Originally submitted to Political Science
308, April 19, 2000
In his book, The Imperative
of American Leadership, Joshua Muravchik discusses the phenomenon of
Neo-Isolationism. Muravchik argues
against what he identifies as the tendency of the United States to shy away from
taking a strong leadership role.
Muravchik cites the example in Yugoslavia
as a case study of how neither Europe nor the United States was able to exert
strong leadership in a time of crisis.
His conclusion is a unilateral leadership role that the United States
should assume.
I found
reading Joshua Muravchik to be an interesting experience. One thought that frequently reoccurred to me
as I was reading his book was: “how could a man who knows so much be so stupid?” Muravchik continually amazed me with his
logical gaps and his outrageous statements.
My personal favorite was: “We entered World War II late and won it. We entered the cold war late and won it” (208). This not only ignores the fact that the
Soviet Union was largely responsible for turning Germany
back, but also leaves any intelligent reader wonder how the cold war could
exist before the United
States entered it.
In order to
refute all of Muravchik’s logical shortcomings would require almost a page by
page analysis. I have decided instead to
focus on three general assumptions he bases his book on. These are what I primarily objected to.
To begin
with, I consider myself a Christian pacifist.
I do not believe that military intervention is an acceptable Christian
alternative in any situation. I realize
that this is not mainstream political thought, and I do not expect Muravchik to
agree with me. What I resent is the way
he ignored the distinction between pacifism and isolationism. Muravchik was all too eager to lump pacifists
in the same category as Pat Buchanan.
Like
Muravchik, I believe America
has a responsibility to help the rest of the world. Like Muravchik, I believe that all life is
sacred, not just that of American citizens.
However, I do not believe that dropping bombs and sending troops will
solve anything. It is unfair of
Muravchik to then assume I am an isolationist and care nothing about the rest
of the world. Muravchik does not even address the pacifist alternative.
There is a
second problem I have with Muravchik. At
one point in the book, he uses an analogy of global politics as the hawks
preying on the weaker birds. Muravchik asserts that the American leadership is
needed to stop the hawks. This is his
assumption throughout the book, but Muravchik gives no thought to the idea that
the United States
might well be the hawk.
Muravchik
cites the example in Iraq as
an example of positive United
States foreign policy. Not mentioned is the devastation that the
Gulf War and the following economic sanctions have caused the Iraqi
people. Muravchik does not even consider
this. (Although perhaps the fact that
this book was written four years ago does excuse Muravchik somewhat. The debate on the Iraqi sanctions has
increased in recent years.)
Worse,
Muravchik cites Reagan’s policy in Nicaragua as another positive
example. Personally I believe what
Reagan did to Nicaragua
was unforgivable. Again, I realize this
is still a matter of debate, and I do not expect Muravchik to agree with
me. However, Muravchik treats Nicaragua as if
there were no debate. In doing this, Muravchik loses much of his credibility
and shows what a narrow perspective he has on world events. (I can not resist mentioning here that last
semester I read another Muravchik book: Media Coverage of the Sandinista
Revolution. I found this book
narrow-minded as well).
More
telling is the examples Muravchik does not bring up. Perhaps if Muravchik wanted to see a good
example of American foreign policy, he should look at Guatemala in the 1950s, or Argentina in the early 1970s. He should take a closer look at El Salvador during the 1980s, as well as current
United States
funding to Colombian military. Of
course, Muravchik should not forget the School of the Americas. Finally Muravchik should consider the current
exploitation of third world countries by American corporations. Then perhaps Muravchik would agree with me
that America
is not the white knight protecting the world from hawks, but the hawk from whom
the rest of the world needs protection.
The United States
has proven repeatedly that it is not the kind of leader the world wants.
And then
there is Muravchik’s discussion on world trade.
As with the Iraq
example, Muravchik should be given some slack for having written the book in
1996, before the debates about the World Trade Organization were forced into
the public eye. However, Muravchik again
bases his argument off of assumptions that are not universally shared.
At a recent
IMF protest I saw a sign that said, “Hey Bankers, your profits are being made
with the bodies of third world women.”
Although this sign is an obvious oversimplification of the problems
surrounding globalization, it brings up a point completely absent from
Muravchik’s discussion. Muravchik says
that “The less-developed countries do not want to slow their ascent from
poverty for the sake of the environment.
Who are we to stand in their way?” (203). Not only does this quote ignore the fact that
the welfare of third world people is frequently closely connected to their
environment, it makes the assumption that the wealth of the third world elites
will benefit the mass of the third world.
In fact one could make the argument (as thousands of Americans did in Seattle) that the
policies of the World Trade Organization is harmful to the great majority of
third world workers. Perhaps America should
use its influence to secure the rights of the third world people instead of
just focusing on opening up their markets.
Although
Muravchik has plenty of data at his disposal in the writing of this book, it is
obvious he is looking only at a narrow set of data and examples. Muravchik sees the world through patriotic
lenses, but he does not realize the world neither wants nor needs American
leadership. Hopefully others will find
his ideas as ridiculous as I do.
Professor’s comments:
On Outsourcing
Jobs: This is a mixed bag—outsourcing
has given millions of jobs to people in the 3rd world…Poor ones by our
standards, but good by theirs. Of course
improvements can and should be made…I think the WTO can be a plus in this
regard.
On the world desiring
American leadership: The world is a complex place—some parts want and have
benefited from American involvement…including Bosnian Muslims and others
throughout Eastern Europe. So your statement needs qualification.
On the WTO:
Complicated Issue—but I tend to disagree from what I know. The WTO hasn’t been around long enough to
make any conclusive judgements.
Final Comments: I think we are a leader in some ways whether
we like it or not. WE are too big not to
have a big impact on other states in the world.
I think the world does need the right kind of U.S.
leadership—The UN and other multilateral approaches requires active positive U.S.
involvement (leadership) if they are to be effective.
The question is what
kind of leadership we will give. On this
question you rightly make some telling comments.
A well argued and
written paper (critique). Some points
could use qualification.
Grade: A/A-
No comments:
Post a Comment