Dominion From Sea To Sea Part 1

Dominion from Sea to Sea.

Bruce c.u.mings.

To Eleanor Sharts c.u.mings-Hood.

He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

-Psalm 72.

Bibliography.

This book develops a Pacific perspective on America's relationship to the world, standing in James Polk's Washington a century and a half ago and coming down to the present, drawing a fairly straight line all the way from the origin and development of California and the West ultimately to the heartland of the People's Republic of China. If Walt Whitman and historian Richard Drinnon had not thought of it first, "facing West" would be the t.i.tle of this book. In other words, this is not a book about the West or about American involvement in the Pacific. It is about both, as a way of erasing the line between domestic and international perspectives. In exploring the contemporary American ascendancy, I attempt to join together what other authors usually treat separately: domestic and international history, international relations and political economy, and both sides of a vigorous Pacific economy. This book is also about technological change, and how sharp leaps forward in economic growth created a bicoastal national economy that has led the world for more than a century, a development that also transformed, undercut, or simply crushed original American conceptions of the continent they first inhabited nearly 400 years ago: a garden, an Eden, Arcadia, someday a Utopia.

Most of the American literature on international affairs remains deeply imbued with Atlanticism, but I will argue for a dual posture: an Atlanticist dimension in our relations with Europe and a Pacific dimension that began with the frontier and mid-nineteenth-century relations with East Asia, but which in the past half-century has come to rival and perhaps surpa.s.s our Atlantic relations, giving us a new way to make sense of the American position in the world. The global leader that the United States replaced had the same curiosity as the one that was going to hold sway in the current century: Great Britain and j.a.pan both occupy small islands, set just far enough away from the mainland to breed a solipsistic sense of ineffable superiority (indeed, for the British, "continentalism" connotes European provincialism). Once the United States was also called an "island country," sheltered by two great oceans. It was the only great power that for more than a century was entirely self-sufficient unto itself and therefore invulnerable to external dependencies, and the only power with vast reaches yet to be filled up with people and enterprise (save for Russia's frigid and still-undeveloped frontier in Siberia, or the deserts and mountains of China's Central Asian steppe, still home to tribes and nomads). The American position in the world, however, owes much to its being the first hegemonic power to inhabit an immense land ma.s.s: not an island empire like England or Pacific Century-pretender j.a.pan, but a continent open at both ends to the world's two largest oceans. The United States is the only great power with long Atlantic and Pacific coasts, making it simultaneously an Atlantic and a Pacific nation. The historic dominance of Atlanticists, gazing upon a Europe whose civilization gave birth to our own, averts our eyes from this fact (indeed, the continental divide still makes a New Yorker uncomfortable in Los Angeles-and vice versa).

I want to put forth a "Pacificist" interpretation of America's role and position in the world, or for short, a non-Atlanticist text. But "Pacificist" sounds too much like "pacifist" (and is a synonym for it according to the Oxford English Dictionary), which is hardly my intent, nor is it to critique or supplant Atlanticism. That is a venerable narrative, kept alive in our time by people like Henry Kissinger, for the world, and the late Samuel Huntington (Wh.o.a.re We?), for the ethnic core that shaped it: Anglo-Saxons. It would be boorish to point out that most Atlanticists seem to know very little about our Pacific involvements, or East Asia itself; Kissinger's multivolume tome is the best memoir of a secretary of state since Dean Acheson's Present at the Creation, but when it comes to trying to understand j.a.pan or China, one is a kabuki play and the other is boxes-within-boxes.

My main themes are these, recurring throughout the a.n.a.lysis: (r) the American singularity of a thickly settled and still dynamic Atlantic Coast and Middle Border (the Midwest, as it was long called), and an even more vibrant Pacific Coast that keeps reinventing itself; (2) the expansion of settlers through a continent perceived as empty and unspoiled, a limitless garden-or Eden, or Arcadia-requiring only white settler fertilization to bloom into Utopia, and the absence in the same narrative of any means of comprehending the relentless industrialization that began to transform this garden nearly two centuries ago and has never quit; (3) the white settler encounter with people of color, which was and remains fundamentally different from American interaction with Europeans; (4) American relations with East Asia which, beginning more than i5o years ago with Perry's "opening" ofj.a.pan on the heels of Polk's war with Mexico, have never conformed to the Atlanticist narrative and in fact depart dramatically from it; (5) the tipping point that 1941 signified in our interactions with East Asia and the rest of the world, which ultimately became more important and determining than our historical relations with Europe-since Pearl Harbor the United States has operated differently in the Pacific compared to the Atlantic, and this increasingly seems to be the way we operate globally-leading to the deepest divisions with our traditional Atlantic allies since the victory in 1945; (6) the role of the central state in developing the West and especially California; (7) the global archipelago of military bases that arose during the Korean War and the cold war and that has its strongest impact in the Pacific; and (8) a state-funded digital revolution in the past half-century that is a core element of American preeminence. These themes recur in chapters that move both chronologically and back and forth in time from the 184os to the present.

The Pacific is the world's largest ocean, indeed it is the planet's "biggest single feature," in Colin McEvedy's words; twice the size of the Atlantic, it occupies about one-third of the earth's surface. It also has more islands than any other ocean, about 25,ooo. Few books with Pacific in the t.i.tle fail to dwell on the islands-and their romance, exoticism, and freewheeling ways (think of Michener's South Pacc). This book isn't about that vast ocean or that romance. The equator marks off the southern boundary of my interest. It isn't that the southern region is unimportant: it's that American interactions with East Asia are much more important. They began with China, Hawaii, j.a.pan, and Korea, then a war with Spain over the Philippines, then the Pacific War; since Pearl Harbor we have fought three major wars in East Asia (one win, one draw, one loss)-and since roughly the same time, the opposite sh.o.r.es of the northern Pacific have had world-historical industrial booms.

The Pacific West has been an engine of growth for more than i5o years. The gold rush touched off the Americanization and multiethnic peopling of California, and industrial agriculture, citrus, the discovery of oil, movies, and real estate booms followed on its heels. The Roaring Twenties was not just an era of flappers and the Charleston, but years of pioneering innovation when Californians first sampled the seductive possibilities of ma.s.s consumption and ma.s.s culture that the rest of the world now absorbs as part of its lifestyle: automobiles, suburbs, radios, Hollywood films, professional sports, "consumer durables" like refrigerators. And a sharp-eyed Willa Cather noticed: "The whole world broke apart in 1922 or thereabouts"; America "had got ahead wonderfully, but somehow ahead on the wrong road," she thought. At that time American industry perfected both ma.s.s production and the means to digest the same goods-en ma.s.se. The 192os capped an amazingly quick American rise to world preeminence: the United States had 29 percent of global industrial production in the i88os, 36 percent by 1913 (compared to Britain's 14 percent), and 42 percent in 1929-the highest percentage ever, save for the abnormal period just after World War II when all the advanced industrial economies had suffered extensive war damage, except for the unscathed United States (which temporarily held half of all global production). Southern California occupied the horizon of 192os-style ma.s.s consumption, a new form of pioneering that defined the third industrial revolution (autos, a.s.sembly line ma.s.s production often called Fordism).1 The successive administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt provided the turning point from continental isolation to global involvement. When he was "Mr. New Deal," an open spigot of federal spending brought the direct involvement of the national government into the extensive development of the Far West, and especially water and power; the New Deal built ma.s.sive infrastructures (like the Grand Coulee Dam) and managed and developed western farmlands and the immense water works necessary to till them. When Roosevelt was "Mr. Win-the-War," under emergency conditions federal administrators authorized and subsidized hundreds of new war-related industries in Southern California, the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle, thus accomplishing the industrialization of the Pacific West while the gross national product doubled in five years. The emergence of Los Angeles as a major industrial city in the s.p.a.ce of one decade (1940-50) symbolized this continental "market completion," and another huge shot in the arm came via the Korean crisis and permanent cold war defense spending at historically unprecedented levels. The stage was thus set for the American political economy to grow in tandem with both Atlantic and Pacific interests and involvements.

Defense firms like Lockheed failed several times before the war but flourished thereafter, all through the cold war and until its end, when defense contracts began drying up. (In 1996 Disney spent $45 million to turn Lockheed's Stealth aircraft design facility, long known as "the Skunk Works," into an animation studio.)2 Just as this happened, however, new information-age industries drove America's Pacific economy out of recession and into the longest peacetime boom in American history. Boeing teamed with Microsoft to transform Seattle from a backwater to a major Pacific Rim city in the s.p.a.ce of one decade (roughly 1980-90), Intel and Nike brought Portland out of the 197os-8os doldrums of an old economy based on resource exports (mainly timber), and California recaptured its leading-edge position in the national economy as Silicon Valley made northern California richer even than Southern California. I will argue that the core of California's incessant industrial innovation resides in a peculiar combination of youthful initiative and fulsome state funding, a phenomenon that goes back to the Depression and World War II, and trades on California's salutary distance from the dominant inst.i.tutions of the East. Other parts of the American West will interest us: Texas, an anomalous aspect of the story, is nonetheless part of it. Like the Pacific Coast states, it also fronts on an ocean, but the other western states do not and thus belong to a different narrative.

It might appear that this is a Pacific Rim book. But I never understood this term that came of age in the 19706 and i98os or the counterpart locution of the 199os, "the Asia/Pacific"-and I don't think anyone else did either. (Is Guatemala included in the "Pacific Rim"? Is Burma or Bangladesh in "the Asia/Pacific"?)3 These are inventions and constructions of the powerful, especially America and j.a.pan, and they occupy what Alexander Woodside called a "prophetic culture"-China (or j.a.pan, or the Pacific Rim) is rising, or a miracle, or a menace-and the prophecies tend suddenly to evaporate when history ill.u.s.trates their obsolescence, as in j.a.pan's bubble economy and subsequent stagnation or the 1997 Asian financial crisis which abolished the rhetoric about "the four tigers." Still, prophetic hoopla doesn't change the fact that j.a.pan began its essential industrial pattern of state-guided bursts of growth in the 188os and since the 195os has been East Asia's most formidable industrial state; Korea and Taiwan got off the mark in the 196os and haven't stopped. Our old antagonist Vietnam is one of the fastest growing nations in the world. But China puts everyone else in the shade, growing by nearly 1o percent annually since Deng Xiaoping's epochal reforms in 1978-a snapshot of a "Great Leap Forward" that will help to shape the rest of this century. All this is true. But the American Pacific states also had great leaps forward after Pearl Harbor, completing a continental industrial economy the likes of which the world has never seen. This is the basic reason why the American share of global GDP has remained steady since 1970, at about 30 percent, as against a nattering flock of Ca.s.sandras predicting East Asian advance and American decline-or even oblivion.

I have written much about the East Asian side of this Pacific phenomenon in my earlier work, and like that work, there is a theoretical framework at the basis of this book. I have tried to wear it lightly because it puts off or bores the nonspecialist, but the appendix contains some essential ideas about "late" development, "spurts" of growth, technological innovation, the role of the American state, the curiosities of s.p.a.ce and time in expansion and development on a continental scale, and ill-understood words like "empire" and "hegemony." The claims in this book are not theoretical, however. My concern is to unfold an argument about general patterns; figuring out exactly what happened (let's say up on Cripple Creek or in the Southern California citrus boom or in the origins of Silicon Valley) is compelling, the details are fascinating, but I am more interested in what the larger patterns mean for the American role in the world. Where I have failed in grasping a particular history, the reader will find rich sources of correction (not to mention many ideas for further reading) in the bibliography. Meanwhile if I fail at the general level, I have no one to blame but myself.

Historians of the West still experience a sense of distance, even an inferiority complex, around their colleagues who consider their own work (say, on a village in colonial New England) more central and more important. People who work on the West are thought to do regional rather than national history-or maybe their region is history (in her first teaching job Patricia Nelson Limerick was told that her courses shouldn't go past the i89os). This book a.s.serts that the United States cannot be understood without knowing the West; that in the past i5o years the country has been shaped more dramatically by the West and American Pacific involvements than by any other region; that one state-California-is a more dramatic shaper of national destiny than any other; and that America's position in the world, the ultimate whole we are trying to understand, is inexplicable without grasping the intertwined power of the coastal states and U.S. dominance across the expansive oceans on which they gaze.

I think this is a story of the past and the present, but many will think it is prophecy-a claim on the future. It doesn't matter, really; paradoxically, the old and timeworn traditions of western history return to us today with a new freshness, as the search for India or a northwest pa.s.sage to the Orient or Berkeley's westward march of empire or America as the "middle country" linking Asia and Europe acquire a true depth of meaning with an ascendant Pacific trade, and more importantly with the mingling of diverse peoples and cultures, now so casual and unexceptionable on the West Coast and in much of the country. American destiny is finally and thoroughly intertwined with Mexico, China, Korea, j.a.pan, Vietnam, and again finally, India.

The emergence of the United States after 1941 as a simultaneous Atlantic and Pacific power, operating at a cutting-edge technological pace on both coasts and at many places in between (Chicago, Houston, Denver) is the central idea of this book, and I believe it is the essential basis of a global hegemony that has reached no more than early middle age in our time, if that. The central problem of the book is how to understand and explain the difference between an Atlantic-facing internationalism and a Pacific-facing expan sionism, the twin sides of America's relation to the world. Just in time, as if history relishes an ill.u.s.trative counterpoint, along came a westerner with the most finely honed example of the expansionist tendency since James Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, or Douglas MacArthur: George W. Bush. But I began working on this book years before he came into office, and I am forced to admit that I thought things were moving in the other direction-toward a new internationalism (called "globalization") in both Europe and East Asia, which Bill Clinton seemed to understand and forward effortlessly.4 Today it appears that unless extraordinary efforts are made to overcome our historic unilateralism and easy recourse to the use of force in Asia, thus to engage and involve the East Asian countries in a spirit of equality and mutual advantage, this century is going to have prolonged and devastating consequences for world peace.

A Personal Note.

My life, if not my career, has been shaped by the Pacific states since I learned how to drive (age ten) and began my prodigious after-school reading: Hot Rod Magazine, Rod and Custom, Car Craft, Road and Track; my imaginary adolescent life was shaped by car customizers like the inimitable George Barris and drag racing stars like Don Garlits, and my fondest wish was to cruise down Whittier Boulevard in a'32 Ford Hiboy. (Little did I know that a University of Chicago student had already linked hot rodders to one innovation after another in Detroit-and of course to American ingenuity and individualism.)' My parents moved to Palo Alto when I was eighteen, "voting with their wheels" for a new life like so many other Americans, and I learned then about a very different California, the one in the north (the civilized part) that Alfred Hitchc.o.c.k brilliantly portrayed in Vertigo. This was 1962 when the national media "discovered" it again, the occasion being California pa.s.sing New York as the most populous state, but the perennial text was California's embodiment of the American dream, a window to the future for the rest of the country.6 Fifteen years later I got a job in Seattle, still in the backwash of Boeing having laid off tens of thousands of workers in 1969-71; it appeared to be a company town, a sleepy backwater in an exquisite setting facing the contiguous forty-eight's only genuine fjord (Puget Sound), more often facing "back East" (which seemed to mean anywhere over the Cascade Mountains), an Omaha that just happened to be on the Pacific-except that it had a very good coffee shop named Starbucks down at the Pike Street Market. When I left in 1987, Bill Gates was adding a world-cla.s.s monopoly to Boeing's oligopoly, Starbucks was franchising outward to the world, Asians and AsianAmericans were pouring in, and the Emerald City had permanently turned around to face West, a new jewel in America's Pacific crown.

The original germ of my intellectual interest in the West and California, which took a long time to germinate but stayed always in my mind, came in December 1974 when I was dawdling around waiting to defend my doctoral thesis at Columbia and walked into a $2.oo second-run theater on the Upper West Side to see Chinatown. For the first time in my life I stayed on for a second viewing; the film is enigmatic and difficult to decipher at one sitting (the producer, Robert Evans, said the script "was pure Chinese" to him)7 or even two or three. Ostensibly a crime noir filmed in apricot shades steeped in nostalgia for the old, vanished Los Angeles, it is the most intelligent film ever made about the prewar western social milieu, which had its concentrated essence in the WASP oligarchy that ran Los Angeles and the people of color who worked for them. The screenwriter, Robert Towne, reversed our optic by taking the stereotypical view of Chinatowns at the time-inscrutable deviants mired in tong wars, opium dens, filth, prost.i.tution, incest, omnibus mayhem, "you could never tell what went on there"-and making it the story of the oligarchy. He took what scholars call the theory of Oriental despotism (the satrap above, the ma.s.ses below, moving rivers to deliver water and create wealth in an arid climate) and brought it home to the Los Angeles aqueduct, the San Fernando Valley, the collapsed St. Francis Dam, and the curious, poignant figure of Hollis Mulwray, director of water and power-otherwise known as William Mulholland.

The film is entirely typical of a Southern California discourse which holds the industrialists responsible for fouling the air, the real estate speculators for desecrating the land, cars and freeways for despoiling the Edenic environment, and the politicians for making it all possible. It is a singular film bringing China to Southern California and imbedding it in a determining and largely true munic.i.p.al history. More broadly, the film symbolizes what contemporary Americans will face for the rest of their lives: the joining of enormously productive semi-arid valleys, the ones that Californians watered with the Owens Lake and the Colorado River, and the Yangze and Yellow river valleys that China now showers with a billion talents. For the first time in world history, the Pacific Ocean is joining the Mediterranean and the Atlantic: the expansive scene of an infinity of human transactions and ultimately a Pacific civilization that we envision but dimly today.

I am still humbled by the history I attempt to interpret and the substantial literature that has been my guide-however badly or wrongly I may have used it. Carey McWilliams once remarked, "All my books represent efforts to relieve my ignorance," and I have had the same feeling since I first directed my ignorance toward the Korean War. I am all too aware of how much more could be said and done, how many omissions remain, how tentative many of my generalizations really are. The best that can be said: this is the book I wanted to read but couldn't find, so I wrote it myself. I offer it to the reader in the spirit of Joseph Schumpeter's aphorism: "We all of us like a sparkling error better than a trivial truth."

My academic expertise developed on the opposite side of the North Pacific, East Asia; I know something about Korea, j.a.pan, China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, which is a reasonable definition of "East Asia," and it is that part of the Pacific that has concerned me in my career. To say that I am not an expert in western history is only to begin to express my debt to several generations of scholars who are or were. History in this country usually means American history, and usually the Americanists dominate history departments. That has its demerits from time to time, but it so focuses the historical mind that there seems to be a book for almost any subject, big or small. The literature on the American West is thus overwhelming: but through mostly self-directed reading I learned to rely on the kindness of strangers: fellow historians, most of whom I have never met.

The literature on the West is also overwhelmingly about California-or sometimes just about Los Angeles, a city that must have a larger literature than any other in the past century, even more than New York-and so Kevin Starr has almost become a companion through his work: no other state has been blessed with such an adroit, literate, learned, and indefatigable historian-laureate. Had he not invented himself, I quite doubt that another such person would exist. William Cronon's work on Chicago as the first city of the West deeply influenced my thinking, as did Patricia Nelson Limerick's Legacy of Conquest and Donald Worster's Rivers ofEmpire. D. W. Meinig has pioneered a wonderful combination of geography and history in his many books. In an earlier generation, Walter Prescott Webb had a genius for a compelling kind of historical reductionism, and Bernard DeVoto's many books were also a great help, not to mention a delight (some contemporary historians call him a "neo-Romantic," but as Lincoln said about Grant, they should all take whatever he was drinking). No authors have made me think more about the meaning of the West than Richard Slotkin (the Regeneration Through Violence trilogy), Richard Drinnon (Facing West), and Mike Davis (City of Quartz and Ecology of Fear). Meanwhile a host of expert books on somewhat lesser subjects proved keenly absorbing. One overwhelming impression gleaned from this literature is that the concerns of western historians come to a creaking halt when they hit the sh.o.r.eline-they barely get their toes wet in the Pacific. The American West and America in the Pacific are two entirely different literatures (although Drinnon's book is a remarkable exception). Crossing, melding, and erasing that line is a major purpose of this book.

This book was researched and written with the a.s.sistance of two fellowships, the first (2000-2oos) from the Center for Advanced Study at Stanford with financial support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the second (2004-5) from the Abe Fellowship Program, administered by the Social Science Research Council and the Council of Learned Societies, in cooperation with and with funds provided by the j.a.pan Foundation Center for Global Partnership. Several deans at the University of Chicago-Richard Sailer, John Boyer, and Mark Hansen-helped me with additional research funds, as did Dali Yang and Ted Foss at the Center for East Asian Studies. I am most grateful for all this support.

My endnotes will not interest the general reader as only rarely do I say anything beyond what is in the main text. They make brief reference to the author and year of publication, corresponding to the listing of the source in the bibliography. The notes are numerous as they must be in a book like this, to give proper credit to the mult.i.tude of fine scholars laboring in the vineyards. Like most of them, I use words like "American," "Indian," "Anglo," and "haole" colloquially, as people use them in everyday life.

Ronald Steel was nice enough to suggest to me that a swath of my 1990 Korean War study be extracted and published as a separate book on U.S. foreign relations. Not wanting to repeat myself since the never-ending dilemmas of the Korean peninsula have led me to do quite enough of that already, I decided instead to start from scratch. Harry Harootunian and Tets Najita have supported my work from the day they conspired to hire me in 1987. I was fortunate to occupy the Norman and Edna Freehling Professorship during most of the time that I worked on this book, and I would like to thank their son, Paul Freehling, for his generosity. Graduate students in my international history seminar and undergraduate students in my history and film cla.s.s provided many insights, and perhaps now-with this book-they will understand what I was talking about. David Gibbs, Akira Iriye, Chalmers Johnson, James Kurth, Walter LaFeber, Charles Maier, Immanuel Wal- lerstein, and Marilyn Young also deserve thanks for their advice and support. Daniel Chirot provided a most useful commentary on my book for Yale University Press, as did an anonymous reader. James B. Palais was a great friend and avid reader of my work, and I deeply regret that he pa.s.sed away in 2006.

A mult.i.tude of other people helped me with this book, while indulging my inability or unwillingness to quite explain what I was doing (it is a fact that I don't really know what I think until I sit down and write). At the Center for Advanced Study, the director Robert A. Scott, Nancy Pinkerton, Christine Duignan, and Kathleen Much were most helpful. Herb Leiderman's enthusiasm for my project stimulated me a lot. Among Center fellows who helped my thinking along, I would like to thank David Holloway, Charles Ragin, Michael Doyle, Amy Gutman, and David Nirenberg. My colleague Jim Sparrow was also very helpful, as was Steve Shallhorn of Greenpeace. Two former Ph.D. students, Lisa Anderson and Kornel S. Chang, taught me a lot through their work on the Pacific world. John Hawk was most generous when I worked in the Donohue Rare Book Room of the Gleeson Library at the University of San Francisco library; staff at the Riverside Citrus Museum and the California Oil Museum were also helpful. Bob Graham went out of his way to help me with Charles Fremont memorabilia. I would like to thank Henning Gutman for locating my book with Yale University Press. Eliza Childs provided deft and meticulous editing, for which I am most appreciative. Bill Nelson's maps and Cynthia Crippen's index were also wonderfully done. Melanie Reilly was also generous with her help and time. Chris Rogers and Laura Davulis deserve thanks for putting up with me, and I thank the director of the press, John Donatich, for intervening at a critical moment to keep this project on track. Margaret Otzel was terrific in helping with the final touches on the book. I would also like to thank Meredith Oda and Kelly Therese Pollock for their excellent research a.s.sistance.

Professor Nishizawa Yos.h.i.taki kindly arranged for a visiting position at Doshisha University in the summer of 2004, including comfortable housing and a seminar where various Doshisha faculty reacted to my work. Professor Onozawa Toru arranged a similar seminar at Kyoto University. Over several years professors Akita Shigeru and Kan Hideki have kindly included me in their ongoing working groups, and I learned much from presenting my ideas to conferences that they organized in July 2004, July 20o5, and July 2oo6. Frank Baldwin offered respite at his cottage near Lake Nojiri, where my sons were happy to lighten his pockets in poker. Chung Kyungmo, Wada Haruki, and Lim Chul are good friends who always let me know what they are thinking. Watanabe Masahiro was also helpful in many ways. Taida Hideya, the executive director of the Center for Global Partnership of the j.a.pan Foundation, and Diet member Tomon Mitsuko were also very generous with their time. My old friend Professor Sakamoto Yoshikazu offered many helpful ideas. I had a memorable dinner with Masahide Ota, the former governor of Okinawa, who provided me with many materials and taught me much. Among academics in j.a.pan who were also generous in sharing their time and their views with me I would like to thank: Fujimoto Hiroshi, Gabe Masaaki, Hori Kazuo, Igarashi Takeshi, Iguchi Haruo, Inoguchi Takashi, Iwas.h.i.ta Akihiro, Kang Sang Jung, Kobayashi Hideo, Lee Jong Won, Matsuda Takeshi, Nakajima Hiroo, Sugita Yoneyuki, Yamas.h.i.ta Morihasa, Yi Ilcheong, and Yui Daizaburo.

In Korea I have had so many friends and faculty give of their time that I can name only a few who really went out of their way: Kim Dongno, Kim Kw.a.n.gWoong, Kim Sung-han, Choi Jang Jip, and PaikNak-chung. I would like to thank former Prime Minister Lee Hong-gu for arranging a large gathering where I presented my Pacific project, and former Foreign Minister Yoon Young Kwon for sharing his views with me. In China, Xue Mouhong was most helpful, as always; I would also like to thank Dr. Zhang Kunsheng of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Professor Shen Dingli; and in Taiwan, Professor Cheng-yi Lin.

I learned much from two people who guided me around the Sasebo Fleet Activities Center, Philip D. Eakins and Aramaki Yoko; likewise Captain Michael Chase and Jon N. Nylander provided much useful information on the largest U. S. naval base in j.a.pan at Yokosuka. Captain Dannie Chung and Sue E. Jevning were very helpful in facilitating my visits to several Marine bases on Okinawa. Colonel Adrienne K. Fraser Darling, the commander of Camps Foster and Lester, was very enlightening in the interview I had with her. I also learned much from Lt. Col. James M. Ruvalcaba, Col. H. Stacy Clardy III, and Major Brad S. Bartlet, the director of public affairs for the Third Marine Expeditionary Force. Sheila Smith, Kathy Ferguson, and Phyllis Turnbull gave me excellent guidance on the military in Hawaii, and the visitor staff and excellent bookstore at Pearl Harbor provided much useful information. The U.S. Army also guided me through another visit to Panmunjom; meanwhile the giant Yongsan Garrison in Seoul (with more than 12,ooo American personnel in 2oo6) has been familiar to me since I was a Peace Corps volunteer sneaking through the gates in search of a good cheeseburger.

Meredith Jung-en Woo knows how to manage a career, a household, two teenagers, a recalcitrant husband, and a hundred friendships, which is a marvel. My ability to write this book was completely dependent on her manifold skills. Ian and Ben can attest that I did most of this book while sitting in an armchair or at the desk in my study, a purposeful method given the waning years left to greet them when they came home from school. They also accompanied me during a year of "field work" at the Inst.i.tute for Advanced Study, an idyllic Silicon Valley sojourn, but all I did there was sit in my office and read books, too, as my sons can attest, and then drive up and down the state on the weekends, reconnoitering the objects of our desire.

To any meditative Magian rover, this serene Pacific, once beheld, must ever after be the sea of his adoption. It rolls the mid-most waters of the world, the Indian Ocean and Atlantic being but its arms. The same waves wash the moles of the new-built California towns, but yesterday planted by the recentest race of men, and lave the faded but still gorgeous skirts of Asiatic lands, older than Abraham; while all between float milky-ways of coral isles, and low-lying, endless, unknown Archipelagoes, and impenetrable j.a.pans. Thus this mysterious, divine Pacific zones the world's whole bulk about; makes all coasts one bay to it; seems the tide-beating heart of earth.

-HERMAN MELVILLE, Moby-d.i.c.k.

Locke sank into a swoon; The Garden died; G.o.d took the spinning-jenny Out of his side.

-W. B. YEATS, The Tower.

here does the West begin? Historians can't agree, but for pioneers it was once the Appalachians, in Daniel Boone's time it was Tennessee, Illinois was called the Northwest (thus Northwestern University), then Chicago and the railroads made a "new West." The Census Bureau counts thirteen Mountain and Pacific states, including Alaska and Hawaii, as part of the West-but not Texas (not Texas?). Probably the most influential definition is the 98th meridian, the dividing line between rainfall adequate for farming and aridity. But half of the Americans living west of that meridian live in California. So is it the real West? Where would the West be in Saul Steinberg's celebrated New Yorker cover? The West starts across the Hudson in Jersey and has s.p.a.ce, expanse, width; the East has depth-it has civilization. You live in the one and you fly over the other. Steinberg reveals a state of mind, not a place. New England is the fount of Anglo-Saxon civilization, NewYork the apex of American culture, and the continent might as well still be an untamed wilderness. It dawned on a woman of nineteen who grew up in Seattle, cruising in a rented Toyota through New England, that she had somehow failed to grasp that "the East Coast was American cultural headquarters."'

What about the Atlantic's continental opposite? "It rested on a crust of earth at the edge of a sea that ended a world," Frank Fenton wrote inA Place in the Sun. But what world ended there? D. H. Lawrence thought that Fenton's city, Los Angeles, was "silly," a queer place that "turned its back on the world and looks into the void Pacific." In his essay t.i.tled "Facing the Pacific," Edmund Wilson stared into the same void, kindly remarking that California writers did not seem to carry "a weight proportional to the bulk of their work." No doubt this failing issued from "the strange spell of unreality which seems to make human experience on the Coast as hollow as the life of a trollnest where everything is out in the open instead of being underground," or from the climate ("the empty sun and the incessant rains"), or from the view ("the dry mountains and the void of the vast Pacific"), or from "the surf that rolls up the beach with a beat that seems expressionless and purposeless after the moody a.s.saults of the Atlantic." San Francisco was "the real cultural center" of California for Wilson, but (regrettably) a victim of "arrested development." Meanwhile San Diego had none at all: "a jumping-off place." Then he drew closer to his real intent: "Add to this the remoteness of the East and the farther remoteness from Europe." And then Wilson made his point: "California looks away from Europe, and out upon a wider ocean toward an Orient with which as yet any cultural communication is difficult." (In a similar essay Wilson put it this way: "an Orient with which, for white Americans, the cultural communication is slight.")2 For Lawrence and Wilson-and in literary criticism it doesn't get much better than that-Southern California was walled in by mountains and facing west toward "the void of the vast Pacific."

The Belated Pacific.

If it is hard to imagine a more jaundiced and blinkered view of the Pacific Coast culture and climate ("moody a.s.saults" are available off Bodega Bay if you like them, and the "empty sun" rarely warms Astoria), these are important statements because they are the kind of thing most eastern intellectuals hesitate to say openly, but it's what they really think-California is remote from Europe, it "looks away" toward a vacuous Pacific. It puts intellectuals out of sorts and so they hustle back to New York or Cambridge with relief and a shudder. What about the in-between, the continent from New York to Los Angeles? Well, that truly is flyover territory. Saul Steinberg's poster recapitulates the geography of Edmund Wilson's mind; he wouldn't pause in Peoria to a.s.say the local culture. Fine: but what about a country that from its founding "looked away" from Europe, that turned to face West, unrolling a novus ordo seclorum (a new order for the ages, see it on your dollar bill) on a vast continent, an exceptional nation that would negate Europe's monarchies, its despotism, its landlords and peasants, its wars of nation and cla.s.s? And what about a literary tradition founded in New England that also faced West in spite of itself?3 What of the "void of the vast Pacific"? The Pacific looks like a tranquil, gently rolling, infinite plane promising serenity and long life. Wilson's void is the absence of a common civilization ("cultural communication") on both sides of the Pacific. The distances were too far, the cultures too disparate, the peoples too incomprehensible. We see the Atlantic or the Mediterranean as a distinct ent.i.ty and subject for inquiry, but not the Pacific. We say Atlantic World, but Pacific World is a concept just now gaining traction (unless it connotes the romance of the islands). We say Atlantic civilization but we don't say Pacific civilization. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who coined the term "Boston Brahmin," helped found theAtlantic Monthly in 1857 to link America with European culture,4 and it is still an influential magazine; we don't have a remotely comparable Pacc Monthly. Americans and Europeans meet each other as equals, as part of the same cultural realm, however much Europeans may think a ration of error crossed the Atlantic. Americans met Pacific peoples very early, as they were discovering their own territory-Chinese in the gold rush, j.a.panese, Koreans, and Filipinos at the turn of the last centuryand they met them with sharp racial discrimination that did not begin to end until the civil rights movement of the 196os. They met them in continuous wars from 1941 to 1975. They met them in economic exchange after 1960, and now they meet them in universities, corporations, hospitals, courtrooms, and laboratories, a new and burgeoning professional cla.s.s. In the twenty-first century a Pacific civilization is slowly emerging, linking all sides of the vast ocean in ongoing, daily life exchange. But today the ocean remains primarily a setting for business exchange or popular culture-and an arena of overwhelming American military might.

For Bernard Bailyn "the idea of Atlantic history" emerged in the postwar period as a way to characterize Britain's imperial Atlantic order and an intertwined British-American, internationalist history-a "transnational, multicultural reality," or as Armitage and Bradd.i.c.k term it, a social system "with permeable boundaries, created by the interaction of migrants, settlers, traders, and a great variety of political systems." The new Atlantic history leads David Armitage to say, speaking for a host of historians, "We are all Atlanticists now." An ocean is a natural fact, Armitage goes on, with a built-in geography; the same, ipso facto, is true of the Pacific. But Bailyn and Armitage trace the origin of Atlantic history to engagement with Europe during World War II and the cold war: "the idea of Western civilization ... owed more to NATO than to Plato," Armitage wrote. The opponents of the Atlantic idea, they say, were isolationists, otherwise called "Asia firsters" (or maybe Pacificists). Atlantic history became increasingly multicolored-a black Atlantic, a green (Irish) Atlantic, a red (Marxist) Atlantic. Are there Pacific counterparts? Yes there are, as we will see. But these historians, too, are talking about a state of mind, a cultural Atlantic, built around an internationalism that they privilege. For David Armitage "the Pacific is belated" when compared to the Atlantic world and it was Europeans, not natives, who first saw it whole.' But it took them forever to grasp the whole-and is it still "belated" in the new century?

The Anglo-Saxon Atlantic.

The late Samuel Huntington not only posited a "clash of civilizations" but a clear preference for one of them: "Americans should recommit themselves to the Anglo-Protestant culture, traditions, and values that for three and a half centuries have been embraced by Americans of all races, ethnicities and religions and that have been the source of their liberty, unity, power, prosperity, and moral leadership as a force for good in the world." The United States was not a nation of immigrants for him, but one of settlers-people who left in groups to found a new society, often to escape religious intolerance-and those settler societies replicated themselves over two and a half centuries as the frontier expanded. It stopped expanding, according to Huntington, at the same time Frederick Jackson Turner said it did: i89o. Since then a multiethnic settler society has been diluted by immigration, he wrote, such that now more than half of the American population has no settler heritage. Huntington wanted us to revitalize "the American Creed" (reminding us of Richard Hofstadter's quip "It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one").6 Huntington's image is again cultural: what distinguishes Atlantic civilization are "its values and inst.i.tutions"-which he lists in the following order: "Christianity, pluralism, individualism, and rule of law," all of which "made it possible for the West to invent modernity." He approvingly quoted Arthur Schlesinger Jr. on Europe as "the source-the unique source" of these basic attributes, and the responsibility of American leaders should be "to preserve, protect, and renew the unique qualities of Western civilization." The Atlantic world that Huntington wanted to revive and preserve is the only civilization truly worthy of his respect, and defending it is less a matter of confronting external enemies than husbanding its flagging resources at home and abroad. The home struggle, predictably, is against "multiculturalism" and the "culture wars" that raged in the 1990s.7 Against all the hard labor of racial and ethnic enlightenment since the 1940s, Samuel Huntington still pursued "the great historico-transcendental destiny of the Occident," in Foucault's words,' more specifically the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon Occident. Here is a long lament for a lost or declining Atlanticism, an America defined originally and primarily by New England (Huntington came from an old-line Boston family) and a "West" led by white men-and hopefully Protestant ones. Huntington was honest and straightforward about his preferences and betrayed no concern for partisan advantage. But the majority of Americans who differ in color, cla.s.s, or gender from Boston Brahmins will not find their views and interests represented in his book.

According to Huntington the original settler societies were fully known and realized examples of Puritanism, exemplifying an Anglo-Saxon h.o.m.ogeneity. But did they not encounter difference from the beginning and get transformed by it-by the encounter with Indians, by the introduction of slavery, or by the lack of Turner-like settlements beyond the 98th meridian? Is not a Frederick Dougla.s.s or a Malcolm X a central part of American civilization? Are the "blue states" and "red states" of recent elections an example of the clash of civilizations (or "Atlantic culture" vs. multiculturalism) or further testimony to the deeply contested nature of American liberalism? Maybe WASPS are just another minority group? These questions answer themselves and suggest that the attributes of liberalism that Huntington held dear manifest themselves around the world in a heterogeneous democratic civilization available to all peoples, growing stronger all the time.

An Atlanticist's Pacific.

The New England worldview may appear to be some quaint relic of a bygone past, and it is surely threatened-why else would Samuel Huntington defend it?-but it structured three important American inst.i.tutions: the academy, the China trade, and the Foreign Service. Harvard, the self-nominated pinnacle of academe, has always been a redoubt of internationalist doctrines and so are most other elite universities; prominent Harvard scholars like Huntington still routinely supply their students to run central journals, like Foreign Affairs. Meanwhile diplomatic service was the wholly-owned subsidiary of graduates from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and a few other schools from the beginning until the late i96os-and usually wealthy graduates, since salaries were so low. As an observant man who happens to be English wrote, "To an extent that is quite astonishing to Europeans, who are brought up to think of the U.S. as a great populist democracy with a strong anti-aristocratic bias, the foreign policy of the U.S. as a great world power over the whole seventy years from 1898 to 1968 was a family affair." That foreign affairs "family" had blue running in its veins and proper schooling at Choate or Andover, Harvard or Yale. After graduation they inhabited inst.i.tutions like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Trilateral Commission and belonged to the Cosmos Club in Washington and the Century Club in New York. Since 1941, G.o.dfrey Hodgson noted, the foreign policy establishment was fully united on these points: prize Atlanticism, support internationalism, oppose isolationism.9 Economics had an Atlanticist view, too, coming not simply from one Harvard don after another loving Adam Smith and loathing protectionists, but generations of merchants applauding free trade-and especially the China trade. John Winthrop's "City on a Hill," after all, was overlooking an ocean. Until the acquisition of California, trade with China was mainly the province of New England merchants. After the Revolution, American ships no longer had to worry about the trade monopoly held by the British East India Company, and growing wild in the countryside was a root that meant nothing to Americans but brought a fine price in China: ginseng, believed to be a fillip to male health and virility. The 36o-ton Empress of China left New York in February 1784 bound for Canton, loaded mostly with ginseng and financed by Robert Morris (who had also directed the financing of the Revolution). The Empress was the largest cargo vessel ever to dock at Canton and quickly deepened the China trade. She returned in May 1785 loaded with tea, silk, and porcelains, having made a whopping profit of $30,ooo, a net gain of 25 percent on the original investment. Soon other American ships-the Grand Turk, the United States-followed suit, trading ginseng, furs, and sandalwood for tea and silk, and by that pregnant year-1789-as many as fifteen American ships might be tied up at Canton. The golden age of this trade arrived in the 183os and 184os, with $6.6 million in tea and fine porcelains arriving from China in 1840, and ginseng and cotton textiles going out. Only France and Great Britain exported more to the United States than China. John Perkins Cushing lived in Canton for three decades as the agent of Thomas Handsyd Perkins and brought with him upon his return to Boston several Chinese servants, built a grand mansion, and surrounded it with a wall of Chinese porcelain. Bostonian Russell Sturgis easily accounted for half of the trade, but Pacific commerce also built great wealth in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia"Lowells, Girards, Astors, Lows, Griswolds, Copes" named some of the larger fortunes accrued at least in part through the China trade.10 John Jacob Astor, Caleb Cushing, Abiel Abbot Low, and other American traders all loved free trade, but they did not scruple to spurn importing opium to China, mostly from Turkey, which helped them to balance their trade just as it did the British; American traders even reaped windfall profits by selling opium during the Opium Wars. It hardly hurt their social standing, either: Low was president of the New York Chamber of Commerce from 1856 to 1866, and his son Seth became president of Columbia University, from which we get Low Memorial Library (always the centerpiece of the campus). Only one prominent clipper-ship merchant refused to deal in opium: David Washington Cincinnatus Olyphant of New York, a dedicated Presbyterian who supported many foreign missionary causes.11 For the China traders, off to the west was an extension of the Atlantic and free trade doctrine that people happened to call the Pacific; it was a large body of water that had no meaning otherwise.

The Genteel Tradition.

From the Anglo-Saxon point of view, American culture reached its apogee in the "genteel tradition" of New England and a dominant elite of "Protestant patricians."12 For two centuries New England had a h.o.m.ogeneity unlike the rest of the country, with as many as 8o percent of its citizens having common English and Protestant origins, and a p.r.o.nounced cla.s.s difference not unlike England itself: in Ma.s.sachusetts in the early nineteenth century, for example, a handful of upper-cla.s.s white men ran just about everything of importance, controlling all nominations for Congress and operating the state legislature like its handmaiden. This tradition was less specifically European than English: "the true Bostonian," Henry Adams wrote in 1907, "always knelt in selfabas.e.m.e.nt before the majesty of English standards." By the same token, the true New Englander looked up to England and faced East: here is the cultural origin of Atlanticism. The involvement of many of these same Bostonians in the China trade also made them junior partners to British commerce with palms turned up to London banks, breeding a like-minded free-trade internationalism among New Englanders generally and Harvard dons more particularly, accompanied by the belief that world peace followed in the wake of free trade. Plus Bostonians lived in the core-of America, of the world: Oliver Wendell Holmes considered Boston "the thinking centre of the continent, and therefore of the planet."13 New Englanders were also, of course, white-very white, very conscious of being so, and very conscious of the immanent possibility of becoming a white minority. Initially they were a white island in a sea of Indians. One might think that after vanquishing them New Englanders were in the comfortable majority for hundreds of years, until inundated by southern and eastern Europeans in the nineteenth century-who appeared to be nonwhite. But that would be wrong, because to this elite Irish weren't white, Scots were barely white, Germans and French and even Swedes were nonwhite-that is, "swarthy." No one put it better than Benjamin Franklin in 1751: "The Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the princ.i.p.al Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.... Perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."14 The "Complexion of my Country" is not white, according to this founding father, but Anglo-Saxon. We move from race to culture because we must; there is evidently no epidermal distinction between Ben Franklin and, say, his German Mennonite neighbors in Pennsylvania-"Palantine boors" whom he wanted put on the next ship back home. We move from race to culture to Samuel Huntington: we move back to New England and its peculiar Anglophile, Atlanticist predilections-English implants, internal foreigners, taking themselves to be the only true Americans.

Santayana a.s.sayed this palpable cultural hegemony from a (continental) European perspective in a series of provocative essays, none more so than the famous one he delivered at Berkeley in 1911, called "The Genteel Tradition." New England patricians had a specialty, and it was called Calvinism. As Santayana put it, the "agonized conscience" of the Calvinist declared that "sin exists, sin is punished, and that it is beautiful that sin should be punished." This doctrine took Nietzsche's excision of the senses to a dramatic extreme: one's own miserable condition ought to be everybody's. Calvinists "feel a fierce pleasure in the existence of misery," their own or anyone else's. Charles d.i.c.kens took a trip to Boston in 1842 and noted the denunciation from the pulpit "of all innocent and rational amus.e.m.e.nts." But modern Americans finally escaped all that, in Santayana's view. He thought an unnumbered ma.s.s of Americans would laugh if you told them they were depraved sinners: that kind of American "is convinced that he always has been, and always will be, victorious and blameless." These Americans didn't so much oppose Puritanism or Calvinism, they did something more radical: they ran away from it, or simply forgot it. From his Berkeley podium Santayana urged Californians, also, to liberate themselves from the genteel tradition, and "to salute the wild, indifferent, noncensorious infinity of nature" surrounding them everywhere in the Golden State. (We will see later that they were slow on the uptake.) It followed ineluctably that a child "swaddled in the genteel tradition" named William James should provide a way out for the non-genteel American to settle down happily with his innocent or empty conscience-pragmatism: and from there it proved "dangerously easy" to effect a transition "from the principle that truth is to be discovered in the practical consequences of conduct to the notion that whatever works is necessarily truth."15 Here American philosophy decoupled from Europe.

An Exceptionalism Unaware of Its Roots-and Its Fate.

Samuel Huntington was an American exceptionalist. For him the exception took the form of an Anglo-Saxon heritage imposed and reimposed across a virgin continent, planting European roots in new soil. For another Harvard scholar America's exceptionalism derived from its distance from Europe. Louis Hartz's learned and deeply reflective books on New World (North and South American) development argued that the absence of feudalism in America created a figurative vacuum in which middle-cla.s.s fragments spun out their destiny free of lords and peasants, or fascists and communists. For Hartz it was not about what is there but about what is missing in America, when seen in the light of a comparative contrast: or as Hofstadter put it, "when the political spectrum is laid out against the spectra of European countries, it can be seen in its naked brevity, its simplicity, its lack of range"; when all is said and done American political thought remained "huddled around the Lockean center." Lord and peasant were absent, and so a serious right and a serious left were also absent; but absence "liberates in the end a rich interior development," in Hartz's words: "A part detaches itself from the whole, the whole fails to renew itself, and the part develops without inhibition ... a North America where the bourgeoisie, having escaped both past and future, unfolds according to interior laws."16 The "part," the bourgeoisie or the middle cla.s.s, escapes both its past and its predicted (European) future and unfolds across the continent according to its own inherent laws and logic. The fragment lacks knowledge of the sources of its freedom, it "cannot see" Europe, and so it can mistake the woodwork for a cause: "they can even attribute their history to the open land of the frontier," Hartz wrote. Turner's theory becomes an uninhibited, freely drawn solipsism, "a splendid collaboration" between an unconscious ahistorical perspective and the psychic needs of the fragment itself-unaware of its roots and unaware of its fate. More broadly, an indigenous nationalism arises which forgets Europe as the prelude to rejecting it.17 Readers of my previous work will know how much my own thought is indebted to Hartz, but the ur-text for this line of argument really originated with Karl Marx, whose a.n.a.lysis was grounded not just in the dominance of the American middle cla.s.s but in the joining of that middle cla.s.s with the latest technology and a vast continent empty of any but tribal and huntergatherer social formations. In a little-known 1857 essay ent.i.tled "Bastiat and Carey" (two economists, Frederic Bastiat being a free trader, and the otherthe famous American economist Henry Carey-a protectionist), Marx described the United States as a country "where bourgeois society did not develop on the foundation of the feudal system, but developed rather from itself; where this society appears not as the surviving result of a centuries-old movement, but rather as the starting-point of a new movement; where the state, in contrast to all earlier national formations, was from the beginning subordinate to bourgeois society, to its production, and never could make the pretence of being an end-in-itself; where, finally, bourgeois society itself, linking up the productive forces of an old world with the enormous natural terrain of a new one, has developed to hitherto unheard-of dimensions ... and where, finally, even the ant.i.theses of bourgeois society itself appear only as vanishing moments." Hartz's elaboration of Marx's a.n.a.lysis is clearest in The Founding ofNew Societies, dealing with the "fragments" of liberalism in North and South America, where he presents a liberalism never fully known or realized, spinning out its telos in a vacuum otherwise known as the continent, finding few if any of the "collisions" with nonliberal forms that mark European history or that formed the Latin American amalgam (except in the slave-holding South, and from that we got the grandest American collision, the Civil War).18 For Marx, the world economy was the grandest vista of capitalism, and from the mid-nineteenth century forward the United States was on its horizon, adapting the latest technologies to an "enormous natural terrain." This was a new kind of political economy developing "from itself," encountering and mastering problems alien to or absent in Europe. But it was still in the world economy, not riding along on an isolated frontier: the whole theme of the essay is (British) free trade and (American) protection as strategies to open and close within the world system, depending on comparative advantage and global timing and compet.i.tion. Meanwhile the American left and radicalism were "vanishing moments," always needing reinvention (thus the New Left").

A central state that cannot make a pretense of itself-this stark contrast drew Marx's attention because of his lifelong concern with Hegel and the Prussian state, both all about pretension. Not so Washington: in the i85os the capital had no sewers and few paved streets, pigs rooted in the gutters, cows munched on shrubs near the Senate, Zachary Taylor's horse grazed on the White House lawn, and manacled slaves awaited auctions within sight of the Capitol dome. The "federal bureaucracy" was barely visible, let alone anything remotely like, say, the German civil service. A bit over i,ooo federal employees worked in Washington and around zo,ooo in the nation, and threequarters of these "federal bureaucrats" were in the postal service-mailmen running around local neighborhoods. For Tocqueville the federal government was "naturally feeble," and even New York, the commercial and financial capital, paled when compared to European cities: "the United States has no metropolis."19 Historians often take Hartz's Liberal Tradition to be the grand text of American exceptionalism, but when we place it alongside Marx's ideas we come to two conclusions. First, it is Marx who saw the United States as exceptional, not just Hartz or Turner or Huntington-and maybe even exceptional to his grand theory; there are hints in Bastiat and Carey and elsewhere that the abundant continent might negate the otherwise iron necessity to redistribute resources and property to achieve his good society. Second, Hartz was a European exceptionalist, that is, a devotee of what neo conservatives exalt as "the West." European civilization was the only one he really cared about, and he measured America's difference (its exceptionalism) by the degree to which it fell away from European standards. But Hartz-who hailed from Omaha-also knew his country of birth very well. He had the idea that the New World was not Europe, but a fragment of Europe, an implant on the continent which had only a partial understanding of the European liberal project. A Lockean liberalism never fully understood, but believed to be the holy grail of the system: Alasdaire Maclntyre took Hartz's point to a wellthought-out and thoroughly judged conclusion in After Virtue: American politics is the fragmented inheritance of a liberalism never fully known or realized-"parts which now lack those contexts from which their significance derived." The roots and the full philosophical development are in Europe, so Americans depart from liberal premises all the while believing that they follow them, leading to a catastrophic divergence (for Maclntyre).20 The result is the absence of a truly American philosophy or political theory (Hartz: "where life is fixed at the point of origin, how can philosophy flourish?"), or to say the same thing, a national philosophy of pragmatism-something nicely suited to the task of subduing a continent.

Likewise, Henry James and other pragmatists led Americans toward an interest in quant.i.ty, not quality-how many miles of pavement in Buffalo, how many telephones in New York. A Harvard president asked Santayana how his cla.s.ses were going: very well, he responded, whereupon the president said, "I meant what is the number of students in your cla.s.ses."21 A wag once remarked that if you ask a Frenchman "what is your theory?" he will expound on Rousseau, Sartre, and Foucault; if you ask an American, he will say he rotates his tires every io,ooo miles. Pragmatism and technique allowed people to agree to disagree about morals, religion, philosophy, ultimate reality-or simply to forget all about it. Here was the perfect combination for Americans inventing themselves on the prairies in the midst of incessant technological innovation: what had utility, had beauty (Oscar Wilde believed "there is no country in the world where machinery is as lovely as America").22 The Garden of Eden.

One thing united New Englanders with Americans of the Middle Border or the West: they saw themselves as special human beings encountering