-
Competing at The Cliburn
April 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
They’ve Got Mail
April 8, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Nailing French Jell-O to the Wall
October 16, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Were You Thinking What I Was Thinking?
August 17, 2012 | 43 comments
-
Mike Wallace: Cheesy or Riveting or Both?
April 16, 2012 | 68 comments
Buy the Book
Dark Destiny?
William Pfaff decries American foreign policy in a way that may give readers, left and right, pause.
The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America’s Foreign
Policy
By William Pfaff
(Walker & Co., 240 pages, $25)
It was hardly necessary, but William Pfaff warns us anyway that some of the unconventional thinking in his new book “may give the reader pause” In fact, giving pause his been his specialty throughout his 50-odd years as a foreign affairs commentator.
Pfaff continues to write as a “realist” from his expatriate base in Paris, apparently unconcerned by the reaction he invites from both right and left.
His main complaint in The Irony of Manifest Destiny, his ninth book, is that the avowed American objective of exporting universal democracy amounts to a secular utopian gambit. As such, it is an “intellectually unsustainable idea as well as politically impossible to achieve, hence a cause for global concern.”
Pfaff’s argument builds on an emerging body of thought from other analysts, including Thomas Corothers’ 2008 Foreign Affairs article and David Reiff’s book At the Point of a Gun.
For balance, he acknowledges that he speaks for a minority view. “Republicans generally as well as neoconservatives and a great many people from the liberal camp remain supporters of the idea that the world’s destiny is democracy.” But he is convinced this road leads nowhere. “It is evident,” he writes, “that democracy on the American model is not going to be made to prevail in the contemporary world.”
The conduct of U.S. foreign policy, he believes, has been “breathtaking in its ignorance of history” and disastrous for targeted countries as well as the United States itself.
Pfaff takes his title from the old slogan of the 19th century when the United States was forcing its coast-to-coast geographical unity. That destiny seemed manifest, at least to Americans. Since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, however, the concept has been “reimagined as a divinely ordained mission to humanity and is now essential to the American myth”.
He sketches 250 years of history in somewhat polemical terms, concluding that a Wilsonian global federation of democracies is “unrealistic and has virtually no chance of succeeding”.
In recent decades, he says, the idea became more dangerous as it was recast to authorize “aggressive international intervention, and when necessary preemption, to destroy obstacles to the American vision of the future”.
Today, he asserts, moral constraints have been relaxed and “nothing is prohibited other than what we prohibit ourselves.” Ethical values, he maintains, “have been subordinated to an ideology of national triumphalism”.
Pfaff wondered how we became so deluded, and set about in this book to pinpoint the shift in Western thought that made is possible. He found the fault line in the Enlightenment of 18th century Europe, when religious domination of governance was cast aside in favor of secular utopianism.
“The Enlightenment created a Western intellectual and moral structure that was expected to rest on reason, scientific knowledge and secular progress, but in this case [U.S. foreign policy] does not.
Perhaps anticipating a critical outcry, Pfaff is quick to acknowledge that this book, probably the last of his long career, is “inevitably the work of sweeping journalistic generalizations.” Enlightenment scholars will be nodding in agreement. Some of his assertions seem sweeping indeed, notably his lack of nuance in his account of the history of Western thought and his failure to support his theses with references from Enlightenment luminaries such as Denis Diderot, or at least Voltaire.
Pfaff also seems a bit cavalier in his condemnation of the current U.S. mission, scarcely mentioning the medieval justice systems of the Taliban and what that means for modern Afghans — brutality and suppression of women. He approvingly quotes the late George Kennan as saying the world has its share of unstable governments, “But so what? We are not their keepers. We never will be.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Michael Johnson
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/03/dark-destiny
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
canuckistani| 9.3.10 @ 8:23AM
It would be interesting to compare the rise and fall of colonial europe to the challenges we have in Manifest Destiny.
It is a human flaw that we typically choose to have contempt and suspicion of foreigners, especially when they attempt to influence long-standing traditions? even if the aims are wholly beneficial to the natives? I do know we bristle when any faction attempts to criticize any US sacred cow.
I think most can agree that people left their home countries behind and started anew in America. It was a consequence of proximity and the vast separation that occurred when coming to the new world. The Irish would have "wakes" when a person or family chose to come here, as they often were never to return.
Maybe there is something in the immediacy of contact that is stopping the progress of democracy in many countries?
I haven't seen it first hand, but does anyone know the roots of "don't trust the smiling white man"?
Truth to Power| 9.3.10 @ 7:55PM
"I haven't seen it first hand, but does anyone know the roots of "don't trust the smiling white man"?"
It was coined today by some tory in Canada today. If you substitute progressive for white man, you might be on to something.
Truth to Power| 9.3.10 @ 7:55PM
"I haven't seen it first hand, but does anyone know the roots of "don't trust the smiling white man"?"
It was coined today by some tory in Canada today. If you substitute progressive for white man, you might be on to something.
Alan Brooks| 9.4.10 @ 10:55PM
Technically Pffaf is correct, but until-- that is to say IF -- nationalism ceases, a nation will attempt hegemony, imperialism, even genocide.
IMO China will take America's place-- but they are no better than us and less democratic politically.
Alanb Brooks| 9.4.10 @ 10:58PM
Pfaff, not Pffaf--
wouldn't want to get an egotistical writer's panties in a bunch by misspelling his name.
GreyLion| 9.8.10 @ 5:56AM
Alan,
you wear panties???
Rasy| 9.3.10 @ 10:17AM
Democracy is "intellectually unsustainable idea as well as politically impossible to achieve, hence a cause for global concern?" Hay, Pfaff, how's that European Imperialism working out for you? Not too well, I see.
Smirking Weasel| 9.3.10 @ 2:26PM
" We are not their. keepers. We never will be."
Oh, hell YES!
THE fundamental principal of a actually AMERICAN foreign policy.
It should be tattooed on the faces of slimy chickenhawks everywhere-Kristol, Krauthammer,
Lieberman, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Blair, on and on and on.
Alan Brooks| 9.5.10 @ 9:20PM
McCain??
No wonder your handle is "smirking weasel".
Dai Alanye | 9.3.10 @ 3:03PM
First, my congratulations to Mr Pfaff for setting up a splendid straw man in "Manifest Destiny." But why not go a step further and declare autocracy to be "Democracy." That would get us all out of the woods.
It is, in fact, quite apparent we are NOT attempting to export "democracy on the American model" for then we would create representative government on the level of township and school board rather than design a system that appoints local governors and police chiefs from Baghdad and Kabul. In other words, let the locals directly prescribe how much corruption they can accept to gain some order in their lives. You know, the way we do things in the U S.
I propose we start this new approach by encouraging true American-style government in Iran. Recognize a government in exile and give appropriate aid. After overthrow of the mullahs encourage a federal system in New Iran, featuring elected officials from the lowest to the highest levels of governance.
Begin with the grassroots, in other words, and depend on the people themselves to look after the higher levels rather than our attempting to set up some euro-style form of rule from the top.
Oh, and ignore the whining of William "Frenchie" Pfaff.
Alan Brooks| 9.5.10 @ 9:24PM
"let the locals directly prescribe how much corruption they can accept to gain some order in their lives. You know, the way we do things in the U S."
Now there is a good point. Nor is corruption lacking in France.
David March| 9.3.10 @ 3:30PM
Yeah western democracy was not sucessfully exported to Afghanistan, when they decided to kill a former Muslim who converted to Christianity. Thats when they completely lost me.
martin j smith| 9.3.10 @ 5:01PM
It is possible that at least one reason why Pfaff is not viewed with much confidence is because in addition to the radical Islamic threat which most Americans are concerned about, we have Russuia and China and their various client states. Many of these client statetes do present dangers regionally in far the far and middle east--Iran and North Korea. Then you have Hugo Chavez in South America and other wanna beez. I think the isssue is that there are too many loose cannons any one of which can lead to a trigger even. The "world" may not be sold on "Democracy" but we do not have to be sold on tryrrany. My motto would be: speak reasonably, but carry a big stick.
nekoxgirl| 9.3.10 @ 7:01PM
American's fate was pretty much sealed when Woodrow Wilson got elected President. Not only did he send the United States down the path of "making the world safe for democracy" he also brought us the Federal Reserve to fund this foolishness.
Now we stand at the precipice of the fall of the Republic and the beginning of a new world order that, if it has its way, will bring back the very system of governance that we rebelled against and nearly destroyed in the late 1700's.
Mimi| 9.3.10 @ 7:45PM
For what it is worth...My opinion is..
In the heart of ALL men by his very nature..He yearns to be FREE. It will always be the best to strive for democracy. The U.S.A. was born on that principle. The French desired its people to know its fruits.... and over a century ago,
presented our free people with the statue of LIBERTY. We have helped many thru the years
obtain democracy at great sacrifice to our sons and daughters. All over the EARTH it will always be or strivings to be FREE!!!
J.C.Eaton| 9.3.10 @ 10:10PM
Mimi, you may be right that liberty breathes in the hearts of most folks throughout the world, and you are surely correct that many are free because of our military's exertions[I don't equate "democracy' with freedom necessarily, after all, an illustration of purest democracy is a lynch-mob] but having said that, I do not believe we have a moral imperative to "free ' everyone who desires the condition. If there ever was a time we could afford to do that, that time is past.
Mimi| 9.4.10 @ 3:59PM
J.C....Right now we are fighting tooth and nail for our own LIBERTY. The time of wars... on the earth hopfully will be replaced by technology in communications to spread the message to all who dwell in bondage. For the here and now for us we must be our own guardians and reverse our own SHIP!
cats1cowboy| 9.4.10 @ 6:50AM
The United States was founded as a democratic Republic, not a democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner.
PCP Smoker| 9.4.10 @ 9:35AM
"Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Pol Pot's genocide, Iran's theocracy, and of course Iraq and Afghanistan."
So, if the US had not intervened in southeast Asia, despite being a member of SEATO, the communist would not have murdered and starved its victims?
Were Pol Pot's action the result of US intervention in SE Asia or the result of a lack of intervention?
Then again, why decry the "tragedy" of Pol Pot's, or any other communist regime, when one advocates isolationism?
The lack of US involvement in Afghanistan led to regime of the Taliban. They became a heaven for Al Queda, which led to 9/11. To shut one's eyes to this reality, is to shut one's eyes to the reality that bad guys are always on the attack. Follow this policy and be prepared for more 9/11s
Tim*| 9.4.10 @ 2:33PM
United States National Interests are not necessarily served by using our warriors as cannon fodder to repeatedly force feed elements of Democracy around the Globe .
While completed Afghanistan & Iraq military actions can be discussed , any further attempts to use Our Warriors in other foreign nations needs to be debated .
ubu roi| 9.4.10 @ 2:42PM
I'm with PCP Smoker, I see nothing to suggest, that had the US remained out of southeast Asia, that the murder, rapine and bloody aggression of communist tyrants would have somehow been otherwise--it would have been far worse, and probably would have spread further and with a much larger overall toll of life and property.
That the US refused to address the brutal intent of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan until the contagion was at our doorstep was a profound failure of action and nerve--both should have been confronted with military power years earlier, and with the resolve to defeat both, not merely contain them. I see nothing in Pfaff that suggests he would have advocated such action.
I'm with Pfaff on the limits of democracy, and all ears when it comes to cold-eyed realism, but my realism comes from Hobbes and Machiavelli, and doesn't have all the hand-wringing, unilateral moral baggage he carries around on his sleeve.
unseen| 9.5.10 @ 11:20AM
This is what passes for mainstream thought?
I see Pfaff "forgets" about Germany and Japan and South Korea where American "type" of government was exported and has worked well enough for generations.
Even the manifest destiny itself shows that exporting the idea of American style democracy works. We exported the founders vision across an entire continent. Once placed that type of government has functioned well for 100 years in all climates, all cultures and all lands where it has been tried.
The fact of the matter is that liberal multicultulism in the 70's and beyond made Leaders in America stop exporting American ideas and instead tried to twist deomcracy into present types of cultures and governments.
Afgan and Iraq we allowed them to form their own type of government neither are based on US style limited gov.
The reason US gov works is because it limits governmental power, splits power between branches and local governments (federalism) andgives the individual freedom. Without those key aspects of our government simply giving people a vote is not going to work.
the sad fact is our present leaders do not understand our government, do not understand why it works and no longer thinks our type of government is the greatest designed by man. In fact the prsent POTUS wants to transform that type of government into something else.
Why would he or bush export something they do not like very and do not agree with fully.
Bob K.| 9.5.10 @ 8:47PM
If you are going to read this book you might as well also buy and read John Lukacs' "DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM -- Fear and Hatred." ISBN 0-300-11693-4 Yale Univ. Press 2005. 248pp
Here is a couple of quotes from it to give you something to think about. Quote from page 5 while discussing Toqueville: "Is democracy the rule of the people, or, more precisely: rule by the people? No: because it is, really and actually, rule in the name of the people."
Another quote on page 15: "Any history of modern democracy (which, I again insist, is not at all identical with any history of "liberty").........."
Page 27: "Democracy, and popular sovereignty, had become sacrosanct American principle and political reality, latest by the 1820s; and so they are today."
PCC| 9.6.10 @ 7:09AM
We should export manufactured goods, business and financial services, software, music and films, even political ideas.
Let's stop exporting our troops.
Pete Brown| 9.6.10 @ 11:32AM
Why does the link from the front page have a picture of Fred Barnes?