That American foreign policy is principally driven by corporate interests is not inconsistent with the idea that it has produced some positive-sum outcomes. The Marshall Plan created highly profitable markets for American exporters and investors; it also helped birth unprecedented prosperity in Japan and Western Europe.
But the fact that American exceptionalism is a myth does have important implications for anyone who wishes to bend reality in its direction. Jennifer Harris, a former State Department colleague, posed an arresting question when I spoke with her recently: How is it that the domestic economic agenda of the Obama administration could be so different in its values and priorities from President George W. The answer is that both political parties came to treat international economic issues as somehow separate from everything else.
And it is. The fine details of trade agreements and investment pacts — which are negotiated unilaterally by the Executive branch — are much less visible to the public than are the fine details of major legislation debated by Congress. An administration official bartering with other diplomats in some foreign capital is insulated from popular influence and scrutiny to much a greater degree than a Democratic senator is, when negotiating with Republicans even as the latter is also quite insulated from popular influence and scrutiny.
But multinational corporations have the resources i. If liberal elites adhere to an exceptionalist understanding of the American state, they will miss the central importance of domestic economic reform to any progressive reorientation of foreign policy. And that is not all they will miss. The exceptionalist narrative is most dangerous for the way it implies that assertions of American power on the world stage should be presumed well-intentioned, until proven otherwise.
If the consensus view among liberal elites circa had been that American foreign policy is typically shaped by the mercenary interests of corporations not least, arms manufacturers , they would likely have treated George W. Instead, in that instance and many others , liberals championed a just, humanitarian intervention — only to find, to their shock and awe, that those prosecuting the war did not, in fact, have the purest of hearts.
Relatedly, the myth of American exceptionalism functions as rationale for the U. Finally, the myth of American exceptionalism might do more to strengthen Trumpism than to undermine it. American exceptionalism suggests that the entire world owes a debt to the United States. Trumpism suggests the same — and then demands the world pay up.
Donald Trump has rebranded U. Which is to say, he has put the ugliest possible face on American empire. Related Reading History » Foreign Policy. Examining U. Foreign Policy, Refuting American Isolationism. International Affairs » International Relations.
History » American History. Monthly Newsletter Signup The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog. Follow us to get updates from Inquiries Journal in your daily feed. From before its birth to the present, the expansion of US power has been analogous to an ever-expanding hand upon the globe. Despite some of today's historically inaccurate politicians citing a revered past of non-interventionism and isolationism, the mainstay of American foreign policy has been one of expansionism and interventionism.
Sparse periods of aloofness to the world are an anomaly rather than the norm. MORE ». Foreign Policy American U. Is America really in decline as a global superpower? We examine current arguments for America's economic decline and argue that a purely economic analysis is insufficient for evaluating a country's status as a global superpower. Our comprehensive definition of superpower incorporates military strength, internal stability, and the This substantial foreign engagement directly Follow IJ.
Latest in Political Science Comparative Politics. More and more countries are democratic, but at the same time, the number of people dissatisfied with it has constantly been increasing during the last two decades. Read Article ». American Politics. This paper assesses the political preferences and ideologies of the Trump administration and how they influenced framing issues in a way that has underestimated the threats of right-wing militia groups in the United States.
President Trump and officials Political Theory. His ideas enjoyed great popularity in the following centuries Chinese Politics. However, there is wide-ranging debate about how to understand the BRI. One of the key ways to measure and analyze the performance of such expansive countries such as the United States is to look at their institutions and corresponding values. This paper offers a framework of thin democracy, the institutions, norms, Such punditry makes convincing reading because it reinforces longstanding prejudices.
And certainly, long-term U. And, compared with Western Europeans, average Americans are more likely to express their pride and patriotism. At the same time, Americans also hold a number of other attitudes that mitigate their nationalism.
The American people, as opposed to some of their leaders, seek no converts to their ideology. Their real priorities were preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and maintaining U. A subsequent poll for the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, conducted in September , found only 27 percent of the public strongly committed to spreading democracy. Similarly, while U. Do as we do! Consider the American reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Far from a mood of triumph or hunger for world domination, the American public became even more indifferent to international affairs than it had been, while the size of the isolationist minority in the United States rose to a year high.
Today, in a more dangerous and contentious time, even American elites — academics, journalists, business leaders and so forth — show few aspirations for empire and little appetite for proselytizing.
While two out of three American opinion leaders believe that the United States should play a strong leadership role in the world twice the proportion of the public at large , fewer than 10 percent think the United States should be the single world leader— a consistent finding in surveys throughout the s and into Further, American elites have not given the spread of democracy around the world much greater priority than has the average citizen.
George W. Bush is now a man with a mission. Fully 70 percent of Americans described their fellow countrymen as greedy, a harsher criticism than that leveled by any non-Americans in the survey.
About half of Americans, 49 percent, saw themselves as violent, a self-criticism with which majorities agreed in 13 of the 16 other countries surveyed.
These significant reservations about their own character suggest a healthy self-doubt that tempers any tendencies toward imperial hubris. American religiosity is also a growing concern to many foreigners.
However, American religious fervor also influences the views of people in some Muslim societies. The United States has a long tradition of separating church from state — but an equally powerful inclination to mix religion with politics. But for the past generation, religion has come to be woven more deeply into the fabric of partisan politics than ever before.
Within the United States, there is little question that religious views have a decided impact on many social issues such as abortion, end-of-life decisions, stem cell research and homosexuality. In fact, whether a person regularly attends church or synagogue or mosque was more important in determining his or her vote for president in than such demographic characteristics as gender, age, income, and region; and it was just as important as race.
Upon hearing that Christian fundamentalists in the United States link their support for Israel to their own apocalyptic vision of history, it is understandable that Muslims might fear that religious conservatives are driving U. Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered, millions fled the country, and a civil war continues to rage.
As a participant in many of the debates about whether to intervene, I have struggled to determine where we went wrong. My tentative conclusion is that we should have done more to try to achieve less. Those of us who advocated for using substantial American means in Syria also argued for maximalist ends a swift transition to a new government in Damascus that proved unachievable.
Meanwhile, those who advocated for more limited objectives also argued that we should use very modest means, or not get involved at all. Nobody was arguing to both increase the means more and earlier pressure on Assad and temper the ends give up the demand that Assad leave and focus instead on curbing his worst behavior.
That would not have solved the deeper problem, but it might have reduced the overall level of violence, death, and displacement, and set the stage for a better long-term outcome. T he fourth and final attribute emerges from a historical fact: The United States was fashioned not from a territory or tribe but from a set of ideas. The Founders proclaimed the values of liberty and equality. Europeans pursued independence based on nationality: as Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians.
Crucially, the Founders believed not just in individual rights but in the common good. They were not small- d democrats but rather small- r republicans. They embraced the notion of interdependence—that human beings have shared interests and need institutions to pursue those interests, and that liberty can be preserved only through such institutions.
They believed that a good society is the product of active citizenship combined with responsible and virtuous leadership. And they viewed these truths as universal—the United States was not coming into existence to rise and fall as other powers had, but rather to transform the world. But in recent decades, that foundation has cracked. Franklin D.
In the current climate, this is a task of daunting proportions. It will also require a renewed belief in the power of American values in the world. I can imagine two types of readers rolling their eyes. One group will ask why we should make values a priority at all, rather than simply securing our interests. Moreover, the U. The other group will call out the many times that the United States has not acted on its asserted ideals. They should be more honest and more precise, but no less proud.
Values have been a genuine consideration in the weighing of interests, and the U. This is rare and impressive enough. Proceeding from this basis, a new American exceptionalism can more consistently, if more modestly, secure a place for values in the conduct of foreign policy.
S ome argue that the United States is fractured beyond repair—that Donald Trump is destroying American credibility and, with it, all possibility of renewed American leadership. Some also contend that you can no longer make arguments to the American people based on higher purpose—they are too angry or too cynical.
I see it another way. As for the American people, I believe that they would welcome a renewed form of exceptionalism that addresses their concerns, speaks to their aspirations, and restores confidence that their country can be a force for good in the world. America as a force for good in the world—who talks like that anymore?
Well, I believe we should talk like this. Our greatest leaders through history talked like this. They understood, as we must, that American exceptionalism is not a description of reality but the expression of an ambition. It is about striving, and falling short, and improving. This is the essence of a patriotism that every American can embrace. For decades, the country neglected needed updates to the international system. Now Donald Trump is blowing that system up.
Not since has the U. After Trump, it can do just that. Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic. Popular Latest. The Atlantic Crossword. Sign In Subscribe. To hear more feature stories, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app. Justin Fantl.
0コメント