The diary entry by noahyzimmerman,
The Peloponnesian War, on the
New Yorker magazine article by Daniel Mendelsohn, inspired me to think about what
ought to be the responsible American role in a turbulent world.
Process questions and daily political developments often dominate the debate on this blog. But one of the most important policy issues facing the electorate in the 2004 Election is: what is the appropriate role of the world's only superpower and how does it go about exerting its influence, projecting strength, and, simultaneous with that, accepting the enormous responsibilities accompanying this historic role?
Diplomatic history and political science books are full of theories and patterns detailing this American projection of power and the inherent contradiction between the pursuit of professed universal ideals and, at times, the less-than-desirable means employed to achieve ends. Chris Patten, the last British Governor General of Hong Kong and a prominent Tory Party member, referred to the United States in the late 1990's as an "Hyperpower." In his classic book 'The Tragedy of American Diplomacy,' William Appleman Williams, one of the prominent 1960's 'New Left' revisionist historians, wondered if the United States
alone had all the answers to the world's problems. Should we not, Williams asked, help the world's nations become a community instead of concentrating on advancing our neo-imperialist goals?
In the aftermath of the death and destruction of World War II, and alone amongst the combatants, the United States emerged as a country strengthened both domestically and internationally. And one of the better explanations of the post-WW II American role in world affairs was offered by the late British Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan. In a letter to an aide, he wrote, "These Americans are the new Romans. And we British, like the Greeks of old, have to show them the way." Perhaps a bit self-serving on his part as the torch of world leadership -- willingly or not and certainly not without strong opposition by the Soviet Union -- was literally being passed on to the United States. During the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference -- and one which created the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the predecessor to the World Trade Organization, GATT -- Lord Halifax, referring to Americans, whispered to Economist John Maynard Keynes, "It's true they have the money bags. But we have all the brains."
After World War II, Britain was in economic decline, about to lose its empire, and had to figure out a way, in the words of Prime Minister John Major's Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, how to "box above its weight." Throughout the Cold War and, in particular following the 1956 Suez Crisis, Britain almost always aligned itself closely with the United States in confronting international crises. France, on the other hand learned the opposite lesson: never again to trust the Anglo-Saxons in world affairs. And it remains so even to this day.
The rebuttal to MacMillan came in the words of the late US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson. Acheson remarked in his famous book 'Present At the Creation,' that "Britain had lost an empire and yet to find a role." And while Acheson had, during his years of service under President Harry Truman, indeed helped in creating a world order in which diplomacy was largely pursued within an institutional framework and not through unilateralist action, our present administration has virtually ignored this consensus and succeeded in alienating our traditional allies. Does the rest of the world still trust us to lead it? And in light of the recent War in Iraq, should it?
From Thucydides to Machiavelli to Bismarck to Winston Churchill to Charles de Gaulle to George Kennan on down, historians, theorists, and politicians have offered real lessons and, importantly, caution flags to our leaders. It has become a cliche to suggest that the United States has never been and never will be an imperialist nation -- damaging historical evidence to the contrary. Our kids are taught that from an early age. It is ingrained in our bones. And too many of our leaders have often perpetuated this myth by painting our global actions in the best possible light. We never seek to dominate and exploit other nations. We are Americans, they tell us, and not a hegemonic power conniving to stifle other cultures. Our role is to assist, enlighten, reform, and lift up other nations. It is indeed our 'Manifest Destiny.'
For the 2004 Democratic nominee, a crucial question to ask of this arrogant Republican Administration has to be: have you learnt the correct historical lessons on how to exercise our global clout? Given its ignorance, anti-intellectualism, propensity to "shoot first, ask questions later," and lack of reliance upon historical precedent, the evidence to-date suggests otherwise.
What do you think? I'd like to solicit your opinions and have attached a poll to seek your preferences.