TUE 26 - 5 - 2020
Date: Sep 12, 2018
Source: The Daily Star
The two sides of American exceptionalism
Joseph S. Nye

In July, I joined 43 other scholars of international relations in paying for a newspaper advertisement arguing that the U.S. should preserve the current international order. The institutions that make up this order have contributed to “unprecedented levels of prosperity and the longest period in modern history without war between major powers. U.S. leadership helped to create this system, and U.S. leadership has long been critical for its success.”

But some serious scholars declined to sign, not only on grounds of the political futility of such public statements, but because they disagreed with the “bipartisan U.S. commitment to ‘liberal hegemony’ and the fetishization of ‘U.S. leadership’ on which it rests.” Critics correctly pointed out that the American order after 1945 was neither global nor always very liberal, while defenders replied that while the order was imperfect, it produced unparalleled economic growth and allowed the spread of democracy.

Such debates are unlikely to have much effect on President Donald Trump, who proclaimed in his inaugural address that, “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First, America First. ... We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.”

But Trump went on to say that “we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example.” And he did have a point. This approach can be called the “city on the hill” tradition, and it has a long pedigree. It is not pure isolationism, but it eschews activism in pursuit of values. American power is, instead, seen as resting on the “pillar of inspiration” rather than the “pillar of action.” For example, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams famously proclaimed on Independence Day in 1821 that the United States “does goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

But the soft power of inspiration is not the only ethical tradition in American foreign policy. There is also an interventionist and crusading tradition. Adams’ speech was an effort to fend off political pressure from those who wanted the U.S. to intervene on behalf of Greek patriots rebelling against Ottoman oppression.

That tradition prevailed in the 20th century, when Woodrow Wilson sought a foreign policy that would make the world safe for democracy. At midcentury, John F. Kennedy called for Americans to make the world safe for diversity, but he also sent 17,000 American military advisers to Vietnam. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been involved in seven wars and military interventions, and in 2006, after the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush issued a National Security Strategy that was almost the opposite of Trump’s, promoting freedom and a global community of democracies.

Americans often see their country as exceptional, and most recently President Barack Obama described himself a strong proponent of American exceptionalism.

There are sound analytical reasons to believe that if the largest economy does not take the lead in providing global public goods, such goods – from which all can benefit – will be underproduced. That is one source of American exceptionalism.

Economic size makes the U.S. different, but analysts like Daniel H. Deudney of Johns Hopkins University and Jeffrey W. Meiser of the University of Portland argue that the core reason that the U.S. is widely viewed as exceptional is its intensely liberal character and an ideological vision of a way of life centered on political, economic and social freedom.

Of course, right from the start, America’s liberal ideology had internal contradictions, with slavery written into its constitution.

And Americans have always differed over how to promote liberal values in foreign policy. According to Deudney and Meiser: “For some Americans, particularly recent neo-conservatives, intoxicated with power and righteousness, American exceptionalism is a green light, a legitimizing rationale, and an all-purpose excuse for ignoring international law and world public opinion, for invading other countries and imposing governments. ... For others, American exceptionalism is code for the liberal internationalist aspiration for a world made free and peaceful not through the assertion of unchecked American power and influence, but rather through the erection of a system of international law and organization that protects domestic liberty by moderating international anarchy.”

Protected by two oceans, and bordered by weaker neighbors, the U.S. largely focused on westward expansion in the 19th century and tried to avoid entanglement in the struggle for power then taking place in Europe. Otherwise, warned Adams, “the frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished luster the murky radiance of dominion and power.”

By the beginning of the 20th century, however, America had replaced Britain as the world’s largest economy, and its intervention in World War I tipped the balance of power. And yet by the ’30s, many Americans had come to believe that intervention in Europe had been a mistake and embraced isolationism. After World War II, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman – and others around the world – drew the lesson that the U.S. could not afford to turn inward again.

Together, they created a system of security alliances, multilateral institutions and relatively open economic policies that comprise Pax Americana or the “liberal international order.” Whatever one calls these arrangements, for 70 years it has been U.S. foreign policy to defend them.

Today, they are being called into question by the rise of powers such as China and a new wave of populism within the world’s democracies, which Trump tapped in 2016, when he became the first candidate of a major U.S. political party to call into question the post-1945 international order.

The question for a post-Trump president is whether the U.S. can successfully address both aspects of its exceptional role. Can the next president promote democratic values without military intervention and crusades, and at the same time take a non-hegemonic lead in establishing and maintaining the institutions needed for a world of interdependence?

Joseph S. Nye is a professor at Harvard and author of “Is the American Century Over?” THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on September 10, 2018, on page 7.

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Arab Network for the Study of Democracy
Readers Comments (0)
Add your comment

Enter the security code below*

 Can't read this? Try Another.
Related News
Mideast economies take massive hit with oil price crash
Trump says US will destroy any Iranian gunboats harassing U.S. ships
No pay cuts, layoffs but Mideast firm rethinks food security
Aid group says Mideast lockdowns hinder humanitarian efforts
IMF urges action to face 'big drop' in Mideast growth
Related Articles
The day after tomorrow
In praise of intellectual humility
COVID-19, conflict and fragility
The virus that changed the world
COVID-19 and women
Copyright 2020 . All rights reserved