October 15, 2006
THE POPE MAY NOT BELIEVE IN FORCED CONVERSION, BUT AMERICA DOES:
U.S. foreign policy has always been Wilsonian (Max Boot, 10/15/06, Manchester Union-Leader)
There are few epithets more damning in American politics than “Wilsonian.†It carries connotations of purblind self-righteousness, of senseless moralizing, of good intentions gone awry. Granted, most of those pejoratives apply to Woodrow Wilson, whose failures in peacemaking after World War I are notorious and helped set the stage for World War II. The fiasco in Iraq will undoubtedly strengthen the demonization of the Wilsonian impulse that was said to have animated the invasion.Yet the Wilsonian label has always rested on a dubious conceit -- that the 28th president of the United States was the first to inject idealism and interventionism into our foreign policy. This notion cannot survive a serious examination of U.S. history before the 20th century. That is just what the distinguished scholar Robert Kagan provides in his important new book, “Dangerous Nation,†the first of a projected two-volume history of U.S. foreign policy.
Kagan, also the author of “Of Paradise and Power,†a best-selling essay about trans-Atlantic relations, sets out to explode the cherished myth that Americans are “by nature inward-looking and aloof, only sporadically and spasmodically venturing forth into the world, usually in response to external attack or perceived threats.†In fact, as he points out, Americans have been animated by an expansionist ethos since the days of the Puritans.
The tragedy of Wilsonism was that, given the opportunity to decolonize the Third World, he opted instead for an institutional transnationalism that is antithetical to America.
So OJ,
Are the American people starting to come to grips with the fact that America is an Empire?
Posted by: Bruno at October 15, 2006 11:12 AMA hegemony.
Posted by: Gideon at October 15, 2006 11:20 AMWell, Bruno, people have been screaming about the American Empire since the Great White Fleet. You can only call Wolf so long before people tune it out.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at October 15, 2006 1:07 PMEmpire. The balance of forces, particularly the differential of force projection capabilities make it so.
Any "hegemon" which could send what we can send, as quickly as we can send it, would have been considered an empire. The reason some of us blanch at the term is because of the negative connotation attached to it, mostly by the Marxist-Leninist-Boxerists.
I suggest that we ponder the capability of Rome or Mongolia to charge things in real time and compare these with our own. It is so puzzling that forbearance should be confused with lack of capability. Ask the Germans and the Japanese about our lack of will to use our power. They knew us.
To understand the American power and spirit and people we must step into the confluence of the Great Commission with the way of the wagon train.
This looks like hypocracy or even racism to outsiders. To us it is not. Rather it is sharing the good news we have received.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 15, 2006 1:25 PM
A superpower is not the same thing as an empire. By any reasonable scholarly definition, we're not an empire.
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 15, 2006 1:41 PMForced conversion to what?
Posted by: Pepys at October 15, 2006 1:41 PMEvangelists, not imperialists.
Posted by: oj at October 15, 2006 5:33 PMEvangelizing what?
Posted by: Pepys at October 15, 2006 5:35 PMThe planet. We Ended History.
Posted by: oj at October 15, 2006 6:01 PMWhat's our good news?
Posted by: Pepys at October 15, 2006 6:11 PMWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Posted by: oj at October 15, 2006 6:20 PMWhat would Kraynak say?
Posted by: Pepys at October 15, 2006 6:23 PMThat the End isn't going to go well for those who don't understand that it merely describes a set of means by which men can work towards the decent ends dictated by God.
Posted by: oj at October 15, 2006 6:46 PMI see, I didn't read your excerpt close enough. You're right nothing there requires a US style democracy. That's right, now that I think about it. All we require is fidelity to a set of ideas, and that's as good a summary as any.
Posted by: Pepys at October 15, 2006 6:50 PMI keep forgetting OJ's not as crazy as I think he is.
Posted by: Pepys at October 15, 2006 6:52 PMWe're not an empire yet, and any imperial future we have will not be like the European colonial regimes. Those were not true "empires" because the imperial state is one of an absolute and final sovereign - only Persia, Rome, and China qualify.
What we are talking about is that the US is the incipient world leader - legally and not just de facto. New international institutions would be established to support this. A key sign, I believe, is that rather than "anyone but an American" as UN Secretary General (or future counterpart) it will be "always an American."
This might be good for the world, but bad for us. I cannot imagine our current constitutional system and liberties surviving as the burden of maintaining order, not protecting our liberties as citizens, will be the rationale for such a state.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 16, 2006 1:09 PM