Monday
Aug092010
US v. Britain: History, Education, and "Big Ideas" in Politics (Haddigan)
Monday, August 9, 2010 at 1:34 
Lee Haddigan writes for EA:For me, one of the fascinations of US politics is the nation’s continual fight over the same issues using the same arguments. Contemporary disputes are fought on the ground of precedent and tradition, example and intent dating back 50, 100, 150, and, ultimately, the 221 years since the ratification of the Constitution. No other country pays as much attention to the relevance of historical events to current affairs than the United States.
And, contrary to some opinion in Europe, America’s reliance on the past as a guide to the future is not a smokescreen for hiding the country’s overriding preoccupation with material interests. The United States, unlike European nations, still believes that political differences rest on contrasting fundamental assumptions about the philosophical justifications for the ways an individual is governed. Thomas Paine wrote, as America sought independence from Britain, that "government is a necessary evil". That sentiment may have died out in Europe, bit it animates debate in the US.
Take, for instance, the contentious subject of education. In America, discussion nearly always reverts to the principle of who has the right --- the federal government or parents --- to provide for the instruction of the young. An argument is brewing right now over the proposed introduction in each state of a standardised curriculum designed by Washington.
Opponents of the reform question the measure on many fronts, but the foundation of their disquiet with the policy is the claimed opportunity for the federal government to "indoctrinate" pupils against the wishes of local communities. Parents, it is argued, have the right to decide what their children learn in school, with the tradition in the US that schools are paid for by local property taxes and controlled by locally-elected school boards. One of the Tea Party’s policies for returning America to its vision of a limited government is to eliminate the Federal Department of Education, leaving education completely in the hands of local elected officials.
The right of the State Government in deciding how the young receive their instruction underlies all debates on the issue. The recent "Textbook Wars" in Texas, where state administrators acrimoniously debated in an open forum the correct teaching material, was a bewildering spectacle for many in Europe.
In Britain, the choice of what is taught in classrooms is left to an unelected bureaucracy in the Government and, except for a few brave souls, any deviation from that assumption is regarded as heretical delusion. The State takes almost complete control of the curriculum and the standards that assess student achievement. No mainstream party, or political persuasion, opposes on principle the right of the Government to dictate how and what students are taught. This leads in Britain to incredulity that greets the news that Creationism is taught in some classes in America and included in the curriculum because parents want it there.
Last week I discovered that a judge in Virginia is allowing the state’s legal challenge to Obama’s healthcare legislation because it raises constitutional concerns about the legitimate scope of the Commerce Clause (unless you are forced to do so, never --- trust me --- try to understand the Commerce Clause). One newsletter in my in-box proclaimed Virginia as having no case, citing numerous constitutional experts; another argued that the state had an ironclad argument, quoting (you guessed it) several experts on the dreaded Commerce Clause.
I also learned that conservatives are questioning the "equal protection", under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, of so-called "Anchor Babies". These are children who are granted citizenship in the United States because they are born here, even if the parents are illegal immigrants. Some websites agreed with the contention that not all babies born in the United States are entitled to equal protection of the laws; inevitably, some opposed this view. But both, side justified their opposing opinions with the extensive use of quotations from individuals involved in the decision to ratify the 14th Amendment in 1868.
I found out that some Tea Party organizations are calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment. This change to the Constitution (1913) allowed citizens to directly elect senators to Congress, replacing the tradition of state legislatures deciding who represented voters’ interests in the upper house in Washington. More a philosophical dispute over the power of the majority in a democracy than a strictly constitutional matter, this debate was accompanied by discussion of the intent of the authors of the Federalist Papers, written in the late 18th century, against the "progressive" impulse that led to the passing of the Amendment.
And then I was informed by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, that my help was needed to stop Democrats from using the forthcoming session of Congress to pass controversial liberal legislation. Gingrich did not refer the reader to recent examples; instead, he directed attention to the Federalists passing the Judiciary Act in 1800 to handicap the incoming administration of Thomas Jefferson.
The United States still, and almost unconsciously, centres political debates around ideas, big Ideas about democracy that involve the "rights" of the people and the "responsibility" of the individual and that rely on explanations of the nation’s past to supply their context. I received more political discussion based on historical concerns this morning than I would get from watching the BBC for a year.
When I explain to friends in Britain that I study American history they generally reply along the lines of "Why? They don’t have any history." And when I was studying in the US, the usual response of American friends was, "Why? When you have so much more history to appreciate over there."
In Britain, history is an antiquarian pursuit that does not affect contemporary affairs. We have old buildings, a Queen, some quaint social traditions, a venerable if ineffective State religion, and more old buildings.
Last year, the Conservative member of Parliament David Davies resigned his seat in protest at the Labour Government’s encroachments on Britain’s traditional liberties, including the right of habeas corpus, the cornerstone of legal rights of British (and American) citizens. For his principled and legitimate stand, he became a laughingstock in the British media, criticised for wasting the time and money of his constituents who faced the "ordeal" of having to stage another election for the now vacant seat. (Davies stood for election again on the principles over which he resigned. He won, but with the result raising barely a murmur in news reports.)
The parlous condition of politics as a philosophy in Britain is indicated by the fact that the last two books of worth, "The Case for Conservatism" by Quentin Hogg, and George Orwell’s "1984", were published in 1947 and 1948 respectively. Ironically, 1948 also saw the publication of Richard Weaver’s "Ideas Have Consequences" in the US. It was a book that helped to introduce to intellectuals in America the importance of ideas in political change, at the same time that Britain, unknowingly, ended its proud contribution to the tradition of political theory.
In America, history and political philosophy are still a vibrant part of political discussion vital to how --- for those who are interested --- an individual chooses a position on the validity of universal healthcare, welfare, electoral reform, taxation, and all the issues that appear again and again as the subject of political contention.
Whether that is an admirable trait in America’s enduring attempt to determine how to construct a virtuous society is debatable. Race and religion, for instance, still influence American politics in ways that many find perplexing. And the role of a partisan media in provoking dissension, especially to those who see the "neutral" standards of the BBC as the correct way to present the news, also disturbs many.
But for good or ill, history, or more accurately the individual American’s conceptions of the past, determines the content of contemporary US politics in ways that other countries have discarded. As a result, that American politics possesses a depth of philosophical argument about the role of the government in our lives that Europeans, for all their dismissals of the shallowness of opinion in the US, would do well to learn from.
Reader Comments (11)
"Thomas Paine wrote, as America sought independence from Britain, that “government is a necessary evil”."
I can understand what Thomas Paine meant when he wrote that - and why he wrote it.
BUT - those times were far less complex than these today's times. Perhaps his thoughts are not as relevant today as they were then?? Perhaps this applies to other tenets of the US Constitution??
When the concept of the right to bear arms was first thought of - and then subsequently generally accepted - there were not the hugely powerful military weapons available to the general public that there is today. Times have very much changed - and perhaps some parts of history can no longer guide us?? Other parts can still be and I believe are still relevant. What we will all argue about is - which parts are still relevant and which aren't.
Barry
Good article. I would also add, and am self-conscious that I myself fall into this, that we project some of our own views onto the Founders, as well.
I, for example, point to Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and Letter to Peter Carr, others point to his use of 'Creator', and from this expand that God is the source of rights, not government. Another key argument.
The truth is somewhere in the middle, that the politicians of the past can not easily be transposed to the present. Why, even Jefferson changed his views over time.
Not only do current opposing ideologies claim Founders, but it is not always as contradictory as it might seem - until we understand that those people themselves (and yes, they were but men - and white landowning at that), disagreed among each other.
The history of America is a living, breathing thing. The Constitution itself was a heated, tense compromise between factions whom couldn't fully agree. We are, as you say, still having many of the same arguments we had at our nation's founding. It is almost a theological debate. And by this, I don't mean a mythologizing of history (though folklore has arisen - as with Washington and the apple tree), but that it sometimes reminds me of a metaphysical debate over the Nature of God.
I must admit that I'm one of those Americans who have sometimes felt jealous that Europe has so much more history, but you've given me another reason to be proud with your perspective. Now, to things I don't understand about Britain, one is: what is the British Constitution? I'm being cheeky, but as a country that has such a firm, single document, it has befuddled me and seems overly complicated the way it is done now.
...
To a separate note, I was completely spacing before. Yes, the HCR will certainly come to SCOTUS, as so many AG's have built a case for such that purpose.
And I totally agree, the Commerce Clause is one of the trickier ones. But, would SCOTUS be able to rule against it without invalidating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and even laws which prevented discrimination against serving African Americans from Civil Rights legislation? I wonder if this one will come down to only Justice Kennedy.
The 17th Amendment one, that one I don't fully get. We essentially had a House of Lords. While I understand arguments for getting rid of the Senate (and there are interesting pros and cons), I admit I don't fully get where that one's coming from. The Libertarian movement against the 16th Amendment, I don't agree with, but I get. The 17th Amendment just seems to go against principles of democracy. If one thinks they're in the pockets of lobbyists, wait until they're directly appointed by those in the pockets of lobbyists. Lobbyists, of course, which are protected by the 1st Amendment; though I would disagree in extending those rights to corporate personhoods and campaign finance reform may very well need an Amendment itself.
I digress.
Thanks for the article.
I'm not even touching that one. ;-)
There are many interesting arguments on it, in interpreting its reading, but, I'm just wary of getting into this argument (and I am in favor of gun control laws, and sympathetic with your view, but it does get tricky). Of course, if the 14th Amendment is now seen as quaint by some, it only follows that fair is fair.
Also, aside from the legal issues, there's the emotional tie Americans have with their guns. Not me personally, but it's part of our identity whether for good or ill. We were built on them - first in driving out the British, then, in getting to those pesky native inhabitants which so selfishly didn't recognize our Manifest Destiny. I think Germans have the same attachment with the 'freedom' to drive as fast as they want on the Autobahn, no matter the hazards.
Okay, so I touched it. It was there, and like the shiny objects guns are, I couldn't fully resist.
Of course, the Tyranny of the Crown which was fought is now interpreted to be the Federal government by those in the Tea Party (as with the Militia Movement before, or, sorry to say, the Confederacy, and so on back to the Articles of Confederation before that). My view is that now we have taxation with representation (except for D.C.) and it's not the same thing. I do not view Washington D.C. as a foreign government. A majority of the people voted for the representative I voted for, and a majority voted for Senators I didn't. Nevertheless, that's a Republican Democracy. It is not always perfect, but it is not Tyranny. We all follow Iran. I quite frankly think they have a very low bar for what constitutes "tyranny".
You want a revolution? Vote. Jefferson may have famously said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," but from the time of a framework for peaceful revolution was laid out also said,
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind, as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances. Institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
---
Now, the things that intrigue me are these. What happens when a smudge [or is it a comma?] changes the meaning of a clause?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_United_States_Constitution#Comma_or_smudge.3F" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_Unit...
I quite enjoyed this article. I've also noticed this tendency in US politics to argue on/over historical precedent and try to (re) interpret the intentions of the Founding Fathers. I never realised it was that special or noteworthy until I read this article.
On another note, some Newly Discovered Documents Shed Light On Nation's Creepy Founding Uncles!
PHILADELPHIA—In what is being hailed as the most significant historical discovery in recent memory, workers renovating Independence Hall last month unearthed a vast trove of documents penned by the nation's Founding Uncles, a group of off-putting, largely disreputable, but nonetheless influential relatives of America's early heroes.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/newly-discovered-documents-shed-light-on-nations-c%2C17793/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/articles/newly-discover...
Hello all,
Thank you for the comments. I'll answer, as briefly as possible, two points that Kurt made.
First, most British people do not understand their Constitution. There is no single written document that explains the rights of the citizen. Instead it is a series of laws passed through the centuries (starting with Magna Carta in 1215) that establish the precedebts and traditions every Parliament must respect. The main point to note is that Parliament, through the legislation that it enacts, ultimately determines what is constitutional. the courts do review laws to make sure they do not contradict the requirements of earlier laws. But Parliament can repeal those laws they don't like, and make new ones, with no other authority than its own involved.
And those laws are passed in the Commons and the Lords by a simple majority vote. The point to the Lords before it was reformed, and the Senate before the 17th Amendment, is that a Upper House would 'check' (and balance) the tendency of a democratically elected legislature to pass laws merely to please the majority of the 'people.' Because senators, in the original constitution, were not reliant on the votes of citizens they could consider proposed laws in the national, not local, interest. For instance, the Tea Party would argue, 'pork' in general and the Nebraska Kickback to be specific, would not happen if senators did not have to justify their record to state voters every six years.The major 'big idea' debate over the 17th Amendment is over the issue whether America is a Republic or a Democracy, and concerns the matter of, as James Madison explained it in the Federalist Papers, the possible 'tyranny of the majority.'
Hope that helps some. You could fill a decent sized library with books on either of those subjects
Dissenting voice here!
I think you're right to point out Americans do have an active history, but I think you're completely missing the point. At present the use of their history is to simplify the philosophical underpinnings and remove real debate. It's almost as if the attitude by many is 'why read a book on political philosophy when we can look at what Jefferson thought'.
So, I think you're wrong and you're confusing some arguments about the 'tactics' of the everyday running of politics with important 'strategic' debates about political philosophy and the direction of government in the USA. A proper debate about politics ground in philosophical underpinnings does not just mean looking back to the founding fathers or talking about events that can be analogous to the past, when deciding whether Cap and Trade is a good idea.
I'm actually deeply frustrated at the poverty of political philosophy at the heart American politics. The Tea Party and the Republican movement seem to have swapped political philosophy for throwing names about. When it is possible that Barak Obama freely labelled a socialist I find it quite easy to question whether the political discourse is really as well grounded in political philosophy (or even political precedent) as you seem to think.
In my own opinion I think Thomas Frank got it right in arguing that genuine political debate about the role and aims of government has been overrun by both Republican (and by extension Democrats) who swapped it for lazy and often unjustified labels and concentration on emotive problems. Somewhere deep down in the continuing reference of past debates there is a philosophical underpinning, but politicians of all hues in the Untied States are so driven by simplistic binary opposites that the real philosophical debates have long been dismissed.
Also, more worrying is the lack of philosophy in academic approaches to the study of the United States. In the USA Politics as a discipline is hugely dominated by rationalist empiricism (if one was to draw up a list of political theory conferences taking place on each side of the Atlantic I think it would be embarrassing). Even worse it is worth remembering that in the United States politicians have actually recently argued for the severing of federal funding for the study of…politics! Apparently politically literate and philosophically nuanced politicians are arguing that there is nothing once can learn about politics that can't be found on CNN (or, maybe the History Channel).
As for History not impacting on current events in Britain. I wish that were true! One my my abiding frustrations with current life is the dominance of Historians feeling they can comment on current politics and chuck in their lazy analogies…like Americans do. Interestingly one of the more popular is Naill Ferguson (also muted to be involved in filling with the way History is taught in British schools). A Tory par excellence…and someone working in the USA. But, there are more of his ilk from David Starky to Andrew Roberts they seem perpetually drawn to comment on all and sundry. More importantly the whole debate about the future of the British military and Afghanistan is grounded in discussions about British military History. Ditto Trident, military spending and the role of Britain in the world. And, don't get me started on the relationship between history and the politics of England and the World Cup!
As for the proposal of a paucity of political philosophy in Britain since Orwell…I find that an utterly astonishing statement. Yes, I'd happily join in any vigorous criticism of the development of a insidious managerialism in recent British politics that has swapped the question of 'what should we do' with 'how can we do what we do more efficiently'. But it is worth remembering the debates about politics that prompted the development of Thatcherism ('monetarism' was just about economics) and the 'third way'. Of course I'm very much open to the argument that Giddens et al are philosophically vacuous but there is something in it somewhere.
Also, one should not forget writers such as Michael Young (how many people really know what 'meritocracy' means?), Stuart Hall, or G.A Choen, just for starters. Or, with some sadness following his death this past week, Tony Judt's especially his recent 'Ill Fares The Land', a call to arms for political philosophy if I ever saw one. I mean, are you saying The New Left Review shut down with anyone noticing? I' d take those discussions of politics over David Brooks any day of the week.
On the other hand the attack on the Humanities in the UK illustrates that philosophical thinking is hardly loved in a time of budget cuts. And currently some in Britain (including David Cameron?) claim Philip Blond and his Red Toryism is an interesting new direction in political philosophy (and as a result it's hard not to despair with the state of political philosophy when that's the case). Whatever, Blond is proof that philosophy, however crappy, still has relevance. So, in my opinion if one wants to look for debates about political philosophy one should look to Britain far more often than the USA.
I'd actually stress this point with a question, if someone asked for the names of recent American writers discussing political philosophy and how the government should be constituted, who would you point to? Or, another question. What's Obama's guiding political philosophy, insofar as what would HE say is his guiding principle? Bi-partisnship?!
I'm also bemused about a throwaway comment like race and religion being perplexing to outsiders of the USA. I'll leave religion for now but as for race, travel to New Orleans or Detroit and it's clear that American is still a deeply racist society that has never really grappled with the problem of whether people can be made 'equal' without a redistribution (a problem, incidentally, that political philosophy can tackle). Such debates have been abandoned since the 1960's in the USA, so I suppose we could say it has been grappled with and has been binned. But, it's not perplexing.
Also, I was confused by the comparison between a neutral BBC and the 'partisan' dissenting U.S. media, a point that seems like utter fantasy. The political media in the USA is far more sycophantic, being largely founded (especially in the printed press) On the idea of neutral fact reporting and therefore looking down on European's questioning their politicians and grubbing for scandals. Investigative reporting and the criticism of politics in the US is almost entirely based on individual investigative reporters.
For example, where is the USA's Paxman? Which national U.S. news organisation was criticsed by the government for investigating the WMD intelligence as the BBC was under the Hutton enquiry? In the USA one can see Fox news bashing the liberals and everyone else playing the 'professional reportage' game. In Britain we have every newspaper with an obvious political stance ('it was the Sun wot won it') and the 'neutral' BBC continually attacked for being too much in bed with one party or another. It's not uncommon to find British politicians decrying the British press for concentrating so much on scandal that it increases cynicism of politics! It's all a bit of a game in itself (most presciently in the guise of Malcolm Tucker) but with fundamentally different approaches to political reporting between the USA and Britain, it's the American's who tow the line.
My main point is that history in the USA is, I agree, important; it is as you say the continuing reference for political debates, it is always relevant. But, in being so, in my opinion, this just closes down the room for proper philosophical debate about the direction of politics in the USA. In America philosophy is swapped for precedent.
As an interest, you should have a look at the Aussie Constitution --http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/
I have always considered that it lies somewhere between the US and UK Constitutions. Enacted after the US one and a blood relative of the UK style of Government and Lawmaking, it mostly concentrates on how the federation of the previously independent and separate States is meant to work. Nothing much in it at all about "personal" rights. For that we rely on the Law - as in the UK.
There is often an attempt ( by mostly "leftists" (IMO)) to create and introduce a "Charter of Rights". The argument for such a thing usually gets too complicated - so everybody goes back to sleep. Same thing applies for the thought of becoming a "Republic" -- the concept of being a Republic clashes too much with the way in which we have been doing things for so long (in the spirit of the UK way of doing things) that it also is too complicated.
Just for fun - non-Australians are invited to try to research the powers , responsibilities, etc of the Australian Prime Minister. :) Good luck - and let me know what you find!! :)
OH - OK. I'll make it easy for you. Essentially, the Australian Prime MInister does not legally exist nor have any powers at all. People think they are voting for a Prime Minister at elections , but they are in fact not. He/she is really just a figment of the Australian's people's imagination ( legally ).
Barry
"No other country pays as much attention to the relevance of historical events to current affairs than the United States."
Durand line. Nakba. Splitting the sub-continent. Restoring the Middle Kingdom. Yes, No Other Country is as obsessed with history as the United States.
Yes, of course, Lee. I get that argument for the 17th Amendment now that you frame it within the philosophy of Checks and Balances. I still think the current talk is kind of out there, but when mentioning folks like Ben Nelson, yeah, I get that. I would but argue that he was already being influenced by Mutual of Omaha and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Nebraska which was also distasteful in my mind - and not listening to the people of Nebraska anyway.
Many of the Founders, like Madison, were unapologetic elitists. I think the Senate was an extension of this aristocratic impulse, in part. But yes, the tyranny of the majority is one of the most fundamental debates of democracy, to stem what might become an ochlocracy. It's a precarious balancing act, this Great Experiment.
That's also sort of how I thought the British system worked, but I realize my religious devotion to watching PM's Questions, a British Constitutional scholar does not make. :-)
Mulligan and O'hare. Very excellent commentary. I didn't even touch the media of America. While I believe there is a place for partisan outlets and even demagoguery (America's history with this goes back to its founding, as well, not to justify it one way or another), it is not benefited by the current infotainment of CNN, and PBS - an institution like BBC - can often be one of the few places to turn, minus BBC America and alternative media.
On another point. I'm reading Mantle of the Prophet. Last night, when I got to Kasravi, a figure whose burning of Hafez went too far for me in my readings of him in the past, I understood it in a new light after considering your point myself. Part of the conversation has simply devolved into throwing quotes at each other, to replace our own thought. Now, I don't we should be burning anything, but it's a fair point.
Again, very good posts. I can never get to it all, and quite frankly, would argue a few things, but it would be for the sake of arguing, as I concur with many of your points.
Baz, Australia I'm afraid, I only know very vaguely. Your note on the Prime Minister is interesting. What then, are Gillard and Abbott running for? ;-)
I've always supported Republicanism for Australia, but, heck, I have my obvious biases. Not to get on a huge tangent here, but as I understand it (or don't understand it, for that matter), Canada has a clearer system of self governance which still recognizes the Queen as Head of State, I think. May be comparing apples and oranges and is awfully presumptuous of me, though.
Catherine, The Onion often nails it so well!
Kurt
Anybody running for election at the Federal level of the House of Representatives here in Oz are merely standing for election as a local representative of a particular local area. Gillard and Abbott, while being leaders of their respective political parties- having been elected as such by members of their party - are still only individual Members of the House of Representatives (if they are elected) . It is possible ( but not probable) that either or both of them may fail to be elected to the Parliament in this coming election. If this was the case, then the elected members of the party with the largest number of elected representatives would very quickly have to elect another one of their number to be leader of their respective political party - and hence Prime Minister.
The Parliamentary system legally revolves around individual elected representatives - the practice is of course then completely bastardised and corrupted by the presence of political "parties", whose existence waxes and wanes.
We have neither an elected head of State nor an elected head of the lower house of Parliament (commonly known as a Prime Minister) In other words, the people of Australia do not legally elect either their Head of State or their Prime MInister. But they know who is very likely to be Prime Minister before they go to the elections or at least , one out of two representatives.
Barry
Hello again,
I'd like to address a couple of Mulligan and O'Hare's comments briefly. First, my interpretation of the dearth of political philosophy in Britain since Orwell/Hogg is just that - a subjective opinion. I accept that there is a valid case to be made against that point of view, but ( and probably due to my personal disillusionment with British politics) I maintain that nothing written since 1948, especially not Keith Joseph's bastardization of conservatism, provides a vision for the present or future.
Second, I would disagree with the general theme of Mulligan and O'Hare's dissenting view. I would argue that the debate over federalism in the US strikes at the very heart of political philosophy. The question of how much power the federal government has over individual rights, including who is responsible for what is taught in schools, seems to me the most essential question we can ask of our role in society. And, despite what many will regard as the reactionary ravings of a paranoid and mentally unstable Right, I would argue the Tea Party movement is a search for answers to that (political philosophy) question.
Finally, and again as a personal note, I switched from studying British history/politics to American politics after reading Fukuyama's 'End of History.' That the book's arguments were soon outdated (and proved plain wrong) does not distract from the approach the author brought to the subject of questioning the role of governments. For an introduction to current arguments over the issue I would recommend Pat Buchanan's http://amconmag.com" rel="nofollow">amconmag.com. and the linked websites. You may not agree totally (or at all) with Buchanan and the other writers on the magazine, I don't, but they will make you question your own beliefs and assumptions about the fundamental nature, or the 'big ideas' of politics - in Britain and Australia as much as the United States.