The Post-Election World

Americans are slowly being robbed of purpose. Between our ideological successes of the past 50 years and the policy failures of the past 10, we have created a world which we are fundamentally unprepared for.

That's the impression I'm getting, anyway. I picked up The Post-American World and The Return of History, and I liked both, despite their conflicting worldviews. I am inclined to agree with the claim of the former, that economic growth is not zero-sum, and the fear of the latter, that power politics is. Both, in their own ways, make this point - Zakaria in hopes of helping America find a new one, Kagan in deference to the "return of geopolitics".

This, of course, is political suicide. There is wistful speculation about McCain's "realist" tendencies, but ultimately his view of American purpose seems just as influenced by Kagan's earlier works as his latest (quite literally so [oh, the pun]). McCain's issues with the new Russia and stances on Iraq may be guided by some realist political assumptions, but they converge with international perceptions of neoconservatism. In the world's eyes, it is more important for America's next leader to not be a neoconservative than for him to be a realist. Even his less belligerent positions still rely on a sense of American purpose that now seems outdated - specifically, the League of Democracies. Now, Kagan actually proposes this, but I think there are some issues - mainly, I do not think it can reconcile a commitment to objectively democratic values and American interests without being seen as a US-dominated institution.

Using the Freedom House definition of democracy, countries like Mongolia are farther ahead than Turkey or Colombia. Yet it is hard to imagine a successful US policy in Latin America without Colombia, or a successful US policy in the Middle East without Turkey. At the same time, how will the League act effectively when it must consult countries like Argetnina or South Africa (the latter of which does not seem to be much of an ally of democracy in its own neighborhood). Maintaining an organization that is both inclusive of the world's liberal democracies and conducive to independent action and McCain's worldview would require constant application of US pressure - something that will grow less and less feasible with the "rise of the rest."

At the same time, Obama seems to significantly overestimate US power in diplomatic terms. The fundamental point behind Obama's foreign policy strategy is that the US can accomplish more with diplomacy than it can with its military. This is in many ways true. However, it's important to note that the US is and will be far more of a unipolar actor in terms of military power than it will be in economic or soft power in the future. The gap between the West and the "rest" is closing far faster in economic than in military terms, while countries are beginning to look to their fellow developing nations rather than the West thanks to the success of the BRIC bloc. The ideological influences of both candidates often like to point to Roosevelt and Harry Truman - neoconservatives because of their confrontation of totalitarianism, liberals because of their commitment to multilateralism and development. But just as radical Islam nowhere near rivals the power of the Axis or the USSR, so too does US "soft" and "sticky" power in the wake of WWII have little relevance to today.

It is common practice to invoke the Marshall Plan, but it is it really relevant? The Marshall Plan kept countries that were already friendly to us in that state. It shored up pre-existing institutions. Its success would not have been possible without significant structural reforms in many countries (Germany's economic miracle arguably came more from economic policy changes than US aid). It is not at all relevant to what the US is trying to accomplish today, certainly not to American policy in the Middle East. [As a sidebar, another rather irritating cliche is the comparison to some gargantuan program like getting off of fossil fuels to "putting a man on the moon" or "the Manhattan project." Yes, these programs were very ambitious but they did not reform society. The Manhattan project produced research, some nuclear facilities, and bombs. It did not switch the US over to an all-nuclear society, nor an all-nuclear military, within the course of its existence. The 10-year moon goal launched a handful of men to the moon, a few times. It did not reform society. It did not make landing on the moon cheap or easy - note we haven't done it since. The "fossil fuel" effort, on the other hand, would require changes to virtually every aspect of life and cost an enormously larger part of the economy and take much longer than a decade. There is no comparison to what a program to get off of fossil fuels would require.]

Obama also has yet to engage on issues that are specifically relevant to, well, our actual allies. So far, most of what I've seen involves simply conducting US policy in a way less offensive to the rest of the world. This will buy us some goodwill, but it is not building the foundation for some kind of new wonderful multilateral order, or Joffe's Bismarckian "spoke and hub" system. Assuming the US can win back world support by granting countries the concession of not bombing them or someone else without consulting them first takes a lot of hubris, too. Zakaria's first point about a new US policy is making choices - Obama cannot be all things to all people, nor, I suspect, will he be able to simultaneously build up international cooperation and goodwill while following Democratic policies to their full extent in Latin America (trade issues), China (trade, human rights, environment, etc), and the Middle East (Israel, and likely more).

To build a truly successful multilateral system, the next President will have to address genuinely foregin concerns, not just things America does that concern foreign countries. This applies to the claims that McCain's anti-torture positions will dramatically improve US relations, too. As I always seem to get around to saying, the next President will have to be more than Not George W. Bush.

"Future: That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.