Centerfield

I haven't read the book but I do have a problem with what seems to be part of the basic premise of this article and the Colley review.

It seems to me that many critics on the intellectual Left as well as many people in Western Europe are labouring under the assumption that becuase "America" is undertaking some actions that they find disagreeable it must therefore follow that America hasn't given thier views a fair hearing.

I think that is a false assumption.....and somewhat of an arrogant one, as well. It is possible to give an arguement a fair hearing...and simply reject it. The assumption is that thier arguements are so compelling that anyone who gave them a fair hearing could not possibly reject them....to me that smacks of the same sort of hubris that they seem to be accusing of others. Politics, international and domestic policy and other such human affairs are not simple arithmatic. There are few, if any, 2+2 = 4 arguements in such realms.

It is the same sort of hubris that Frank, whose book Colley also mentions, commits (IMO). He assumes that blue-collar republicans don't know thier own self-interests. Such assumption(which I find endemic among the academic Left)discounts the possibility that people ARE actualy the best judge of thier own interests.....that they simply value things differently then Mr. Frank does.

i can't help but notice that 2 of the criticisms of the U.S. are that we are a)nationalistic and b) sanctimonious in our foreign policy views. Pot, meet kettle.

I agree to a substantial extent with the point Cengel's making. It's not that we don't understand, it's that our diagnosis and prescription is at variance with some scholars and diplomats and nations. It's pretty tiresome to get continuous lectured that we don't understand. Is it really that we don't understand, or that we just don't agree?.

IMO, the thing is, it's not an issue of attitude (sanctimony) or disposition (nationalism more so than other nations). OF COURSE our current foreign policy may upset the status quo apple cart . It's pretty clear to me that we WANT that to happen, and that we are willing to run the risks of this, both because the status quo is unacceptably dysfunctional and dangerous, and because the potential rewards of expanded democracy are, in our view, worthwhile.

The general critique of our policy seems to be that we are going about things the wrong way even in instances where our goals may be defensible. The thing that troubles me about this is that there's no acknowlegement of the failures of the approaches and policies of, say, the UN. Their overly conciliatory, "let's negotiate some more" style has arguably exacerbated things by making dysfunctional regimes confident that the UN would more likely protect them than hold them genuinely accountable.

Many Americans are glad that we are trying what we are doing now, because the way we approached things recently has not worked very well at ensuring our national security. To Americans, the foreign counseling about how we should be approaching things sounds an awful lot like trying a lot more of things which have proven inadequate, and that we should accept these inadequacies because our alternatives are immoral. It's that last part that i think rubs Americans most the wrong way, the sanctimonious judgement upon us, passed by the at least equally sanctimonious.

I think most Americans look at our current policy as doing the best we can, realistically, to lay down the law when and where we can, at a escalated level appropriate to the post 9/11 world. I don't think we're either surprised or especially worried that this has caused widespread grumbling. I'm not convinced it boils down to much more than that.

' ...he urges Americans to step outside their national myths "and look at [their]… nation with detachment, not as an exceptional city on a hill, but as a mortal nation among other nations."'

I'm a little surprised at the defensive reactions to this review. Perhaps the above is in order. Regardless of the arguable sanctimony of many in Europe, is there potential for valid criticism of American foreign policy and attitudes?

Since I have not hesitated to criticize our foreign policy when I felt it was merited, I don't view my comments as especially defensive. Of course we warrant criticism. What I'm looking for is something along the lines of "here's what we did wrong and why, and here's why it would work better to achieve our national security objectives."

I'd especially like it to also include something along the lines of "here's why the approach the UN has taken in the pst will be efficacious this time even though it has proven inadequate and even counterproductive in the past."

Blatherings about stepping outside our national myths are just insulting. Anything that singles us out as guilty of sins that we are no more guilty of than other nations (like nationalism, for example) is also irritating. "Oh, look at this nation, they are being so nationalistic. Oh, the horror!"

Why do countries of limited and/or diminishing power get patted on the back for suggesting that negotiation and cooperation and treating all nations as equals is a morally superior rubric. Isn't this really self-serving nationalism of a form that acknowledges your weaknesses?

Obviously, it's going to be difficult to separate feelings about Bush's foreign policy from those of American foreign policy in general. It's probably a bit disingenous to think that Lieven would have written the same book if he agreed with current policy. But even given that, the book is apparently not aimed exclusively at Bush's policy or at Iraq; it is talking about America's approach to foreign policy. I remember when Albright made the comment about America being the "indispensable nation." While she was probably right in the sense that we are the only power really capable of addressing a lot of crises, the tone of the statement bothered me and obviously bothered a lot of people overseas. No one questions (or at least I don't) that the French are equally sanctimonious and unwilling to face up to problems with their policies. But we are the 800 pound gorilla--our policies affect everyone else to some extent. I think the US has generally been a force for good in the world. On the other hand, a lot of our policies have created real problems IMO; for example, the use of the CIA to overthrow ostensibly Communist regimes in the 50s, support of repressive governments in the Middle East and elsewhere. In fact, Bush now criticizes our lack of support for democracy in the Middle East. But at the time, I guarantee plenty of Americans would have defended the policies either as pragmatic or as somehow advancing the values of the free world.

The point is not that our policies have been so evil or retrograde as the leftists would say--some have been good, some have been bad. But we have tended to wrap these policies up in a moralistic tone that makes it difficult to raise legitimate questions about those policies. Now, granted, the left has done the same in the opposite direction--treated our policies as somehow exceptionally evil with no redeeming features. And, of course, it's hard to see any other power in the US position doing much different; I suspect that France, if it was the superpower, would be pretty much doing what it wants. But let's stop pretending that our policies are invariably enlightened and above reproach. I think that's all people are saying.

Plus, while any country has the right to take what action it feels is necessary to its national security, that freedom should not be absolute. There have to be some constraints based on the fact that we live with other countries. To just say we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, because our policies are always moral and above board and serve the interests of humanity strikes me as hubris. And it's not just Bush but, as I said before, I think he is the apotheosis of this principle.

I don't know that the US was being singled out. There was quite a bit of discussion of others being nationalistic.

I would also question the characterization of the suggestion that we attempt to look at ourselves objectively as "blatherings." I know I have a tendency to be fairly presumptive of American superiority that I think is fairly common in this country.

Pretend France was doing some of things the US now is. You might think it audacious on their part to engage in such overt projection of power. I'm not even suggesting that what we're doing is necessarily wrong, just that you might see the very same actions differently. What's so wrong with expanding your point of view?

MWS,

It's funny how we both came up with France as the hypothetical. I didn't see your post until I had already posted mine. Those crazy frogs.

WHQ,

Of course there is potential for valid criticism of American foreign policy and attitudes. Since we are a human enterprise, it is almost a given that we have faults in our policies and attitudes. That's really not the issue I am disputing.

The issue is the implicit assumption that the policies/attitudes Ms. Colley, Mr. Lieven or [insert name here] would have us adopted are neccesarly less faulty. The issue is the implicit assumption that we are failing to listen to criticism rather then giving them a fair hearing and rejecting them due to lack of merrit. It is the age old hubris of assuming that if you fail to agree with me you must not understand me.

I think, by and large, we are willing to give honest critics a fair hearing. We may choose to reject some suggestions due to lack of merit or simple difference of philsophy/strategy.... this does not mean that we have not HEARD them. Some of these rejections may end up being unwise...others undoubtedly are wise.....probably many of them amount to a simple difference of flavor (" X is better because it is more spicy being advanced as an arguement by some-one who enjoys spicy foods hold little weight when being considered by some-one who dislikes spice").

WHAT?!? Nationalism in foreign policy? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!

I would also question the characterization of the suggestion that we attempt to look at ourselves objectively as "blatherings."

I'm the first one to agree with the notion that there's value in trying to be objective. However, the way he said it (step outside the national myth) is definitely composition worthy of the charge "you admire the sound of your own voice." Not to mention the fact that the line between a suggestion and an accusation is in this case a fine one. I think there's an implicit "if you'd only be objective you'd see we are right and you are unable to see this due to your bias" hiding in there. Really, you can't bring this up without implying that all patriotism equals blind patriotism. Since I take pride in not being a blind patriot, that bothers me.

So I stand by my characterization of "blathering, " even as I acknowledge that this term also describes the sum total of what we're doing right here, right now. No need to have a cow, man.

cengel,

I guess your argument might sum up my position, in that I understand and have considered your position, but I disagree with it, at least partially.

I'm certainly open to the idea that the US at times simply disagrees with other on matters of foreign policy after deliberate consideration of their views. But I also feel that there is a real tendency for heedless forward movements on the part of our government in dealing with the international community. On that point, I guess we just disagree.

bk,

If I have a cow, it will be for dinner, preferably ground into patties and cooked medium rare. And I thought I was being pretty dispassionate. Cowabunga, dude!

Ground? I will keep my smoked roasts and briskets to myself, then....

And those ribeyes. Definitely those ribeyes.

I go low-end when it comes to beef. I also love and have easy access to the best cheesesteaks in the world.

I give. One cannot debate a good cheesesteak.