The metaphor is an easy one, overused and perhaps even a bit overwrought. We are forging forward into a digital frontier, leaving convention behind, traveling without guides into an uncharted virtual land where progress and profits are forever around the next bend.
Sound familiar?
In the 19th century, Americans expanded into a physical frontier — a geographic edge of society brimming with opportunities and dangers and challenges and setbacks. So began the notion of manifest destiny: the idea that, no matter what, the US pushes outward to the farthest edge of the most distant place possible.
Today, almost two centuries after that term was coined, US expansionism is playing out vigorously at society’s latest cutting edge: the social space of the Internet. Friday’s high-octane, US$16 billion initial public offering of the global juggernaut that is Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook is, for better or worse, the most recent example of how the new frontier has been cultivated, colonized and commanded by entrepreneurial Americans.
As the manufacturing economy reconfigures, you often hear the lament that “America doesn’t make anything anymore.” But then there’s this: Most of the world’s digital centers of gravity have been, and remain, American. Apple and Microsoft. Google and Yahoo. YouTube and Amazon and eBay. Facebook and Twitter and Instagram. Kickstarter. Netflix. PayPal. Akamai, the content-delivery behemoth. Intel, the internal combustion engine of the whole shebang, and for that matter, the Internet itself and the organization that regulates its domain names were both born and raised in — you guessed it — the US.
A digital manifest destiny is playing out, built upon the notion that the US’ outward expansion continues apace on the virtual frontier. What the self-defined sense of American exceptionalism built in the physical world, it is now building in the digital one.
“It’s a projection of American values — what international experts would call soft power,” said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project.
Look at what the digital space disseminates, he said: freedom of the press, of information and of assembly; knowledge and scientific advancement; free-market mechanisms and entrepreneurialism.
“It’s hard to think of a cluster of ideas and architectures that would more allow basic American cultural values to propagate,” said Rainie, co-author of the new book, Networked: The New Social Operating System.
Technological progress has always walked hand in hand with US expansion. Where would the settlement of the West have been without Robert Fulton’s steamboat, Samuel Morse’s work in telegraphy and, later, the inventions of Thomas Edison and Henry Ford? Not to mention the old-time data pipelines themselves — the postal system, the railroads and eventually the interstate highways?
In those cases, innovation helped drive development and physically shape the frontier; now innovation itself is the frontier, and the US’ tendency to glorify the inventor’s spirit remains a key engine. As Alexander Graham Bell went, so goes Mark Zuckerberg.
“In this country, you’re a hero if you invent something. To be an inventor in America, that’s as good as being an explorer,” said Julie Fenster, author of The Spirit of Invention: The Story of the Thinkers, Creators and Dreamers who Formed Our Nation.
“The notion that ‘I can invent my way out of problems’ — that always fueled a sense of hope and expansion in this country,” she said.
That parallel between the frontiers of the road and the mind has not gone unnoticed by politicians and leaders looking to cast the US’ newest progress in the context of the old.
US President Barack Obama, speaking to Carnegie Mellon University’s National Robotics Engineering Center last year, called for tech innovation this way: “That’s the kind of adventurous, pioneering spirit that we need right now. That’s the spirit that’s given us the tools and toughness to overcome every obstacle and adapt to every circumstance.”
The nation’s digital innovators have been placing virtual progress into the context of US expansionism for years. Sometimes they are oblique about it, sometimes they are explicit.
“There is never a reliable map for unexplored territory,” wrote Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, who in 1995 likened the early Internet to the Oregon Trail.
Apple cofounder Steve Jobs put it this way in 1985: “In a society where information and innovation are going to be pivotal, there really is the possibility that America can become a second-rate industrial nation if we lose the technical momentum and leadership we have now.”
Manifest destiny and its first cousin, American exceptionalism, are not popular notions everywhere. The idea of US domination in everything from cultural frontiers (Hollywood) to geographic ones (outer space) can set the world on edge. Just as irritatingly to some, the US’ ability to occupy these spaces rests upon not only actual innovation, but the oomph to amplify it on a global level — in effect, to shout the loudest in a crowded, if now virtual, room.
“Manifest destiny justifies a certain behavior. One could call it rapaciousness on one end, but someone else could call it being an entrepreneur, being a founder,” said John Baick, a historian at Western New England University in Massachusetts.
That reflects back upon the original manifest destiny imperative to push outward at all costs; expansion, on any frontier, can also mean overrunning the people who are already there.
What has helped this dominance along? Is it the US penchant for research and development, which fuels innovation? The rise of venture capital over the past half-century, particularly in places like Silicon Valley? Is it the combination of creativity and Barnum-style snake oil that matured into the marketing culture that helps define the US today? Is it the nation’s higher-education system, which has vigorously pushed the relationship between technological innovation and entrepreneurialism?
Or — and this is where it really gets interesting — is it the ability and willingness of an increasingly connected planet to adopt US innovation and take it to a global level, encouraging US digital expansion in the process?
“We might look at our contributions and fail to see that what really helped them to take off in many cases was the participation of other people globally,” said Joel Kline, an Internet developer and digital strategist who teaches business technology at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania.
Last year in southwestern China, long a hotbed of brand-name electronics knockoffs, a fake Apple store turned up — an entire store. A blogger’s photographs depicted an elaborate lookalike operation complete with Genius Bar, hardwood floors, Helvetica-typefaced signage and sales associates in blue T-shirts who apparently actually thought they were working at the real thing.
Think about that. It wasn’t enough to fake the gadgets. The counterfeiters wanted to fake the FEEL of innovation that Apple markets so adeptly. The entire process, exported by a US digital company, had been swallowed whole. It was the idea that was being sold. Something intangible, but very real — the foundation of the virtual economy.
“People say: ‘Oh, you’ve got to invest in the tangible things — land, gold and silver, other precious metals.’ They’re solid,” said Rich Cooper, vice president for research and emerging issues at the National Chamber Foundation, the US Chamber of Commerce’s think tank.
However, he said: “In this new era of exceptionalism, you’re now on an entirely different plane. You’re not holding dirt. You’re not holding a piece of real estate in your hands. You can’t touch it and taste it. It’s an entirely different medium, and that’s hard for people to understand and accept.”
The American frontier’s most renowned historian, Frederick Jackson Turner, made his name writing about the end of it. In 1893, he proclaimed the frontier closed, finished, conquered, settled — but he hardly thought that meant the end of manifest destiny.
“He would be a rash prophet who should assert that the expansive character of American life has now entirely ceased,” Turner wrote. “Movement has been its dominant fact, and, unless this training has no effect upon a people, the American energy will continually demand a wider field for its exercise.”
That remains the case, even if that field is now composed of an endless stream of ones and zeroes and Zuckerbergs that, to Americans, represent the latest evidence of the old story of exceptionalism — the desire to lead the world, now from a shining SimCity upon a hill.
“People seem to think there are no other frontiers for America to explore and that America’s sitting on the bench now,” Cooper said. “But there are a whole set of frontiers we don’t even know about yet.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath