As next year’s US presidential election approaches, three broad camps are visible in the debate over how the US should relate to the rest of the world: the liberal internationalists who have dominated since World War II; the retrenchers who want to pull back from some alliances and institutions; and the America Firsters who take a narrow, sometimes isolationist, view of the nation’s role in the world.
Americans have long seen their country as morally exceptional.
Stanley Hoffmann, a French-American intellectual, said that while every country considers itself unique, France and the US stand out in believing that their values are universal.
However, France was limited by the balance of power in Europe and thus could not pursue its universalist ambitions fully.
Only the US had the power to do that.
The point is not that Americans are morally superior; it is that many Americans want to believe that their country is a force for good in the world.
Realists have long complained that this moralism in US foreign policy interferes with a clear analysis of power. Yet the fact is that the US’ liberal political culture made a huge difference to the liberal international order that has existed since World War II. Today’s world would look very different if Hitler had emerged victorious or if Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union had prevailed in the Cold War.
American exceptionalism has three main sources. Since 1945, the dominant one has been the legacy of the enlightenment, specifically the liberal ideas espoused by the founders of the US.
As then-US president John F. Kennedy put it: “The ‘magic power’ on our side is the desire of every person to be free, of every nation to be independent... It is because I believe our system is more in keeping with the fundamentals of human nature that I believe we are ultimately going to be successful.”
Enlightenment liberalism holds such rights to be universal, not limited to the US.
Of course, Americans always faced contradictions in implementing their liberal ideology. The scourge of slavery was written into the US constitution and it was more than a century after the US Civil War before the US Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Racism remains a major factor in US politics to this day.
Americans have also differed over how to promote liberal values in foreign policy. For some, the universalist project became an excuse to invade other countries and impose friendly regimes. Racism undoubtedly played a role in US interventions in places such as Mexico, Haiti and the Philippines.
However, for others, liberalism was the impetus for creating a system of international law and institutions that protect domestic liberty by moderating international anarchy.
A second strand of American exceptionalism stems from the country’s Puritan religious roots. Those who fled Britain to worship God more purely in the new world saw themselves as a chosen people. Their project was less crusading in nature than anxious and contained, like the current “retrencher” approach of fashioning the US as a city on a hill to attract others.
The founders themselves worried about the new republic losing its virtue, as the Roman republic had done.
In the 19th century, European visitors as diverse as Alexis de Tocqueville and Charles Dickens noted the American obsession with virtue, progress and decline, but this moral concern was more inward than outward-looking.
The third source of American exceptionalism underlies the others: the location and sheer size of the US has always conferred a geopolitical advantage. Already in the 19th century, De Tocqueville noted the US’ special geographical situation. Protected by two oceans and bordered by weaker neighbors, it was able to focus largely on westward expansion throughout the 19th century, avoiding Europe-centric struggles for global power.
However, when the US emerged as the world’s largest economy at the beginning of the 20th century, it began to think in terms of global power. After all, it had the resources, the leeway and ample opportunities to indulge itself, for good and for ill. It had the incentive and capability to take the lead in creating global public goods, as well as the freedom to define its national interest in broad ways. That meant supporting an open international trading system, freedom of the seas and other commons, and the development of international institutions.
Size creates an important realist basis for American exceptionalism.
Isolationism was the US’ answer to the 19th-century global balance of power. The relatively weak republic could be imperialistic toward its small neighbors, but it had to follow a cautiously realist policy vis-a-vis European powers.
Although the Monroe Doctrine asserted a separation between the western hemisphere and the European balance, such a policy could be maintained only because it coincided with British interests and the British Navy’s control of the seas.
However, as the US’ power grew, its options increased.
An important turning point came in 1917, when then-US president Woodrow Wilson broke with tradition and sent 2 million Americans to fight in Europe. Although the liberal League of Nations that Wilson created at the end of the war was repudiated by his fellow Americans, it laid the basis for the UN and the liberal order after 1945.
Today, US President Joe Biden and most Democrats say they want to maintain and preserve the existing order, whereas former US president Donald Trump and the America Firsters want to abandon it, and retrenchers in both parties hope to pick and choose among the remains.
Ongoing conflicts in Europe, Asia and the Middle East will be strongly affected by whichever approach prevails in next year’s election.
Joseph S. Nye Jr is a professor at Harvard University and a former US assistant secretary of defense.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
Small and medium enterprises make up the backbone of Taiwan’s economy, yet large corporations such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) play a crucial role in shaping its industrial structure, economic development and global standing. The company reported a record net profit of NT$374.68 billion (US$11.41 billion) for the fourth quarter last year, a 57 percent year-on-year increase, with revenue reaching NT$868.46 billion, a 39 percent increase. Taiwan’s GDP last year was about NT$24.62 trillion, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, meaning TSMC’s quarterly revenue alone accounted for about 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s GDP last year, with the company’s
RSS