Joe Biden: A Realist Cold War Liberal (SETA Policy Briefs Book 21)

---

Kennedy rather than Jimmy Carter in his approach, he increasingly resembles a Cold War style Democratic hawk. As he noted in Oslo:. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people … Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Yet Obama did not believe that an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan was an option he could consider, given the policies and strategy set in place by his predecessor. Do we need to defeat the Taliban? They will be useful in this coalition. However, Biden also made clear that in return for the new tone and approach of the Obama administration, the US would expect more from its partners.

It is not only the war in Afghanistan that has exposed the dilemmas Obama faces. On a range of issues, from climate change to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and the challenges posed by Iran and North Korea, Obama has often found himself having to compromise. As Zbigniew Bzrezinski argued in early He has done this remarkably well. In less than a year, he has comprehensively reconceptualized U. Climate change was one such issue, but even despite the pressing domestic challenges Obama faced, he played a crucial role in helping facilitate negotiations with the Chinese and Indians behind the scenes at Copenhagen.

Although those negotiations delivered a non-binding agreement that fell far short of what many had hoped for, the challenges of getting a comprehensive, binding agreement were always going to exceed the persuasive powers of one individual. Obama generated leverage with Russia in abandoning Bush-era plans for a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic that had led to a deep rift in relations, and developing a new plan focused on the threat of short-range missiles from Iran.

Crucially, the improved relationship with Russia is now beginning to facilitate cooperation on Iran, with the Russians supporting tough new UN sanctions. However, the term was also picked up by Joseph Nye. A good reputation fosters goodwill and brings acceptance for unpopular ventures. This approach will require a shift in how the U. Obama and Clinton have built upon the Public Diplomacy 2. Updates via text message reached 20, non-US citizens in over countries around the world, with the texts being available in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and eight other languages.

In addition, translated versions of the speech were available to download on YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace, and the South Asian social networking site Orkut. The White House used Facebook to conduct an international discussion on the event, while responses to the speech submitted via text messages were compiled and later posted on America. The Obama Administration has breathed new life into public diplomacy initiatives, and accorded it a far higher priority than the Bush Administration.

The focus on listening and engagement is pronounced as is the deliberate effort to communicate respect and understanding. The rhetoric is less shrill, less demanding and less confrontational. Metaphorically, the image of U. To that end, the US under Obama has achieved a better balance than under Bush, but there remain policies, including the use of force in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the failure to close Guantanamo, that continue to undermine the image of America the administration is trying to disseminate.

Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

Pragmatism, it seemed, had again trumped principle. As the administration debated military options, the perception grew that the UK and France were dragging Obama into the conflict, but accounts of the decision-making process reveal an administration, once again, carefully weighing up its options, conscious of how its actions might be perceived in the Arab world, and a determination to work through the UN and Arab League. Hillary Clinton justified the US response in stating that. Obama appears something of a paradox: It is a form of action - powerfully so - in favour of the status quo.

And most everyone in the region understands it as such. Obama appears to have an astute ability to see the world not in narrow black-and-white, good v. America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future — particularly young people… We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo — to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease.

Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with — and listen to — the voices of the people. In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Historians often use to date a philosophical realignment within the American electorate away from Democratic liberalism and toward Reagan Era conservatism. Abrams argues that the eclipse of liberalism was caused by a grass-roots populist revolt, often with a Fundamentalist and anti-modern theme, abetted by corporations eager to weaken labor unions and the regulatory regime of the New Deal.

The success of liberalism in the first place, he argues, came from efforts of a liberal elite that had entrenched itself in key social, political, and especially judicial positions. These elites, Abrams contends, imposed their brand of liberalism from within some of the least democratic and most insulated institutions, especially the universities, foundations, independent regulatory agencies, and the Supreme Court.

With only a weak popular base, liberalism was vulnerable to a populist counterrevolution by the nation's democratic or majoritarian forces.

The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. In the United States, Third Way adherents embrace fiscal conservatism to a greater extent than traditional social liberals, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare , and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems as in pollution markets , while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions.

The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the administration of President Bill Clinton. Think of Nixon's economic policies, which were a continuation of Johnson's "Great Society"; Clinton's welfare reform and support of capital punishment; and Obama's pragmatic centrism, reflected in his embrace, albeit very recent, of entitlements reform.

Democrats founded a new think tank in Washington, D. The Third Way has been heavily criticized by many social democrats , democratic socialists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values. The Democratic Leadership Council shut down in Commenting on the DLC's waning influence, Politico characterized it as "the iconic centrist organization of the Clinton years" that "had long been fading from its mid-'90s political relevance, tarred by the left as a symbol of 'triangulation' at a moment when there's little appetite for intra-party warfare on the center-right".

Specific definitions of third way policies may differ between Europe and America. Republican and staunch conservative George W. Bush won the United States president election in a tightly contested race that included multiple recounts in the state of Florida. Gore case the Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision ordering a third recount, essentially ending the dispute and resulting in Bush winning the presidency by electoral vote even though he lost the popular vote to Democrat and incumbent Vice President Al Gore.

Bush's policies were deeply unpopular amongst American liberals, particularly his launching of the Iraq War , which led to the return of massive protest politics in the form of Opposition to the War in Iraq. Bush received heavy criticism for his handling of the Iraq War , his response to Hurricane Katrina and to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse , NSA warrantless surveillance , the Plame affair , and Guantanamo Bay detention camp controversies.

When the financial system verged on total collapse during the financial crisis , Bush pushed through large-scale rescue packages for banks and auto companies that some conservatives in Congress did not support and led some conservative commentators to criticize Bush for enacting legislation they saw as "not conservative" and more reminiscent of New Deal liberal ideology. In part due to backlash against the Bush administration, Barack Obama , seen by some as a liberal and progressive, [] was elected to the presidency in , the first African-American to hold the office.

In reaction to ongoing financial crisis that began in , protest politics continued into the Obama administration, most notably in the form of Occupy Wall Street.

Although some of these were cited by liberal activists and Democrats, this information did not fully become a center of national attention until it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. During a news conference on October 6, , President Obama said, "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country Obama was re-elected president in November , defeating Republican nominee Mitt Romney , and was sworn in for a second term on January 20, During his second term, Obama has promoted domestic policies related to gun control in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting , and has called for full equality for LGBT Americans, while his administration has filed briefs which urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act of and California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

The shooting of Michael Brown and death of Eric Garner led to widespread protests particularly in Ferguson where Brown was shot against perceived police militarization more generally and alleged police brutality against African-Americans more specifically. Murdock wrote, "the notion that America's cops simply are gunning down innocent black people is one of today's biggest and deadliest lies.

Since the s, there has been a concerted effort from both the left and right to color the word "liberal" with negative connotations. As those efforts succeeded more and more, "progressives" and their opponents took advantage of the negative meaning to great effect. In the presidential campaign, Republican George H. Conservative activists since the s have employed "liberal" as an epithet, giving it an ominous or sinister connotation, while invoking phrases like "free enterprise", "individual rights", "patriotic", and "the American way" to describe opponents of liberalism.

Bush , confident that many Americans regarded "liberal" as a pejorative term, used it to label his political opponents during campaign speeches, while his opponents subsequently avoided identifying themselves as liberal. Her outspoken liberal views led to ridicule and opposition from the conservative wing of the Republican Party and by conservative activists who referred to Ford as "No Lady" and thought her actions were unbecoming of a First Lady in an increasingly conservative Republican Party.

Ronald Reagan 's ridicule of liberalism is credited with transforming "liberal" into a derogatory epithet that any politician seeking national office would avoid. Watt said "I never use the words Republicans and Democrats. It's liberals and Americans. His conviction that there existed a single proper personal behavior, religious worldview, economic system, and proper attitude toward nations and peoples not supporting U.

Reagan persuaded a large portion of the public to dismiss any sincere analyses of his administration's policies as politically motivated criticisms put forth by what he labeled a "liberal" media. Bush employed the word "liberal" as a derogatory epithet during his presidential campaign.

He referred to liberalism as "the L-word" and sought to demonize opposing presidential candidate Michael Dukakis by labeling Dukakis "the liberal governor" and by pigeonholing him as part of what Bush called "the L-crowd". Bush recognized that motivating voters to fear Dukakis as a risky, non-mainstream candidate generated political support for his own campaign.

Bush's campaign also used issues of prayer to arouse suspicions that Dukakis was less devout in his religious convictions. Bush's running mate, vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle said to Christians at the Republican National Convention "It's always good to be with people who are real Americans". Bush by moving closer to the political center. Liberal Republicans have voiced disappointment over conservative attacks on liberalism.

Andersen , who commented that it's "unfortunate today that 'liberal' is used as a derogatory term". Historian Kevin Boyle explains, "There was a time when liberalism was, in Arthur Schlesinger's words 'a fighting faith' Over the last three decades, though, liberalism has become an object of ridicule, condemned for its misplaced idealism, vilified for its tendency to equivocate and compromise, and mocked for its embrace of political correctness.

Now even the most ardent reformers run from the label, fearing the damage it will inflict". Finkelstein was recognized by Democratic political consultants for having employed a formula of branding someone as a liberal and engaging in name-calling by using the word "liberal" in negative television commercials as frequently as possible, such as in a ad against U.

Call liberal Jack Reed and tell him his record on welfare is just too liberal for you. Democratic candidates and political liberals have hidden from the word "liberal", in some cases identifying instead with terms such as "progressive" or "moderate". Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney accused their opponents of liberal elitism, softness, and pro-terrorism. When liberals shifted to the word "progressive" to describe their beliefs, conservative radio host Glenn Beck used "progressive" as an abusive label.

Nothing is too bad for conservative bloggers and columnists—let alone radio hosts—to say about liberals. Conservative politicians and publicists, by dint of associating liberals with all manner of absurdity so that many sensible people hesitated to risk being tagged with the label of liberalism, succeeded in persuading the country that it was more conservative than it actually was.

Alterman points out that resistance to the label "liberal" is not surprising due to billions of dollars worth of investment poured into the denigration of the term. Alterman acknowledges political scientist Drew Westen 's observation that for most Americans, the word "liberal" now carries meanings such as "elite", "tax and spend", and "out of touch".

Introduction: “This Time, We Didn’t Have To”

American liberals describe themselves as open to change and receptive to new ideas. Liberals tend to oppose the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in that a corporation's first amendment right to free speech encompasses freedom to make unlimited independent expenditures for any political party, politician or lobbyist as they see fit.

President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil , Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans". In general, liberalism opposes socialism when socialism is understood to mean an alternative to capitalism based on state ownership of the means of production. American liberals doubt that bases for political opposition and freedom can survive when all power is vested in the state, as it was under state-socialist regimes.

In line with the general pragmatic, empirical basis of liberalism, American liberal philosophy embraces the idea that if substantial abundance and equality of opportunity can be achieved through a system of mixed ownership , then there is no need for a rigid and oppressive bureaucracy. Economist Paul Krugman argued that in hitherto-state-dominated functions such as nation-scale energy distribution and telecommunications, marketizations can improve efficiency dramatically.

These distortions are of a kind that war-time and post-war Keynesian economists had accepted as an inevitable byproduct of fiscal policies that selectively reduced certain consumer taxes and directed spending toward government-managed stimulus projects—even where these economists theorized at a contentious distance from some of Keynes's own, more hands-off, positions, which tended to emphasize stimulating of business investment.

There is a fundamental split among liberals as to the role of the state. Brands notes "the growth of the state is, by perhaps the most common definition, the essence of modern American liberalism". According to cognitive linguist George Lakoff , liberal philosophy is based on five basic categories of morality.

The first, the promotion of fairness, is generally described as an emphasis on empathy as a desirable trait. With this social contract based on the Golden Rule comes the rationale for many liberal positions. The second category is assistance to those who cannot assist themselves. A nurturing, philanthropic spirit is one that is considered good in liberal philosophy. This leads to the third category, the desire to protect those who cannot defend themselves. The fourth category is the importance of fulfilling one's life; allowing a person to experience all that they can. The fifth and final category is the importance of caring for oneself, since only thus can one act to help others.

Liberalism increasingly shaped American intellectual life in the s and s, thanks in large part to two major two-volume studies that were widely read by academics, advanced students, intellectuals and the general public: Parrington , Main Currents in American Thought 2 vol The Beards exposed the material forces that shaped American history, while Parrington, focused on the material forces that shaped American literature.

Virtually all political history, according to the Beards, involved the bitter conflict between the agrarians, farmers and workers, led by the Jeffersonians, and the capitalists, led by the Hamiltonians. The Civil War marked a great triumph of the capitalists, and comprised the "Second American Revolution. According to historian Ralph Gabriel:. Main Currents attempted to trace the history of liberalism in the American scene for citizens who were caught in a desperate predicament. It was an age in which American liberalism set the United States, through the New Deal, on a Democratic middle-of-the-road course between the contemporary extremisms of Europe, that of Communism on one hand, and of Fascism on the other The style of Main Currents was powered by Parrington's dedication to the cause of humane liberalism, by his ultimate humanistic, democratic faith.

He saw the democratic dreams of the romantic first half of the 19th century as the climax of an epic story toward which early Americans moved and from which later Americans fell away. Liberal readers immediately realized where they stood in the battle between Jeffersonian democracy and Hamiltonian privilege. The Beards, for example, "dismissed the agitations of the abolitionists as a small direct consequence because of their lack of appeal to the public. Princeton historian Eric F.

Goldman helped define American liberalism for postwar generations of university students. The first edition of his most influential work appeared in For decades it was a staple of the undergraduate curriculum in history, highly regarded for its style and its exposition of modern American liberalism. According to Priscilla Roberts:. Lively, well-written, and highly readable, it provided an overview of eight decades of reformers, complete with arresting vignettes of numerous individuals, and stressed the continuities among successful American reform movements.

Writing at the height of the Cold War, he also argued that the fundamental liberal tradition of the United States was moderate, centrist, and incrementalist, and decidedly non-socialist and non-totalitarian. While broadly sympathetic to the cause of American reform, Goldman was far from uncritical toward his subjects, faulting progressives of World War I for their lukewarm reception of the League of Nations, American reformers of the s for their emphasis on freedom of lifestyles rather than economic reform, and those of the s for overly tolerant attitude toward Soviet Russia.

His views of past American reformers encapsulated the conventional, liberal, centrist orthodoxy of the early s, from its support for anti-communism and international activism abroad and New Deal-style big government at home, to its condemnation of McCarthyism. For the general public Arthur M.

Schlesinger's work explored the history of Jacksonian era and especially 20th-century American liberalism.

Navigation menu

His major books focused on leaders such as Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy in the White House , which won the Pulitzer Prize. In , Schlesinger wrote speeches for Robert F. Kennedy in and the biography, Robert Kennedy and His Times. He later popularized the term " imperial presidency " warning against excessive power in the White House as typified by Richard Nixon. Late in his career he came to oppose multiculturalism.

Modern liberalism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article discusses liberalism as the term has been used in the United States since the 20th century. For the development of American liberalism, see Liberalism in the United States. For the origin and worldwide use of the term liberalism, see Liberalism. Economic development Broad measures Economic growth Empirical evidence Direct democracy Freedom of movement Human enhancement Idea of Progress Industrialisation Linear history Modernity Philosophical progress Philosophy of progress Progressive education in Latin America Progressive rationalism Reform movement Social organization Social progress List of countries Scientific progress Social change Sustainable design Ecological engineering Self-determination Scientific management Scientific method Sustainable development Technological change Techno-progressivism Welfare Women's suffrage.

History of liberalism Contributions to liberal theory. Democratic capitalism Liberal bias in academia Regressive left. Liberalism and Liberalism worldwide. This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. Labor unions in the United States. Environmental movement in the United States. Freedom of speech in the United States. History of the socialist movement in the United States. Roosevelt — , U. President —45, Democrat Mayor Fiorello H. Truman — , U. Wallace — , U. Johnson — , U. Kennedy — , U. President —81, Democrat Senator Robert F. Beard — , historian Alvin Hansen — , economist Reinhold Niebuhr — , theologian Henry Steele Commager — , historian [] Lionel Trilling — , literary critic John Kenneth Galbraith — , economist C.

Vann Woodward — , historian Alfred Kazin — , literary critic, writer [] Richard Hofstadter — , historian Eric F. Goldman — , historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Douglas — [] Justice William J. Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. Immigration Policy in an Age of Rights. The s also brought new and more sweeping national regulations to deal with environmental challenges, consumer protection, workplace safety, gender discrimination, the rights of those with disabilities, and political spending.

Kennedy in the White House , p. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Roosevelt, , Volume 7. The Conscience of a Liberal.

Latest issues

Macmillan Press, , The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences p , "This liberalism favors a generous welfare state and a greater measure of social and economic equality. Liberty thus exists when all citizens have access to basic necessities such as education, health care, and economic opportunities. The New Republic ". Retrieved August 2, Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance the opportunity and personal dignity of minorities and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society.

The Politics of Hope Boston: Retrieved October 4, The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms. The Washington Post ". Retrieved July 2, The Constitution in pp. Balancing Democracy and Rights p. Hensley, The Rehnquist Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy — p. The Life of Andrew Jackson. A Comment on James A. Howard Hopkins, The Social Gospel. Religion and Reform in Changing America Williams and Vicky M. The social gospel, settlement sociology, and the science of reform in America's progressive era.

The Beginnings of Critical Realism in America. Leading Historians of the United States, University of Missouri Press. He democratizes an elitist liberalism in the process of abolishing a 'feudal reaction'. The slate is wiped clean for the triumph of a theory of democratic capitalism implicit from the outset in the American liberal world. Labor and the Emergence of Liberal Republicanism in Minneapolis, — Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas 11 2 pp: Sullivan, New York State and the rise of modern conservatism: The Great Depression and the Americas Roosevelt and the New Deal: Roosevelt Versus Recovery, , ; quote on p.

Louis Race Riot and Black Politics. To Ask for an Equal Chance: African Americans in the Great Depression. U of Chicago Press. A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow. Fried, Nightmare in Red: But despite the popular myths sometimes encouraged by Ottawa, in terms of defence policy and the posture of the Canadian Forces, it was the second path that dominated. Thus during the Cold War, Canada took full part in the defence of the West as an ally of the United States, embrac- ing the complementary policies of containment and nuclear deterrence.

The popular view is that, after the end of the Cold War, Canada abandoned its tradition of internationalism in the realms of both collective security and col- lective defence. This notion of abandon- ment has entered the popular media. Noted correspondent Andrew Cohen provided a more thorough analysis in his recent work While Canada Slept: It is not surprising to find some Americans asking what happened to Pearsonian diplomacy during the Iraq war.

For if there is one thing that distin- guished the golden age, it is that Ottawa was fully committed to the broad out- lines of US national security policy. What the United States needed and appreci- ated was not an independent Canadian approach to the great issues of the day, but support, and, if not support, sympathy with the very real problems and dilemmas America faced as the indispensable leader of the West. In an effort to get away from the Pearsonian pro-US policies, Pierre Trudeau sought to conduct an active and more independent foreign and defence policy.

But his efforts earned the wrath of the Nixon administration. Then in the latter s, when Canada returned to the allied fold, relations with the Carter administration became quite positive. In this sense, Mulroney was essentially emulating the Lester Pearson policies that Americans liked so much.

It is important, however, to keep all this within the larger perspective and not to confuse diplomatic and military activities with influence and impact. From the US and to a certain extent, the European perspective, Canadian irrelevancy is not a post—Cold War phenomenon. One can read hundreds if not thousands of books and memoirs on American foreign policy during the Cold War and find there not one reference to Canada or Lester Pearson. Nor should this be surprising. The conduct of foreign policy, especially by a superpower looking to its historical record, necessarily focuses on the problems, be they with enemies or allies.

Despite occasionally expressing minor differences and having chronically low defence budgets, Canada was simply not a problem for the United States. To be sure, Canadians might have appreciated more recognition of the assistance and support they gave. But they should not feel too bad about being largely ignored. After all, when a country is atop the American national security agenda, it is usually because it is in trouble with Washington — some- thing Canadian diplomats rightly, and mainly successfully, have sought to avoid.

All of this is not meant by any means to disparage Canadian efforts. But then again, who is? Where is the country or group of countries that displayed cogent and brilliant foreign policies? If the United States had not acted, Iraq would not be occupied today by the Americans and Kuwait would be occupied by the Iraqis. Faced with the horrors of Yugoslavia, the countries of the European Union — the group that was to take over management of Europe from the United States — proved feeble and divided.

As for Canada, it may well share responsibility for what happened in Africa, but after Somalia no one else was prepared to make a major sacrifice of blood and treasure there. And while the Israeli-Palestinian dispute remains unresolved, it is hardly the fault of a Canadian lack of power or initiative. Indeed, Canada has done more than its share for the cause of international peace and stability.

And it is simply not true that Canada has been asleep for the last fifteen years. On the contrary, in the years after the end of the Cold War the world witnessed an active, indeed hyperactive, Canadian involvement in global affairs. If any- thing, Ottawa, especially when it came to the use of the armed forces, was over- committed given its real interests.

If the truth be told, Canada was engaged at a level and scope of activity, especially military activity, that Pearson, the consum- mate realist, would have shunned. In the first decade of the post—Cold War era, Ottawa dispatched forces to most of the hot spots in the newly turbulent world order, beginning with the First Gulf War and continuing on to, among others, Bosnia, Haiti, East Timor and Kosovo.

By the end of the decade, the Canadian Forces had almost as many personnel in Europe as it had at the end of the Cold War. As Sean Maloney recently pointed out, Canada, despite the con- tinued belief that it only participates in peacekeeping operations, was heavily and continually involved during the s in what were essentially wars of interven- tion. In actual fact, Canada did not have to participate to this extent because, in the broader geostrategic context, the Canadian contributions, while useful, were not decisive.

Nor, during the s, did the issues directly affect vital Canadian strategic or economic interests. But the Canadian Forces did so for a number of reasons: It was the softest of soft power, without any hard power or real assets to back it up. Yet while some of what Ottawa did under the human security agenda went against contemporary American positions on specific issues, it was, ironically, an approach more American than Canadian. In a word, it was Wilsonianism.

After all, what is the Land Mines Treaty if not an open covenant openly arrived at? Eighty years after his disastrous defeat in , the ghost of Woodrow Wilson bestrides the world. The problem, of course, was not the message of human security but the messenger. It was the presumed moral supe- riority of the powerless pitted against the moral arrogance of the powerful — a case of pulpit diplomacy versus the bully pulpit. Fortunately, as in many theo- logical disputes, there was more sound and fury than a clash of real interests and policies. Indeed, as already noted, the s saw a deepening rather than a diminution of US-Canada military and diplomatic cooperation overseas in the face of regional crises and ethnic conflicts.

Moreover, while the human security agenda did reflect Canadian values and while it did provide a purpose to overseas peacekeeping and peace enforce- ment efforts, it was, essentially, a discretionary agenda, one that could or could not be acted upon. As the events in Rwanda demonstrated, not all people could be saved from their governments or fellow citizens. As in Washington, realism — a careful weighing of costs and benefits even in humanitarian causes — was never abandoned in Ottawa. The government had, in , explicitly made prosperity and employment for Canadians its top foreign policy priority.

This meant, above all, reducing the deficit and the debt and expanding trade abroad. Anchored by the expansion of bilateral trade with the US under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which also helped foster growth at home, Canada went out in search of new markets. In this the country was moderately successful, and in so doing Canadian security was enhanced. The morning of September 11, ended the post—Cold War era. This was followed by the dispatch of ships to the Arabian Sea and a contingent of troops to Afghanistan, not to mention the introduction of numer- ous military and non-military measures to reinforce North American defence.

In effect, these actions continue today, with over 2, Canadian troops based in Afghanistan and a continued air transport and naval presence in the region. This is in addition to the maintenance of troops in the Balkans. Note that all this is done with an army of less than 20, and a navy of 16 warships. And it was one that would dramatically come to the fore in the months preced- ing the Iraq war. For most observers on both sides of the Atlantic, Canada is not even in the uni- verse, much less in the solar system. As one American commentator has noted: It is Canada with castles…a nice place, but hardly the fur- nace where our future will be forged.

This is not a new view. In the present war on terrorism this divergence of perspectives has con- tinued even more markedly. But to Canadian eyes, eco- nomic security concerns, especially as they relate to the US, cannot be as easily distinguished from traditional security considerations. In the present struggle, as before, Ottawa knows that its relations and actions in the wider world must be viewed through the prism of its ties with Washington. He contends that spending 1. Although the Canadian Forces have performed well in the post—Cold War era, it is clear they will need greater resources if they are to continue to serve as an instrument of government policy at home and around the world.

It is not entirely self-evident, however, that allocating more national wealth to the Canadian Forces, especially for US-led multinational operations overseas, will give Ottawa the kind of standing and influence that many analysts are con- vinced should be the case. Behind the easy realism that equates defence spend- ing with stature abroad is a much harder, uncomfortable truth.

It is that, given the nature of American national security policy, especially in a post—September 11 world, plausible increases in Canadian defence spending, while understand- ably expected by Washington, would afford Ottawa no measurable increase in its ability to influence the direction of American policy.

To be sure, the participation by Canada and other allies in US-led coalitions should be encouraged. It helps relieve some of the burden on the United States, is in the interest of allies and, moreover, helps endow those operations with a certain legitimacy that Washington seeks. In effect, US multilateralism has always been a tool to be employed when it suits American interests. This was the case with the multilateralism of the s, including the wide-ranging use and involvement of NATO and of the United Nations when military force had to be applied.

Allies were comforted by the fact that they were being consulted and given a voice. A resolution or consensus eases consciences both in America and abroad, and helps protect US allies from their respective critics at home though not in Washington, of course. Ottawa latched on to this pretense prior to the Iraq war, when it claimed that force could be legitimately employed only pursuant to a Security Council resolution or, as in the case of Kosovo, when NATO adopted a unified response. In reality, President Clinton was no less anxious to perpetuate US domi- nance.

Far from alienating other countries in the s, the United States seemed capable of maintaining its traditional ties and forging new ones; moreover, it sought to engage itself across the globe, especially in Europe. It was unilateralism with smile. Thus, even before September 11, , the neoconservatives dominating the Bush administration had adopted unilateralism with an attitude.

As George Soros recent- ly observed: The abnormal, the radical and the extreme have been redefined as normal. It is not entirely evident, however, that this is just a temporary phenome- non, one that will disappear with a change in attitude or regime in Washington. It is easy to paint a caricature of a super-patriotic, gun-toting, bible-thumping president leading his country on a series of dangerous cavalry charges around the world to explain US actions.

But as amusing as this may be, it obscures rather than clarifies the fundamentals of American policy. It only became more itself. Owen Harries has argued that many in Europe and elsewhere still do not understand the America they think they know so well.

And one of the things that they do not yet fully understand is the profound impact that September 11, , has had on the United States and American national security policy. As Harries observed a year ago:. After the outrage of September 11, I do not believe that the United States could have reacted in any way other than as she did. But doing so will carry a cost. The long-term significance of what happened…may be that it forced America decisively along a course of action that — by emphasising her military domi- nance, by reducing her to use her vast power conspicuously, by making restraint and moderation virtually impossible, and by making unilateralism an increasing feature of American behaviour — is bound to generate widespread and increased criticism and hostility toward her.

• Energy processes in free-full electromagnetic generators
• Horror, Humor, and Heroes Volume 2 - New Faces of Fantasy
• Feminism and Its Discontents: A Century of Struggle with Psychoanalysis
• Du wahrer Gott und Davids Sohn, Duet, No. 1 from Cantata No. 23: Du wahrer Gott und Davids Sohn (Obo
• Teenage American Dinomen: Discovery
• Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons from Five Countries (Studies in Crime and Public Policy)