The Short American Century: A Postmortemby Andrew J. Bacevich
In February 1941, Henry Luce announced the arrival of "The American Century." But that century-extending from World War II to the recent economic collapse-has now ended, victim of strategic miscalculation, military misadventures, and economic decline. Here some of America's most distinguished historians place the century in historical perspective.
This collection of essays constitutes a how-to manual for people who sense something deeply wrong with the current bipartisan consensus on American power, but can't quite articulate what it is.
Declining empires are dangerous. Popular enlightenment is urgent, and this book...will help...It is a valuable step toward the self-knowledge Americans will need if we and the rest of the world are to survive the long centuries ahead.
- Publication date:
- Sales rank:
- Product dimensions:
- 5.40(w) x 8.10(h) x 1.10(d)
Read an Excerpt
Chapter 10: Not So Different After All
In Henry Luce’s day and in our own, the abiding allure of the American Century (one to which even non-Americans can prove susceptible) stems from the conviction that the United States as a great power differs from every other great power in history. It stands apart: unique, singular, sans pareil.
In that sense, the American Century is American Exceptionalism manifested on a global scale. It represents potential realized, promise fulfilled, and responsibility finally and willingly accepted. With America’s arrival at the summit of world power, humankind’s journey toward freedom, destined to culminate in the universal embrace of American values, reaches its decisive phase. If history, as George W. Bush proclaimed in 2005, “has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty,” then the American Century defines the moment in which Liberty’s Author has chosen to complete His work, thereby accomplishing “the mission that created our Nation.”
As Bush’s choice of language suggests, that mission has sacred overtones. Speaking in 1919, Woodrow Wilson, another war president, emphasized this point. The doughboys who had left American shores to fight on the Western Front, he declared, “were crusaders.”
They were not going forth to prove the might of the United States. They were going forth to prove the might of justice and right, and all the world accepted them as crusaders, and their transcendent achievement has made all the world believe in America as it believes in no other nation... [T]he moral obligation that rests upon us ... [is] to see the thing through ... and make good their redemption of the world.
Seeking neither dominion nor empire, the United States uses its power to advance the cause of all humanity. Wilson emphatically believed this; since U.S. entry into World War II, those following him to the White House have routinely endorsed that view. Even—perhaps especially—when the United States employs armed force, its purposes are by definition beyond reproach. To the extent that the pursuit of interests shapes U.S. policy, satisfying those interests points to the building of a better and more peaceful world. Speaking in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson put it this way: “we fight for values and we fight for principles, rather than territory or colonies. [Therefore], no nation need ever fear that we desire their land, or to impose our will, or to dictate their institutions.” Although referring specifically to Vietnam, Johnson was expressing sentiments shared by the presidents who preceded him and those who followed him in the American Century. Greed, hubris, and ambition might motivate others to wield the sword, but Americans fight for a Just Cause to Restore Hope in pursuit of Enduring Freedom. More than simply compatible, U.S. interests, American ideals, and the well-being of humankind all converge at a single point. To paraphrase Eisenhower-era defense secretary Charles E. Wilson, what’s good for the United States is good for the world as a whole and vice versa.
To many Americans, even to question this proposition is intolerable. Note the furor unleashed in 2009 when Barack Obama offered a less than categorical endorsement of his nation’s special standing. “I believe in American exceptionalism,” the president remarked in response to a reporter’s question, “just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” To critics, such cultural equivalence was cause for outrage. “President Obama may be the first American president to lack faith in our special history, our special spirit and our special mission in the world,” a commentator for Forbes complained. A National Review cover story accused Obama of proposing “to abandon our traditional sense of ourselves as an exceptional nation,” while throwing overboard America’s “unique role and mission in the world.” Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and presumed presidential hopeful, concurred. Obama’s “world view is dramatically different from any president, Republican or Democrat, we’ve had,” he charged. “To deny American exceptionalism is, in essence, to deny the heart and soul of this nation.” Sarah Palin likewise took Obama to task. “Sad to say,” wrote the former governor of Alaska, “many of our national leaders no longer believe in American exceptionalism.
Meet the Author
Andrew J. Bacevich is Professor of International Relations and History at Boston University.
Akira Iriye is Charles Warren Professor of American History, Emeritus, at Harvard University.
Emily S. Rosenberg is Professor of History at the University of California, Irvine.
Nikhil Pal Singh is Visiting Associate Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and History Director of the Program in American Studies at New York University.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews
Historians continually keep clarifying history, and the essays in this book do a remarkable job of just that. Most interesting are the various perceptions/approaches the historians have taken to make make sense of the short lived "American Century." This is an important book.