for future diplomats.-М,;МГИМО(У)МИД России,2005 – Unit 16.

UNIT 16

The Revision ThingAmerican mythology paints the past in rosy pink. The reality is altogether a different

hue, according to a new civic history

America, it is often said, has a history-sized hole in its imagination. Henry James groaned about his country's "perpetual repudiation of the past" while another Henry (Ford, this time) called history "bunk". A few years ago, Hollywood marketed Alan Bennett's play, "the Madness of George III", as "the Madness of King George" in case audiences got the idea they had missed parts I and II. Nowadays, "you're history" is a handy insult. As a popular columnist, Christopher Hitchens, recently reminded American readers, Communists used to air-brush people out of history rather than consign them to it.

And yet it could just as well be said that America is fascinated by history, or at least a mythologised version of it. In the political and legal debate on impeachment, Americans constantly invoke the country's founders, citing 18th-century writings to support modern views. Whenever they fret about their country, somebody appears to tell them that things were better in a past era, real or (usually) imagined. The rancour over impeachment appears to represent a fall from some former Eden of civility. The cliché is that American politicians are obsessed with the vision thing. In truth, the revision thing is big in Washington too. One of the most popular kinds of historical revisionism concerns the virtue of the nation's citizens. The earliest Americans, according to the popular imagination, were models of virtue, governing themselves wisely through the fabled town-hall meetings of New England, and through a variety of voluntary associations. In the 1830s Alexis de Tocqueville arrived from France to marvel at the vigour of America's civic society, while another Gallic flatterer, J.Hector St.John de Crevecoeur, earlier demanded, "What then is the American, this new man?" Short of more up-to-date French compliments, Americans seem captivated by these ones. Politicians wax lyrical about voluntary associations, and hold their own town-hall meetings with constituents. Recently, Internet conferences have come to be called "electronic town-hall meetings", as though the old intimacy of New England can be replaced by a new kind of deliberation, face-to-interface.

Actually, those New England town meetings were a far cry. from the myth they inspired. As Michael Schudson writes in "The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life", his recent history of American civic society, these meetings were open only to property-owning men, and, in some cases, only to church members. Far from being models of pure democracy, they usually followed the agenda and preferences of the chosen few, who tended to be the richest figures in the town. Far, again, from being models of devoted political participation, the town halls suf-fered from citizen apathy: in 18th-century Massachusetts, for example, attendance ranged from 20% to 60% of eligible voters.

Finally, the notion that these meetings served the modern ideal of political freedom is pure "bunk". New England town halls were meant to show-case harmony and consensus, not be a forum for free opinions. When contemporaries spoke of liberty, they meant the liberty of a town against outside influence, not the liberty of the individual. If 18th-century New England has been mythologised, what of the early republic that followed it? The constitution of 1787 brought into being equality based on competing interests; deliberation was no longer expected to yield consensus. Hierarchy was also softened. The consti-tution's opening words, "We the people", summed up the new spirit of the times. And yet, though

10

these changes were remarkable for their era, it is odd that the early republic is so admired two centuries later. At that time, slaves, women and the poor remained excluded from the ballot box.

America's sense of its more recent past seems just as faulty. It is often assumed, for example, that the America of the 1950s exuded civic solidarity; indeed, Bob Dole based his 1996 presidential campaign partly on a promise that he would speak for the pre-baby-boomer cer-titudes that Americans seemed to crave. But the 1950s did not appear so perfect to many contemporaries. Robert Dahl, a celebrated sociologist, studied New Haven, Connecticut, in the late 1950s, and found people unwilling to bestir themselves for altruistic community life. President Eisenhower was sufficiently worried about the national aimlessness to commission a study of "Goals for Americans". Americans then may have been more trusting of government than people are these days, but this was not necessarily an advantage. Perhaps they should have been less trusting of a government that denied rights to blacks, withheld welfare payments from eligible supplicants, and tested radioactive fall-out on unwitting citizens.

In sum, the past for which Americans pine was far from perfect, and probably not even preferable to the America of today. Of course it is true that prosperity has weakened some community bonds, for instance by encouraging grandparents and adult children to live inde-pendently: in 1950 only three in ten unmarried adults lived alone; by 1970 six in ten did. But it is not clear that this is a bad thing. The rise in solo living may increase loneliness, but it also increases privacy and freedom. This must on balance be a benefit, otherwise the extended family would still be thriving now.

All this may seem obvious, but it has not saved Americans from nostalgia yet. On the contrary, America clings to an array of historically derived ideals of citizen participation - 18th-century town-hall meetings, 19th-century mass parties, early 20th-century direct democracy - even though it cannot possibly live up to all at once. These are the "successive coats that laminate our political ideals", as Mr.Schudson puts it; and each coat is tattered, so that the earlier ones show through. It is reassuring to find Mr.Schudson pleading that "We can gain inspiration from the past, but we cannot import it." It would be even better if his countrymen read his book.

THE ECONOMIST January 9th, 1999

Reading notes

James, Henry (1843-1916) - an American writer who wrote about the effect of Europe on Americans who travelled there. His books include Washington Square, The Bostonians, and the supernatural story Тле Turn of the Screw.Bennett, Alan (1934-) - a British writer and actor from the North of England, best known for his many humorous television plays.Tocqueville, Alexis de (1805-1859). (Reading notes to The Vices of Our Virtues.)Crevecoeur, J.Hector St.John (1735-1813). (Reading notes to The Cult of Ethnicity, Good and Bad.)Dole, Robert (1923-) - US Senator. He trained as a lawyer, entered the US House of Representatives, as a Republican (1961-1969), and became member of the US Senate from Kansas in 1969. In 1976 he stood as a Republican vice-presidential candidate alongside Gerald Ford. Between 1984 and 1986 he was majority leader of the Senate, and later minority leader, and in 1993 became senior Republican representative in Washington. He ran unsuccessfully for presidential nomination in 1980 and 1988. In 1996 he ran for president against Bill Clinton on the Republican ticket and lost.baby-boom - a period when there is a large increase in the number of babies born, esp. the period after the Second World War: the baby-boom of the 1950s, a baby-boomer - a person born during the 1950s.Dahl, Robert - a celebrated American sociologist, professor of political science at Yale University. In the 1960s Alexis de Tocqueville's ideas on democracy were echoed in the sociological studies of American political scientists who rejected elitist theories, observing that much of American society was pluralist in nature and that the true character of the political system was extremely complex. It was simplistic, they I claimed, to see power as lying exclusively in the hands of a few political elites. In 1999 Robert Dahl published On Democracy, where he discusses the history and forms of democracy, and the prospects for democracy.

11

Exercises

1. Explain and expand on the following sentences from the text.

1. America, it is often said, has a history-sized hole in it's imagination.2. Nowadays, "you're history" is a handy insult.3. Communists used to air-brush people out of history rather than consign them to it.4. In the political and legal debate on impeachment, Americans constantly invoke the country's founders.5. The rancour over impeachment appears to represent a fall from some former Eden of civility.6. Short of more up-to-date French compliments, Americans seem captivated by these ones.7. Politicians wax lyrical about voluntary associations.8. Actually, those New England town meetings were a far cry from the myth they inspired.9. New England town halls were meant to show-case harmony and consensus, not be a forum for free opinions.10.The constitution of 1787 did bring into being a polity based on competing interests; deliberation was no longer expected to yield consensus.11.It is often assumed that the America of the 1950s exuded civic solidarity.12.Robert Dahl... found people unwilling to bestir themselves for altruistic community life.13.America clings to an array of historically derived ideals of citizen participation... even though it cannot possibly live up to all at once.14. These are the "successive coats that laminate our political ideals."

2. Think of other ways of expressing the following. Give Russian equivalents.civic historya civic society civic solidarityperpetual repudiationa handy insulthistorical revisionismthe fabled town-hall meetingsvoluntary associations

the chosen feweligible voterseligible supplicantsa celebrated sociologistaltruistic community lifecommunity bondsnational aimlessnesswelfare paymentsunwitting citizenscitizen participationsolo livingthe extended family

3. Consult the dictionary and learn the derivatives of the following words.

perpetual, successive; to repudiate, to consign, to invoke, to supplicate, to laminate

4. Look for words and expressions in the text to match the following definitions.1. to refuse to have anything to do with; refuse to acknowledge

12

2 . to assign to an undesirable position or place; relegate 3. to call on sb. for help, inspiration, support, etc.4. to worry about; feel irritated, annoyed or querulous 5. to be filled with admiring surprise; be amazed, wonder 6. to capture the attention or affection of; fascinate; charm 7. to have an inclination, tendency to do sth.; incline8. an opinion held by all or most; general agreement 9. a political or government organization; a state 10. careful consideration and discussion of alternatives11. defective, blemished, imperfect or erroneous 12. to diffuse or seem to radiate; to ooze; discharge 13. a feeling of absolute sureness or conviction; certainty 14. to long for eagerly; to desire strongly .15. to stir to action; to exert or busy (oneself) 16. to give an order for (sth. to be done); authorise 17. to refuse to grant or give; to refuse the use of or access to 18. to hold back; keep back; restrain; to refrain from permitting or granting 19. fit to be chosen; legally or morally qualified 20. a person who supplicates (asks for sth. humbly) 21. not knowing or aware; unintentional 22. to have an intense longing or desire; yearn23. considering everything; all in all 24. to prosper or flourish; to be successful 25. to hold fast; stick to; adhere to 26. coming in succession; following one another in sequence 27. to cover with thin layers; to build up in layers 28. torn and ragged; reduced to tatters

5. Explain the difference in meaning or usage of the following groups of words. Think of situations in which they would be appropriate.

1. to consign - commit - relegate2. to fret - complain - worry - feel querulous3. to thrive - prosper - flourish - succeed4. to repudiate - disown - refuse to accept - deny5. to captivate - attract - fascinate - charm6. celebrated - famous - renowned - distinguished7. unwitting - unaware - unintentional8. faulty - defective - imperfect - erroneous

6. Fill in the missing verbs. Paraphrase the sentences and translate them into Russian.1.___to _____ people out of history2.___to _______ people to history3. Americans constantly _______ the country's founders.4. American politicians _________ with the vision thing.5. New England town halls were meant_________ harmony and consensus.6._____________The constitution __________ a polity based on competing interests.7.________________________deliberation was not expected ___________consensus8.______________________...the America of the 1950s __________civic solidarity9. Americans seemed_________ pre-baby-boomer certitudes.10. Eisenhower_________ a study of “Goals for Americans”. 11.... a government that ______ rights to blacks and _______ welfare payments from eligible supplicants.

13

12. The past for which Americans ________ was far from perfect.

7. Give your understanding of the headline. What does the author imply?

8. Comment on the notions expressed by the author. Choose a topic for an essay.

1. Henry Ford called history "bunk".2. People are prone to fret about their country.3. Things are always better in a past era, real or imagined.4. American politicians are obsessed with the vision thing.5. Repudiation of the past often leads to historical revisionism.6. People are loath to find fault with the past. Many see the past in rosy pink.7. We can gain inspiration from the past, but we cannot import it.

9.Write a summary of the article. 10. Suggest an English translation for the following quotations. Discuss the subject matter.

1. Наши взгляды - как наши часы: все они показывают разное время, но каждый верит только своим. Эдгар По (Edgar Allan Рое)

2. Всемирная история есть сумма всего того, чего можно былобы избежать. Бертран Рассел (Bertrand Russell)

3. Захватывающая история редко бывает правдивой. Самюэл Джонсон (Samuel Johnson)

4. В политике нет ничего более достойного восхищения, чем короткая память. Джон Кеннет Гэлбрэйт (John Kenneth Galbraith)

14

III. Additional texts Reading 4:

Anti-AmericanismsBy Peter Katzenstein and Robert KeohaneOctober 20, 2006

Around the world, not just in the Middle East, when bad things happen there is a widespread tendency to blame America for its sins, either of commission or omission. When its Belgrade embassy is bombed, Chinese people believe it was a deliberate act of the United States government; terror plots by native British subjects are viewed as reflecting British support for American policy; when AIDS devastates much of Africa, the United States is faulted for not doing enough to stop it.

These outbursts of anti-Americanism can be seen simply as a way of protesting American foreign policy. Is "anti-Americanism" really just a common phrase for such opposition, or does it go deeper? If anti-American expressions were simply ways to protest policies of the hegemonic power, only the label would be new. Before World War I Americans reacted to British hegemony by opposing "John Bull." Yet there is a widespread feeling that anti-Americanism is more than simply opposition to what the United States does, but extends to opposition to what the United States is -- what it stands for. Critiques of the United States often extend far beyond its foreign policy: to its social and economic practices, including the public role of women; to its social policies, including the death penalty; and to its popular culture, including the flaunting of sex. Globalization is often seen as Americanization and resented as such. Furthermore, in France, which has had long-standing relations with the United States, anti-Americanism extends to the decades before the founding of the American republic.

Since we are interested in attitudes that go beyond negative opinions of American foreign policy, we define anti-Americanism as a psychological tendency to hold negative views of the United States and of American society in general. Such negative views, which can be more or less intense, can be classified into four major types of anti-Americanism, based on the identities and values of the observers. From least to most intense, we designate these types of anti-Americanism as liberal, social, sovereign-nationalist, and radical. Other forms of anti-Americanism are more historically specific.

Liberal anti-Americanism. Liberals often criticize the United States bitterly for not living up to its own ideals. A country dedicated to democracy and self-determination supported dictatorships around the world during the Cold War and continued to do so in the Middle East after the Cold War had ended. The war against terrorism has led the United States to begin supporting a variety of otherwise unattractive, even repugnant, regimes and political practices. On economic issues, the United States claims to favor freedom of trade but protects its own agriculture from competition stemming from developing countries and seeks extensive patent and copyright protection for American drug firms and owners of intellectual property. Such behavior opens the United States to charges of hypocrisy from people who share its professed ideals but lament its actions.

Liberal anti-Americanism is prevalent in the liberal societies of advanced industrialized countries, especially those colonized or influenced by Great Britain. No liberal anti-American ever detonated a bomb against Americans or planned an attack on the United States. The

15

potential impact of liberal anti-Americanism would be not to generate attacks on the United States but to reduce support for American policy. The more the United States is seen as a self-interested power parading under the banners of democracy and human rights rather than as a true proponent of those values, the less willing other liberals may be to defend it with words or deeds.

Since liberal anti-Americanism feeds on perceptions of hypocrisy, a less hypocritical set of United States policies could presumably reduce it. Hypocrisy, however, is inherent in the situation of a superpower that professes universalistic ideals. It afflicted the Soviet Union even more than the United States. Furthermore, a prominent feature of pluralist democracy is that its leaders find it necessary to claim that they are acting consistently with democratic ideals while they have to respond to groups seeking to pursue their own self-interests, usually narrowly defined. When the interests of politically strong groups imply policies that do not reflect democratic ideals, the ideals are typically compromised. Hypocrisy routinely results. It is criticized not only in liberal but also in nonliberal states: for instance, Chinese public discourse overwhelmingly associates the United States with adherence to a double standard in its foreign policy in general and in its conduct of the war on terror specifically.

Social anti-Americanism. Since democracy comes in many stripes, we are wrong to mistake the American tree for the democratic forest. Many democratic societies do not share the peculiar combination of respect for individual liberty, reliance on personal responsibility, and distrust of government characteristic of the United States. People in other democratic societies may therefore react negatively to America's political institutions and its social and political arrangements that rely heavily on market processes. They favor deeper state involvement in social programs than is politically feasible or socially acceptable in the United States. Social democratic welfare states in Scandinavia, Christian democratic welfare states on the European continent, and developmental industrial states in Asia, such as Japan, are prime examples of democracies whose institutions and practices contrast in many ways with those of the United States.

Social anti-Americanism is based on value conflicts that reflect relevant differences in many spheres of life that are touching on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The injustice embedded in American policies that favor the rich over the poor is often decried. The sting is different here than for liberals who resent American hypocrisy. Genuine value conflicts exist on issues such as the death penalty, the desirability of generous social protections, preference for multilateral approaches over unilateral ones, and the sanctity of international treaties. Still, these value conflicts are smaller than those with radical anti-Americanism, since social anti-Americanism shares in core American values.

Sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism. A third form of anti-Americanism focuses not on correcting domestic market outcomes but on political power. Sovereign nationalists focus on two values: the importance of not losing control over the terms by which polities are inserted in world politics and the inherent importance and value of collective national identities. These identities often embody values that are at odds with America's. State sovereignty thus becomes a shield against unwanted intrusions from America.

The emphasis placed by different sovereign nationalists can vary in three ways. First, it can be on nationalism: on collective national identities that offer a source of positive identification. National identity is one of the most important political values in contemporary world politics, and there is little evidence suggesting that this is about to change. Second, sovereign nationalists can emphasize sovereignty. In the many parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa where state sovereignty came only after hard-fought wars of national liberation, sovereignty is a much-cherished good that is to be defended. Anti-Americanism rooted in sovereignty is less common

16

in Europe than in other parts of the world for one simple reason: European politics over the past half-century has been devoted to a common project -- the partial pooling of sovereignty in an emerging European polity. A third variant of sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism appears where people see their states as potential great powers. Such societies may define their own situations partly in opposition to dominant states.

Sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism resonates well in polities that have strong state traditions. Encroachments on state sovereignty are particularly resented when the state has the capacity and a tradition of directing domestic affairs. This is true in particular of the states of East Asia. The issues of "respect" and saving "face" in international politics can make anti-Americanism especially virulent, since they stir nationalist passions in a way that social anti-Americanism rarely does.

China is particularly interesting for this category, since all three elements of sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism are present there. The Chinese elites and public are highly nationalistic and very sensitive to threats to Chinese sovereignty. Furthermore, China is already a great power and has aspirations to become more powerful. Yet it is still weaker than the United States. Hence, the superior military capacity of the United States and its expressed willingness to use that capacity (for instance, against an attack by China on Taiwan) create latent anti-Americanism.

Radical anti-Americanism. We characterize a fourth form of anti-Americanism as radical. It is built around the belief that America's identity, as reflected in the internal economic and political power relations and institutional practices of the United States, ensures that its actions will be hostile to the furtherance of good values, practices, and institutions elsewhere in the world. For progress toward a better world to take place, the American economy and society will have to be transformed, either from within or from without.

Radical anti-Americanism was characteristic of Marxist-Leninist states such as the Soviet Union until its last few years and is still defining Cuba and North Korea today. When Marxist revolutionary zeal was great, radical anti-Americanism was associated with violent revolution against U.S.-sponsored regimes, if not the United States itself. Its Marxist-Leninist adherents are now so weak, however, that it is mostly confined to the realm of rhetoric.

The most extreme form of contemporary radical anti-Americanism holds that Western values are so abhorrent that people holding them should be destroyed. The United States is the leading state of the West and therefore the central source of evil. This perceived evil may take various forms, from equality for women, to public displays of the human body, to belief in the superiority of Christianity. For those holding extreme versions of Occidentalist ideas, the central conclusion is that the West, and the United States in particular, are so incorrigibly bad that they must be destroyed. And since the people who live in these societies have renounced the path of righteousness and truth, they must be attacked and exterminated.

Religiously inspired and secular radical anti-Americanism argue for the weakening, destruction, or transformation of the political and economic institutions of the United States. The distinctive mark of both strands of anti-Americanism is the demand for revolutionary changes in the nature of American society.

It should be clear that these four different types of anti-Americanism are not simply variants of the same schema, emotions, or set of norms with only slight variations at the margin. On the contrary, adherents of different types of anti-Americanism can express antithetical attitudes. Radical Muslims oppose a popular culture that commercializes sex and portrays women as

17

liberated from the control of men and are also critical of secular liberal values. Social and Christian democratic Europeans, by contrast, may love American popular culture but criticize the United States for the death penalty and for not living up to secular values they share with liberals. Liberal anti-Americanism exists because its proponents regard the United States as failing to live up to its professed values -- which are entirely opposed to those of religious radicals and are largely embraced by liberals. Secular radical anti-Americans may oppose the American embrace of capitalism but may accept scientific rationalism, gender egalitarianism, and secularism -- as Marxists have done. Anti-Americanism can be fostered by Islamic fundamentalism, idealistic liberalism, or Marxism. And it can be embraced by people who, not accepting any of these sets of beliefs, fear the practices or deplore the policies of the United States.

Reading 5:

American Consumerism and the New Capitalism

Essay by R.Cronk

The traditional cultural values of American society are degenerating under the influences of corporate politics, the commercialization of culture and the impact of mass media. Society is awakening from its fascination with television entertainment to find itself stripped of tradition, controlled by an oppressive power structure and bound to the credit obligations of a defunct American dream.

For the public at large, the integrating and transformative experiences of culture have been replaced by the collective viewing experience and by participation in consumer trends. The American public has been inundated by an unending parade of commodities and fabricated television spectacles that keeps it preoccupied with the ideals and values of consumerism.

Consumerism is the myth that the individual will be gratified and integrated by consuming. The public fetishistically substitutes consumer ideals for the lost acculturating experiences of art, religion and family. The consumer sublimates the desire for cultural fulfillment to the rewards of buying and owning commodities. While consumerism offers the tangible goal of owning a product, it lacks the fulfillment of other cultural mythologies. Consumerism offers only short term ego-gratification for those who can afford the luxury and frustration for those who cannot.

The egocentricity of American society made it an easy target for the transition to a consumer society. As deceptive advertising and academic nihilism gutted culture of its subjectively realized values, the public was easily swayed onto the path of consumerism. In the midst of a major identity crisis, will America realize the lack of morality and humanitarianism in a world based on media image and the transient satisfaction of ownership? The reduction of cultural values to economic worth has produced a situation in our 'enlightened' society where product availability becomes ethical justification for political oppression.

The hallowed dollar is a cheap substitute for cultural values lost to greed and ambivalence in post-modern America. Economic worth has displaced traditional cultural values defining self-worth. Self-worth is gauged by buying power. The acts of buying and owning reinforce self-worth within consumer society. You can see it in the haughty and demanding attitude of the consumer as he stands before the cashier. No longer does the purchase have to be justified by purpose.

18

Mass media perpetuates the myth of consumerism as a priority of the New Capitalism. As America settles into its nightly routine of television viewing, corporate profiteers are quick to substitute material luxury and consumer gratification for the fading spirit. Media advertising sells an image -- an empty shell. Corporate America placates its flaccid public with despiriting pastiche. There is only fraudulent illusion. Who cares as long as it looks good?

In its duplicitous plot to throttle the public, corporate policy assumes only the self-interested exploitation of the consumer market and environmental resources. Corporate priorities and the business ethic are not intrinsically humanitarian or ecologically sensitive. The humanitarian ethic associated with small business is lost. The consumer is no longer courted by the competition of small businesses. The small business has been crowded out by the corporate capitalist to insure less competition and greater profit. Big business is too often the enemy of the people.

In corporate (monopolistic) capitalism the consumer is a target -- he is acted upon. Selection is reduced, not to what the public wants, but to what it will accept at a greater profit for the stockholder. Our choices and freedoms are limited by corporate policy. As we become acclimated to life around the television set, collectively striving for a media-produced image, our choices are made for us. Choice is reduced to brand name. We sacrifice self-knowledge for consumerism. Consumerism, like communism and fascism, is a secular religion restricting freedom of choice.

Beneath its smug persona lies an insecure America striving to fill an image projected in media advertising. Self-awareness and self-worth have been distorted. We are what we wear. Who we are merges with roles and images portrayed in the media. Ever so subtly we, Americans, are losing something we have always been proud of - our ability to act independently.

Reading 6:

Prospects for Engagement with Russia Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Stephen Sestanovich (Council on Foreign Relations/Columbia University ) March, 2009 Of all the world’s major states, Russia is the only one whose relations with the United States have deteriorated in the past five years. It’s not a case, moreover, of “failure to thrive” – sickly underperformance without specific ailments. Nor is the problem simply the result of inattention by leaders in both Washington and Moscow who have other pressing things to worry about. The worsening of Russian-American relations has involved real clashes of policy and perspective – and active involvement by policymakers on both sides.

Although contemporary scholars of international relations believe that our time is marked by an absence of fundamental antagonisms among the great powers, Russian officials are saying, in effect, that they disagree. For them, security – and what they insist is an American drive to weaken them -- is still the core problem of Russian-American relations. In his famous speech in Munich two years ago, then-President Putin also complained that the United States “imposes itself on other states, in the economy, in politics, and in the human-rights sphere.” On another occasion, he compared American policies to those of the Third Reich. Here in Washington, Russia’s image has suffered very severe damage as well. Moscow’s frictions with its neighbors

19

are widely seen to reflect neo-imperialist aspirations – and are, yes, sometimes compared to the policies of the Third Reich. Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration’s aim to press the “reset” button is welcome and needed. Many opportunities are available for re-fashioning the relationship in ways that benefit both countries. But it should probably be said at the outset that neither in coping with modern gadgetry nor in diplomacy is pressing a “reset” button a guarantee of improved performance. There are some reasons to hope that, despite several years of testiness, the resetting of relations between Moscow and Washington can be a relatively smooth process, certainly smoother than many people expect. Leaders and policymakers in both countries seem, in general terms, to want warmer, more productive relations. They regularly speak of a number of common interests–from nuclear non-proliferation to counter-terrorism to stable international energy markets—that ought to make it possible for Russia and the United States to cooperate. Today, not surprisingly, economic recovery and growth also make the list of goals that could, and should, unite Russian and American policy. If President Obama and President Medvedev want to show that Russian-American relations are re-booting nicely, it will be easy enough to do so. They should be able to announce the prompt opening of talks on the extension of the START1 treaty–or, even better, on a successor agreement that further reduces strategic arsenals. They could also re-commit themselves to practical measures that will discourage Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including diplomatic and military cooperation and missile defense. They might further renew their determination to support a successful counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan. They can announce an agenda of steps to address the concerns of both sides on issues of European security. This is a very substantial but hardly exhaustive list. It’s not difficult to spell out comparable measures in other areas, whether it’s trade and investment, energy cooperation, climate change, or the work of the NATO-Russia Council. The steps I have described for improving Russian-American relations would amount to a textbook “reset.” But what if the process isn’t so smooth? Perhaps, instead of merely switching things off and starting over, we actually have to inquire into the relationship’s deeper underlying problems? Some thoughtful observers argue that we need to pay closer attention to the way in which Russia views its interests. The Commission on U.S. Policy toward Russia made this point just days ago, and I completely agree with it. To get a feel for Russian thinking, it’s not necessary to explore the dark recesses of relations with the Bush administration over the past eight years. Even in the past few months, Moscow’s actions and statements have provided ample evidence of an approach to security that is likely to complicate the re-booting of Russian-American relations. Consider, for example, the Russian response to President Obama’s suggestion that if the problem posed by Iranian nuclear and missile programs went away, so too would the need for American radars and interceptors to counter them. For many Americans, this linkage is no more than a statement of the obvious–and a constructive, common-sense place to start discussion. Yet Russian spokesmen, including President Medvedev himself, have rejected it. Other Russian policies demonstrate the same approach to security. We see it in the regularly repeated demand that Ukraine give up ownership of the gas pipelines on its territory. It shows up in the suggestion that Europe needs new security institutions so as to limit NATO’s ability to carryout the policies of its members. What ties all these policies together–from missile defense to energy –is a seeming conviction that Russian interests and those of other states, especially the U.S. and its European allies, are inevitably in conflict. This is why, when Russian officials propose to work with us on countering a possible missile threat from Iran, their proposals always involve reliance on Russian radars, usually on Russian territory. And it’s why, for more than a decade, Russian policy has sought to block the construction of pipelines that would bring oil and gas from Central Asia and the Caucasus to international markets without crossing Russian territory. We saw the same pattern

20

this week when President Medvedev addressed the Defense Ministry, explaining his proposals for military reform as a response to the growing threat from NATO. Russian security, in short, continues to be viewed in unusually prickly zero-sum terms. The result is that real cooperation with other states is generally considered risky and undesirable, even dangerous. This Russian outlook hardly means that a new American approach cannot succeed. And it certainly does not mean we should not make the effort. Our interests in expanded cooperation with Russia are real, and they call for sustained diplomacy to create a more productive relationship. Yet the mismatch between our strategic outlook and Russia’s does have implications for the way in which we think about this effort. Our goal is not simply the mundane mutual accommodation of interests that our diplomats pursue on a daily basis with other states. Alone among the great powers, Russia presents us with the challenge of trying to get it to conceive its interests in a fundamentally different, less confrontational way. Expanded cooperation with Russia is possible even within the prevailing conception of its interests, but far more would be possible if its leaders viewed security in ways more congruent with the outlook of other European states. Is such a transformation possible? Of course. Nothing is more contrary to historical experience–or for that matter, insulting to Russia--than to suggest that it alone among the world’s major states must remain permanently hostage to outdated, counter-productive conceptions of its interests, goals, and identity.American policy, then, should pursue practical opportunities for cooperation with Russia. That means advancing its integration into the multilateral institutions of international life where it is ready to contribute to them. (Right now, Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization is the most important unexploited opportunity.) We should do better in expanding bilateral cooperation as well. (Here, arms limitation talks offer significant possibilities.) And, particularly where Russia’s leaders have themselves acknowledged the legitimacy of the enterprise, we should not miss openings to address the connection between the country’s internal transformation and its place in the world. (On this point, there is no more tantalizing invitation than President Medvedev’s observation that whether Russia enjoys respect abroad depends on whether it observes the rule of law at home.)In pursuing these cooperative steps, we should not forget the larger goal of our engagement with Russia–a relationship not limited to re-fighting battles of the last decade, or of the last century. That “reset” button remains to be pushed.

IV. Survey Report

Write a survey report of 500 words comparing any aspect(s) of American life to that (those) of the region you study. You should attach the table of data that you used in your analysis with all the references to the sources of this information.

21