CB: Petit bourgeois Robinsonade, ideology generated continously in capitalism...rugged individualism, _self_-reliance, alienation... America has an especially virulent case of it perhaps related to its historical settler state thingy as you suggest.
[WS:] But this was a while ago, no? Besides, guys like Thoreau were not settlers.
^^^^ CB: Yes, some of them were a while ago, but I'm suggesting that unique American national character is still shaped by American history. Also, the whole pioneer and Western cowboy culture stretches to the 20th Century. Cowboy movies and television shows were popular in the 1950's and 60's. Small farm freeholders, petit producers, family farmers were generated for many generations after the original settlers. There was no feudal landlords to take the land away from. As to Thoreau, there were plenty of small farmers in New England for a while , I'm pretty sure.
The American gun fetish is rooted in the standard equipment of pioneers and cowboys including to fight Indians.
Ronald Reagan's announcer role in the television show "Death Valley Days" was very emblematic of the transfer of this small freeholder culture to Reaganism , anti-Gov'ment philosophy and now, the Tea Party.
^^^^^^^
My take on it is a bit different, more institutional. In Europe, the state (monarchy) precedes the capitalist class and as such was the "default" embodiment of what we today call "public interest" (its the l'état, c'est moi thing.) The bourgeoisie (big and small) only gradually chipped away this state hegemony on "public interest" but a lot of that hegemony remained vested in modern state by default, so to speak (cf. the French republicanism.)
^^^^^ CB: Yes, though I would say feudal lords and bishops preceded the capitalist class. The monarchies were a transitional form between feudalism and capitalism as kings helped the bourgoisie come to power in many ways, including forming nations.
^^^^^
In America, by contrast, the capitalist class - plantation owners and industrialists precede the state. Not only did they found the US state, but they crafted it in such a way that it was ideologically and politically subordinate to the capitalist class, which by default held the hegemony for "public interest" (if this term is appropriate here.)
^^^^ CB: Agree on the slavocractic capitalists as the leading section of the first US ruling class. They were overthrown in the Civil War by the newly rising industrialists.
Early, the bourgeoisie were more in the manufacturer rather than industrial phase of capitalism ( See Marx's distinction between these in _Capital_). The Civil War marked the rise of industrial capital and the takeover from the slavocracy as the dominant section of the bourgeosie.
At any rate, throughout this time there were masses of small freeholders, as described in Marx's last chapter in _Capital_ on colonialism.
^^^^
The state chipped away some of that hegemony away (especially during the Civil War), but by default a lot that hegemony remained vested in "private initiative."
In short, the American infatuation with libertarianism and private initiative is rooted not in some purported "settler mentality" (if there was ever such a thing) but in the blueprint of US political-economic institutions crafted by plantation owners and bourgeoisie that prioritize "private initiative" (i.e. the interests of plantation owners and industrialists while paying lip service to smallholders) before the state. This institutional blueprint changed remarkably little in the US (vis a vis sweeping institutional changes taking place in Europe and Asia in the same time) - which may explain the popularity of ideological expressions of that institutional blueprint.
Wojtek