Shopping as an Imperial right

Bacevich argues that for America to move forward it would do best to concentrate on two policies: nuclear disarmament (of itself first and foremost) and preservation of the planet (where it should lead by example). He does not totally dismiss the threat of Islamic extremism but argues for a defensive policy of containment rather than an offensive and pre-emptive approach. However, this book offers more critique than prescriptions for future presidents.

Bacevich’s discussion of the history of the American quest for independence from foreign oil seemed particularly apt after the rhetoric of the Republican Party convention last week. American leaders have promised this independence many times: Carter most presciently in his so-called malaise speech; Reagan and Bush most vacuously and every candidate in the current presidential campaign. At the Republican Party convention, Sarah Palin’s speech was regularly punctuated by chants from the crowd of “drill, baby, drill”.

Bacevich’s book offers a matter of fact critique of consumer culture and imperial politics and for this he should be congratulated. However, the benefits of America’s restlessness and its search for more (and something better) is undervalued. For traditional conservatives, America has often been seen as disruptive and shallow; however, I would contest that this “feverish ardor” as de Tocqueville called it, played a crucial role in breaking down class barriers (particularly social class distinctions), promoting democracy at home, (and yes abroad, beginning in fact with Europe) and promoting the notion of individual human rights.

It can not be denied that America has used the language of freedom too often to mask self-interest, and fine sounding words have frequently been used to justify crude social engineering of the type Paul Bremer attempted in Iraq. However, without this often blundering force for change in the world, many people would be more exposed to the cruelties of local dictators and customs. As imperfect as America’s record has been, a globally engaged America seems to me more desirable than the realist vision for American foreign policy presented by Andrew Bacevich. I argue this because greed and folly is not only an American syndrome.

The great weakness of Bacevich’s analysis is that he fails to consider the comparative dimension of international affairs. In other words, he fails to deal with the reality that as bad as American conduct often is, it is frequently better and more transparent than that of other nations all of whom have their own national pathologies and transnational desires.