约瑟夫·奈美国例外主义的利与弊

CAMBRIDGE – In July, I joined 43 other scholars of international relations in paying for a newspaper advertisement arguing that the US 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. US leadership helped to create this system, and US 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 US commitment to ‘liberal hegemony’ and the fetishization of ‘US 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’s speech was an effort to fend off political pressure from those who wanted the US to intervene on behalf of Greek patriots rebelling against Ottoman oppression.

That tradition prevailed in the twentieth century, when Woodrow Wilson sought a foreign policy that would make the world safe for democracy. At mid-century, 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 US 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 under-produced. That is one source of American exceptionalism.

Economic size makes the US 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 US 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 US largely focused on westward expansion in the nineteenth 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 lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.”

By the beginning of the twentieth 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 1930s, 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 US 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 US 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 US political party to call into question the post-1945 international order.

The question for a post-Trump president is whether the US 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?

20 Comments on this article

Per Kjeldaas Sep 10, 2018

Hypothetical future for those of you who detest Trump:

The proponents of a one-world or uni-polar world have completely won in 2030. A new "Trump" rules over the whole world. Maybe democratic in the beginning, but the temptation for absolute tyrannical power may be too great to resist. There will be no other country to move to that is not ruled by the same ruler.

And for those who like Trump: substitute the "deep state."

What is the risk of that hypothetical future if the multipolar world becomes totally unipolar?

I think we will have a safer future if the quoted words of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams become our policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 7, 2018

Joseph S. Nye says, there are two camps that rally for American exceptionalism, pitting ethical tradition in American foreign policy against a tradition of interventionist and crusading approach. But the belief that the United States is qualitatively different – and, arguably, better – than other nations, is as old as the country itself.
Depending on the poltical climate, American exceptionalism revolves around the concept of soft power, resting on the “pillar of inspiration” rather than the “pillar of action.” That the international community since World War II had seen the US as “exceptional,” has much “its intensely liberal character and an ideological vision of a way of life centered on political, economic, and social freedom” to thank for.
One aspect of American exceptionalism has always been economic. US workers enjoyed a rising level of real wages that afforded their families a rising standard of living. The postwar boom, also known as the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of strong economic growth. There was a robust “middle class” and the labour shortage attracted waves of immigration. America was a land of opportunities. But the 1973 – 75 recession saw the beginning of the end of this myth.
However Alexis De Tocqueville, most famous for his epic work “Democracy in America” came to the conclusion that American goodness meant American greatness, central to the doctrine of American exceptionalism. In 2016, with his slogan “Make America Great Again” Trump was the first candidate of recent history to attack American exceptionalism. He relied on diehard supporters in the Rust-Belt and undecided voters in swing states to win.
Trump’s promise to return the country to its former glory rang hollow. He told his audiences repeatedly, America, the formerly great, is today a punching bag for China, Mexico, the EU etc. In fact he ran his campaign on a platform of American decline, and he is the first president of recent times not to feel the need or obligation to insist that the US, the world’s sole superpower, is an exceptional nation. In his view, America is anything but exceptional, indispensable or great, though he alone could make it “great again”.
As a fawning admirer of authoritarian leaders and dictators, Trump loathes liberal values and chafes at the idea of defending human rights and civil liberties. He is on his way to destroy what his predecessors had built and created – a system of security alliances, multilateral institutions, and relatively open economic policies that comprise Pax Americana or the “liberal international order.” In 2016 few predicted that he would win, like Sinclair Lewis in his 1935 satirical novel “It Can’t Happen Here,” who believed that American exceptionalism might inoculate the country against fascism. But it happened.
The author says, inspired by Ronald Reagan’s biggest peacetime defence build-up in history against what, referencing Star Wars, he called an “evil empire,” the Soviet Union, the neo-conservatives – “intoxicated with power and righteousness” – see American exceptionalism as “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 their will on foreign governments. Unlike the Reagan era, the US finds itself today in a multi-polar world, dealing with a rising China and a resurgent Russia.
For those open-minded, 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.” Unfortunately populists reject globalisation and institutionism and see them as an infringement of their national sovereignty.
The author says in order to repair the damage Trump has inflicted, America needs a unifying figure in a new era, who can heal the wounds. It is no longer the question, “whether the US can successfully address both aspects of its exceptional role.” Much hope is being placed on the next president to “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.”
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Sep 5, 2018

Thanks to Elizabeth for answering Bauer comments below on irrelevance.
America must not be apologetic for its immeasurable contributions.
The World Order since 1945 was America's genius - Genius deserves respect.
Anarchy must not replace America @ The World's Economic Epicentre.
The challengers are seeking to replace the Sun in The Solar System.
The alternatives will need to provide for the Global Commons.
German French Russian Mandarin Sanskrit Arabic - aren't ready yet.
I can't envision a Sun-less Solar System - One Language seems to be the glue.
1800 million shareholders across Religion Region Race - can't be wrong.
Kudos to The Boston Brahmins - Oliver W Holmes was spot on.
As was Lord Ismay Hastings - NATO First Secretary General :
Keep the Americans in.
Keep the Russians out.
Keep the Germans down.
France will realise the folly of flipping the wisdom of Churchill's Military Genius.
When the soup served in Paris is Vichyoisse, even DeGaulle liked Earl Grey tea.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lt lee Sep 5, 2018

“... unprecedented levels of prosperity and the longest period in modern history without war between major powers. " True.

The million dollar question is: Because of US effort? Or despite US effort?

In his book, "AMERICA AGAINST THE WORLD: How We Are Different And Why We Are
Disliked", pollster Andrew Kohut found that poll data indicated that Americans had a
disconnect of a major order. Kohut then elaborated,"Most people around the world
believe that America ignores their interests in making foreign policy, yet 67 percent of Americans feels that the United States pays attention to the interests of other countries..."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Sep 5, 2018

THE CITY ON THE HILL - 1800 MILLION SHAREHOLDERS
First Britain, then America since 1945 - created The Anglosphere.
For 500 years since History's First Brexit, One Language has overtaken Religion.
1800 million shareholders @ PLANETENGLISH have led Mankind's Destiny.
Challenged every 100 years, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
America need not be apologetic about The Anglosphere.
The World Order needs The City on The Hill.

In a Planet, where desire for Global domination never ends, Light must remain.
Light that produces Global Goods and Services for The Public Commons.
In One Language - not One Religion or One Race or One Caste or One Sect.
Knowledge is the wings wherewith we fly to heaven [Shakespeare].
The Public Commons is a service to Mankind - and deserves to remain.
The Path to Mankind's Final Destination on The Hill must remain open to all.
Mount Athos in Greece was undertaken on Foot - a challenge to human energy.
Truth is Pathless - every aspirational challenge must pass the Global litmus test.

America passed The Kindleberger Test, after Britain was ambushed in 1914 - 1945.
No challengers before Britain and after America have yet crossed that bar.
France and Germany in nurturing European Unionization need One Language.
China and Russia in nurturing the Red Planet also need One Language.
Rome and Mecca in nurturing Club Med also need One Language.
The City-on-the-Hill has been speaking One Language for 500 years.
PLANETENGLISH now has nearly 1800 million shareholders worldwide.
- K. Bauer Sep 5, 2018
  
  Flag - how is this topically relevant? Do you have another account called "J. von Hettlingen"?
  - P. Kamath Sep 5, 2018
    
    K. Bauer: Have you heard,"Brown Englishman"?
    
    "Brown Englishmen "
    It was in the mid 19th century that the idea of creating "Brown Englishmen" emerged. Thomas Macaulay (Minister of Education in India and creator of the British/Indian law system) and others (the Anglicists) set up a system of education and rewards to create a class of Indians "...who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect." -- Thomas Macaulay 1833.
    - K. Bauer Sep 5, 2018
      
      And what has that to do with "American exceptionalism"? Sure the British did all sorts of terrible things to India (e.g. india famine 1&2) and by extension Pakistan and Bangladesh but its still off-topic.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Sep 5, 2018

The reality of the "Pax Americana" is mixed at best.

Europe fared well enough- the first half of the 20th century didn't exactly set the bar very high, and NATO countries did indeed see half a century of peace and prosperity. The same cannot be said of Latin America, where the US repeatedly undermined democratic aspirations in multiple nations across the continent. And in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, the "Pax Americana" is just a grimly ironic way to speak of an era of war crimes. Which as a school of thought in policy, never went away, and continues to this day, incidentally.

Until we abandon the concept of Exceptionalism for any prominent nation, including the US, it is unlikely the world will see "Pax" of any kind.

--------
PS- kudos to Project Syndicate website designers for finally adding an "Edit" button.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Sep 4, 2018

American Exceptionalism underlies Americans' obligations to the World but the advantages Americans gain from upholding those obligation are rapidly disappearing under Over-Globalization in which Globalism (International Capitalism) and its Elites takes over American and World institutions and buy up property and assets, leaving the untermensch subject to those who want more and more control.
Over-Globalaization has been the cause of recent Middle East wars, and historical wars against the excesses of Capitalism in Europe, Asia, Africa usw.
The cause of Over-Globalization is continual increasing control of a financial elite, as financialization of world commerce and ownership allows them to make the rules everyone lives by as they deprive the untermensch of his property and economic discretion and freedom to live by the creeds of love.
Monetized society cannot get too far out of whack with pre-monetary society because our instincts and needs evolved in pre-monetized society.
Mostly, monetary society upsets the social-economic balance created by our nurturing instincts to serve others so that they will serve us back because we are socially relevant to them. Pre-monetary society did not breach or pervert those nurturing instincts.
The current trend towards financialization and monetization as the fundamental value we must live by breaches and perverts our "good" social instincts towards reciprocity in socio-economic relations in favor of greed and power-seeking.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lyle Sykora Sep 4, 2018

I have great doubts about these ideas and comments. We are confronted with growing internal problems such as race relations, the distribution of wealth, a failing infrastructure, an overly expensive military, a great reduction in R&D spending, a failing educational and medical care system for the vast majority and lurking over all of these problems climate change and on the international scene a growing world power in China. I suspect that we will be hard pressed to successfully handle our internal problems which will clearly place limits on the role we can play in the world. The resource choices ahead will be very difficult as our world power diminishes relative to the world and our internal demands grow.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Sep 4, 2018

I would recommend the author and his friends to focus on the US-role in the world since the year 2000, without ignoring the roots and longer term influences of prior years. The US has unquestionably been the benevolent hegemon for Europe and some other parts of the word after 1945. This was less so towards Latin America, including Cuba. The Vietnam War already produced a crack. The Middle-East policies (Iran, Iraq in the 1980s, among others) added to the cracks. More recently, and since 9/11, benevolent has turned to problematic. American historians and political scientists seem to understand quite well what is missing or outright wrongheaded, economists, politicians and most journalists are most frequently on the wrong side of history.

风萧萧_Frank

The Two Sides of American Exceptionalism

风萧萧_Frank

约瑟夫·奈 美国例外主义的利与弊

约瑟夫·奈美国例外主义的利与弊