Re: SHOW - The Spirit of America

John,
>>For your information, that piece was written in the mid seventies.<<
It wasn't exposed as such in both places where it has been posted on this board, so I'd forgive Steffen easily that he assumed it to be contemporary. I did the same.
>>It was written by a Canadian in response to those around the world who said we were finished as a great nation and world power because of Vietnam,the Watergate scandal, and Nixon's resignation.<<
Vietnam did not help the standing of the United States as a defender and proponent of democracy. I was in my teens when I followed that war on TV in the late sixties and perceived most importantly that it were conducted just against communists, not for a democracy in dire straits. I don't remember any word about any election in South Vietnam at the time.
Watergate did not help either, although you can fairly argue that in the end the United States had the strength to stand up to corruption and maintain the rule of law.
Add to that the support or at least silent approval for a military coup against a democratically elected government in Chile (feel free to criticize that government for performing badly). This may be already after the original publication of that Canadian commentary but it was posted here this week, and Chile did add to the bad reputation.
You may also have to add Nicaragua as an occasion where the United States looked and acted bad in may people's view. The perceived notion is that the United States put their own interest over supporting democracy after the departure of the Somosa regime because the successors did not suit their interests or preferences. I'm not aware enough of the detailed history in this issue to have a reasonable opinion one way or the other. (I'm describing my observation of other people's perception here.) The subsequent Iran-Contra mess is liable to support the negative perception here. US laws were broken if I remember right.
>>It was also written before Airbus and the San Francisco earthquake he mentions was the first one.<<
Interestingly, unlike Steffen, my immediate thought went to the 1906 earthquake.
There were predecessors to the Airbus in terms of competition with American manufacturers, in the 1950s: The British COMET and the French CARAVELLE. In the long run, they lost out on competitive grounds primarily against the Boeing 707. In Europe, it is harder to compete against the other transportation modes (cars and trains) than in the US, so the market is smaller there, giving US entrants into the international market an advantage by them having a larger domestic market where the rule "Germans, buy German lemons!" can be applied, mutatis mutandis.
I have to support Steffen's comments on the railways. The US did help big time after the war, but the problem there was not old age but wartime destruction. By and large, all European countries had quite respectable and well run railway systems before the war. And by 1955, the SNCF was back on track well enough to be the first to break the 200 mph barrier with two electric engines. In turn quoting the demise of those once grand eastern railroads isn't exactly commensurate with the remainder of the argument the commentator wants to make. That was a matter of economics and regulation, not war damage or other disaster.
I agree with the overall sentiment of the commentator that the US frequently receives more than its fair share of bad rap and too rarely respect for their strengths and qualities. That does not protect him against justifiable criticism of his being somewhat off the mark with his knowledge of specific historic facts.
Cheers, Jochen