Not so long ago, I was told of an amazing book that offered insights on foreign policy that cut to the core of America's relationship with Europe. The New Republic called it "subtle and brilliant." Henry Kissinger said it was "one of those seminal treatises without which any discussion of European-American relations would be incomplete." In fact, it was implied, so much intellectual lightning was packed into that slim volume, I might never quite be the same after reading it.

So I picked up Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power" and read a long, obvious and not especially convincing rationalization for United States dominance based on the assumption that we're from Mars and Europe is from Venus, and Europe should just button her lip and stay home cleaning her house and feeding and educating her kids while the big, muscular U.S. (which you can be sure doesn't waste his time on that girlie nonsense) strides the neighborhood with his guns and makes sure those swarthy guys down the block don't get up to any funny business. How this qualifies as "brilliant" still eludes me, though I guess the "subtle" part is that Kagan feels the U.S. should exert a little tact by at least pretending to listen to Europe before going ahead and doing whatever the U.S. wants anyway and making it up to Europe afterward by sending her some flowers or taking her out to dinner or something.

Now there's Lee Harris' "Civilization and Its Enemies," whose author Salon's enthused reviewer praises for his "outspokenness and common sense." Unfettered by any significant doubts about our own righteousness and positive that "America is recognized globally as having not only the power but also the moral credibility to lead," Harris apparently advocates tossing aside any silly old concerns about the sovereignty of Third World countries. After all, "the United States represents the ultimate source of legitimacy in the world," which apparently makes everything we do legitimate -- including, I suppose, overthrowing the legally elected government in Chile and funding right-wing death squads in South and Central America. If I'm to believe Ann Marlowe's review, Harris is suggesting that as a country we adopt the beautifully simple, weirdly symmetrical worldview of what my old psychology professors called a sociopath.

This kind of argument seems increasingly popular among conservatives. To be fair, Marlowe does opine at the end of her review that it would have been nice if Harris had turned his "erudition and originality to the flaws in our society," but she doesn't seem unduly disturbed by this glaring omission in a book that bases its premise on our presumed moral superiority.

Reading this and other recent works by conservatives about the U.S. and foreign policy, I'm repeatedly reminded of that obnoxious stage young children sometimes go through, in which they discover that God will not in fact strike them dead if they lie, cheat or otherwise misbehave. At that age, the question, "Why not lie, cheat and beat up other kids if nobody stops me?" often seems like a stunning insight. Similarly, as the world's only remaining superpower, we now have a contingent asking that same question.

There's nothing brilliant about it. It's not even intelligent. It's little more than cupidity and narcissism decked out in elaborate rationalizations that fool nobody except those willing to be fooled.

-- Pamela Troy

Ann Marlow quotes Lee Harris as saying, "There are many Americans who did not like Clinton as president, and many who do not like Bush, but only a handful disliked them so much that they would have preferred to see them removed from office at the cost of a civil war. This is how much of the world feels about the United States today. They bash us, and yet they recognize our legitimate authority ... Indeed, the world is beginning to show toward us that cynical disrespect for authority that has always been one of the hallmarks of our national character ... But this is fine, so long as the world is also displaying the other great hallmark of our national political character, which is to accept the legitimate authority even of men we can't stand."

Presidential authority at home stems from the mandate earned through popular (or, in the case of our current president, quasi-popular) elections. What is the foundation of our authority abroad? Superior military might? Far-reaching popular culture? The ability to employ thousands of sneaker makers? The major reason Americans aren't willing to go to war against our own president is that we know we get to vote him out every four years, and that we won't get stuck with him for more than eight. Not to mention our system of checks and balances that prevents the president from unilaterally shaping policy. Unfortunately, the rest of the world did not vote for U.S. supremacy, nor do they get to vote us out every four years. There are no viable institutions to check or balance our power. Rather than a utopian reflection of our American ideals, U.S. authority over today's world is exactly the kind of tyranny Jefferson, Paine, et al., so eloquently raged against.

-- Craig Santoro

This might come to many self-absorbed Americans as a surprise -- the world outside the U.S. is not waiting to be delivered from its miseries by American munificence. There is something offensively patronizing about Ann Marlowe's suggestion that the rest of the world be turned into American states. Whether expressed in jest or otherwise, such a blinkered world view ought to be challenged.

-- Mayank Chhaya

I read Ann Marlowe's review of Lee Harris' book finding myself approaching a state of spontaneous combustion. Noting that I am responding to a review of a text that I have not yet read, and to the extent that Marlowe's review is an accurate portrayal of the argument, as a non-American I find the suggestion that America is the font of civilization offensive.

It would be funny if it was not so appalling that the conservative elements of the U.S. sociopolitical spectrum assert that America is superior to the rest of us as the embodiment of God-given values, whilst members of the left such as Harris suggest America is superior to the rest of us as the embodiment of liberal humanist values. Then we are told that Sept. 11, and America bashing subsequently, are incomprehensible other than as acts of jealousy. Harris should undertake a bit of soul-searching. Regardless of your value set, these values are not the property of some nation-state. An appropriate self-critical stance would suggest such claims as self-serving narcissistic fantasies. They are supported by a selective reading of history and engender the very distrust that Harris claims not to understand. A better world will only be affected by abandoning such self-congratulatory positions and exploring values that might ennoble all humanity.

-- Christopher Selth

Recent Stories