There's two emerging forces taking shape in the United States today -- one is a force that recognizes that American unilateralism can lead to disastrous consequences; that recognizes government and policy should aim for realism, not idealism; and that there is a definitive line between sound patriotism and irrational, idealistic, and illogical nationalism. The other force is rooted in a deep insecurity held by the current generation of this country, with visions of the United States being on the decline with elevated unemployment, stagnating wages, a dysfunctional government, and countries such as China, India, and Brazil emerging as influential world economies along with being even bigger players on the foreign policy scene.
I read Fareed Zakaria's (who is emerging as my favorite political writer of all time) Washington Post column, which is in the form of an open letter to Mitt Romney, in response to his quip that Barack Obama believes that "...this century is the post-American century". Zakaria appropriately derided the GOP front runner's sentiments, criticizing it as narrow-minded fodder and stressing that the reality is that the "age of American unipolarity -- which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union -- is over." This is true. Zakaria's book takes the position that the United States should not necessarily feel threatened, but more or less should embrace the emerging success of the aforementioned countries.
The irony of the nationalist-fueled campaigns that the Republican Party candidates have waged is that they constantly invoke the historical foundations of American values, yet at the same time will deny that not even the United States is immune to what history has proven time and time again -- that unilateralism and unipolarity is not perpetual. It's a lesson that Spain learned in the 17th and 18th centuries, that France learned after Waterloo, and what Britain learned after the two World Wars. Not to mention the American system, which for years upon years was touted as the socioeconomic model that everyone should follow, was soon embraced by China (slightly), India (somewhat), and Brazil, amongst others, and its no surprise why those countries are where they are now.
Yet, at the same time, there's something else at play when it comes to the decline of American unilateralism and unipolarity -- the perpetual case of insecurity that, in truth, is displayed but not often discussed in the way that it actually needs to be discussed. Ideally, a nation's foreign policy would to be coordinate the interests of their own country into mutually beneficial and peaceful international relationships. I stress ideally. With unilateralism and unipolarity, this is not the case. The European imperialist drive from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century is a perfect example of this. Britain built an empire over two centuries that proved to be unsustainable in just a short decade plus after the conclusion of World War II. Napoleon's unipolar drive for France only lasted a little more than a decade. We all know what happened to Spain. In short, having a foreign policy that aims to do more or less anything and everything to make sure that the pendulum perpetually swings into your nation's favor is almost always going to do more long term harm than good. The insecurity that fuels the idea that a country needs to do anything and everything to maintain their position at the top of the mountain is driven by nationalist pride. Throughout the course of history that course of action has proven to eventually catch up with the country sooner or later.
Despite not being their biggest fan, I recognize that President Obama, along with Representative Paul, have somewhat a grip on this new reality. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with bringing an end to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality that is a stalwart for neoconservative thinking. It did not do any favors for the United States before and it certainly won't do any favors for the United States now or in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment