Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost.
A great line from a great movie, and, it seems to me, applicable to Emily Rosenberg’s anti-American book, “Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion 1890-1945”
Her primary critique of American foreign policy is that it was hypocritical. The “problem[] with the liberal-developmentalist goals” of US foreign policy, she argues, is that “Americans involved in international affairs could preach and even believe in the basic tenets of free enterprise, open access, and free flow [of ideas], while they themselves applied them selectively and ignored their contradictions.” (232, 234) She undoubtedly demonstrates that American foreign policy, especially after WWII fell short of perfect adherence to the “liberal-developmentalist” approach. Hoover’s General Loan Policy (which limited the countries to which US Banks could lend) and Wilson’s support of RCA’s and Pan Am’s attempts to subvert international competition in radio and international air travel are examples. She also reveals that the “liberal-developmental” approach does not deliver all it promises – freedom from government control does not equal freedom from other sources of power, including multi-national corporations. And she shows that the “liberal-devolpmental” approach is not neutral about its own premises – it is hostile to socialism and communism.
But, I mean, duh. Of course American foreign policy is hypocritical. Show me a country whose foreign policy has been consistent for any 55 year period. Foreign policy is a messy thing, interests conflict, issues change. Wouldn’t one expect inconsistent government policy through 14 different presidential administrations, two World Wars, the collapse of imperialism as the dominant economic system, and the rise of communism as an entirely new, competing economic system. And is anyone surprised that ideologies are not neutral about their own founding premises? To quote the Big Lebowski again, we’re not a bunch of freaking nihilists here.
And besides, aren’t there more important questions out there? Say, what were the effects of America’s liberal-devolpmentalist aspirations and rhetoric? Did America’s imperfect commitment to free enterprise and free speech (even defined as “mere” freedom from governmental interference) result in advances in the substantive values of liberalism Rosenberg mentions – “new roles for women, industrial education, the spread of temperance, and scientific advance” (9) – or others – economic growth, for example? Or, even if Rosenberg chooses to focus on the procedural values of liberal-developmentalism, isn’t a more relevant comparison how the U.S. compares to other countries? Compared to European and Japanese Imperialism, and Soviet Communism, America starts to look pretty damn adherent to liberal policies. Or is all Rosenberg is trying to say that America should just say that it's out for number one and stop all this mamby pamby?
In light of economic changes since this book came out in 1982, the socialist/communist alternative to liberal internationalism looks pretty unattractive. Mrs. Rosenberg’s book seem trapped in the same kind of time warp as Austin Powers suffered from. His response, when he learns that the presence of a Russian military officer in MI-6 is ok because the Cold War is over, is “Ah. Now those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes. Eh, comrades?” The Cold War is over, Mrs. Rosenberg. The bums lost. Condolences.
Her primary critique of American foreign policy is that it was hypocritical. The “problem[] with the liberal-developmentalist goals” of US foreign policy, she argues, is that “Americans involved in international affairs could preach and even believe in the basic tenets of free enterprise, open access, and free flow [of ideas], while they themselves applied them selectively and ignored their contradictions.” (232, 234) She undoubtedly demonstrates that American foreign policy, especially after WWII fell short of perfect adherence to the “liberal-developmentalist” approach. Hoover’s General Loan Policy (which limited the countries to which US Banks could lend) and Wilson’s support of RCA’s and Pan Am’s attempts to subvert international competition in radio and international air travel are examples. She also reveals that the “liberal-developmental” approach does not deliver all it promises – freedom from government control does not equal freedom from other sources of power, including multi-national corporations. And she shows that the “liberal-devolpmental” approach is not neutral about its own premises – it is hostile to socialism and communism.
But, I mean, duh. Of course American foreign policy is hypocritical. Show me a country whose foreign policy has been consistent for any 55 year period. Foreign policy is a messy thing, interests conflict, issues change. Wouldn’t one expect inconsistent government policy through 14 different presidential administrations, two World Wars, the collapse of imperialism as the dominant economic system, and the rise of communism as an entirely new, competing economic system. And is anyone surprised that ideologies are not neutral about their own founding premises? To quote the Big Lebowski again, we’re not a bunch of freaking nihilists here.
And besides, aren’t there more important questions out there? Say, what were the effects of America’s liberal-devolpmentalist aspirations and rhetoric? Did America’s imperfect commitment to free enterprise and free speech (even defined as “mere” freedom from governmental interference) result in advances in the substantive values of liberalism Rosenberg mentions – “new roles for women, industrial education, the spread of temperance, and scientific advance” (9) – or others – economic growth, for example? Or, even if Rosenberg chooses to focus on the procedural values of liberal-developmentalism, isn’t a more relevant comparison how the U.S. compares to other countries? Compared to European and Japanese Imperialism, and Soviet Communism, America starts to look pretty damn adherent to liberal policies. Or is all Rosenberg is trying to say that America should just say that it's out for number one and stop all this mamby pamby?
In light of economic changes since this book came out in 1982, the socialist/communist alternative to liberal internationalism looks pretty unattractive. Mrs. Rosenberg’s book seem trapped in the same kind of time warp as Austin Powers suffered from. His response, when he learns that the presence of a Russian military officer in MI-6 is ok because the Cold War is over, is “Ah. Now those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes. Eh, comrades?” The Cold War is over, Mrs. Rosenberg. The bums lost. Condolences.
posted by Tom Sawyer at 12:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home