By JONATHAN FREEDLAND
Last fall, television stations carried a 60-second ad for Audi’s A6 car. The opening images showed a pitted, potholed American road while the voice-over gloomily intoned, “Across the nation, over 100,000 miles of highways and bridges are in disrepair.” Fear not, said the voice; Audi’s smart gizmos would help. The spot’s message was clear: Roads in the United States are now so bad, you need a foreign car to negotiate them.
The Audi ad was seized upon as evidence of American decline, now such a regular meme that the Foreign Policy magazine Web site runs a dedicated blog, “Decline Watch.” Books have been in plentiful supply, and now come two more, helpfully approaching the subject from left and right, as if to demonstrate declinism’s bipartisan credentials.
The authors are big hitters in the geopolitics genre. Robert Kagan coined what passes for a catchphrase in the international relations field when he declared a decade ago that “Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus.” At the time, Kagan, a veteran of Ronald Reagan’s State Department, was one of the leading advocates of military action against Iraq. Zbigniew Brzezinski, still best known for his service as national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, has filled the three intervening decades with a throng of books on the same terrain: what America should do in the world.
As you’d expect, there are big differences between the two. Kagan barely mentions the Iraq war in “The World America Made,” and certainly feels no need to explain his past enthusiasm for a decision that many now regard as a calamity. By contrast, Brzezinski is scathing in “Strategic Vision,” judging Iraq “a costly diversion” from the fight against Al Qaeda. The war, he says, was justified by dubious claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that “evaporated altogether within a few months” and that sapped America’s international standing.
The former Carter
official regards climate change as a grave global threat; the ex-Reagan
appointee hardly mentions it. When Brzezinski lays out the obstacles to
America’s keeping its position as international top dog, he includes
ever-widening inequality between the richest and the rest — offering statistics
that would fit well on an Occupy Wall Street placard — and an unsustainable
financial system that benefits “greedy Wall Street speculators.” Reform is
needed, he writes, not only to ensure growth but to foster the “social
consensus and democratic stability” at home without which the United States
cannot be a force abroad. Kagan allows that the post-2008 woes look like
capitalism “discrediting itself” but confidently asserts that “the liberal
economic order is in everyone’s interest” even as some voices, certainly
outside the United States, are having severe doubts about key tenets of
neoliberal economics.
The two books are
different in temperament and style, too, in ways that say much about the
contrast between left and right. Brzezinski’s is full of wonkish detail and
some truly leaden language: “ . . . with the potential international benefits
of the foregoing unfortunately vitiated by the cumulatively destructive
consequences of continued and maybe even somewhat expanded. . . . ” Kagan
prefers to paint with a broad brush, sprinkling a memorable metaphor here, a
striking simile there. International “rules and institutions are like
scaffolding around a building: they don’t hold the building up; the building
holds them up” (the building being America). Where Brzezinski can be gloomy,
almost channeling the spirit of Jimmy Carter’s notorious “malaise” speech when
he warns of the excessive materialism and spiritual hollowness of contemporary
American life, Kagan is breezier and sunnier. Reading the books side by side is
to be reminded not only of Carter versus Reagan but also of Kerry versus Bush.
And yet the great
surprise is how much they agree with each other, especially on what matters.
They both insist that reports of America’s decline are exaggerated. Both note
that the United States still accounts for a quarter of the world’s gross
domestic product, a proportion that has held steady for more than 40 years.
Both note America’s military strength, with a budget greater than that of all
its rivals combined. As Brzezinski puts it, on every measure “America is still
peerless.”
Usefully,
Kagan states that much of the current decline talk is based on a “nostalgic fallacy,”
imagining a golden past in which America was all but omnipotent. There never
was such a time, he says, not even during those periods now remembered as the
glory days of American might. Still bathing in the glow of total victory in
World War II, the country watched events in China, Korea and Indochina that,
Dean Acheson lamented, were “beyond the control of the . . . United States.” In
1952 Douglas MacArthur warned of “our own relative decline.” Indeed, Kagan
shows that declinism is as old as America itself: in 1788, Patrick Henry was
ruing the Republic’s fall from the days “when the American spirit was in its
youth.” Kagan’s message is that America has been gripped by these fears before,
only to bounce back: “Anyone who honestly recalls the 1970s, with Watergate,
Vietnam, stagflation and the energy crisis, cannot really believe the present
difficulties are unrivaled.”
Both men dismiss that
other plank of declinist conventional wisdom, the assumption that China’s hot
breath is on America’s neck and that it is about to take over. That’s an
“overreaction,” Brzezinski writes, on a par with 1980s fears that the United
States was about to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Japan. China is still
decades behind on all the measures that count and has shown little sign of
wanting to assume America’s central role. It might just be biding its time, but
Kagan makes a good case that its geopolitical position is not propitious: while
the United States is flanked by oceans, China is encircled by wary, watchful
neighbors. It cannot so easily head out into the world to serve as a global
naval power and hegemon.
The two authors agree
that it’s in everyone’s interest, not just America’s, for the United States to
remain dominant. Kagan frames his essay with a device borrowed from the Frank
Capra classic “It’s a Wonderful Life,” imagining the world if America were not
there to play global superpower. He provides a compelling demonstration that
whether it’s protecting the sea lanes vital for free trade or nudging societies
toward democracy, the world stands a better chance with America in prime
position than it would with China or Russia in the lead. Brzezinski similarly
asks us to imagine the Internet if it were under the de facto stewardship of
Moscow or Beijing rather than Washington.
Of the two, it is
Brzezinski, predictably, who is more alert to the long history of United States
intrusion abroad — including the toppling of democratic governments and the
gobbling up of developing nations’ resources — that might make non-Americans
skeptical of the merits of American dominance. But both are persuasive that
American mastery is better than any plausible alternative (if only because a
world without any dominant power is itself implausible).
Above all, Brzezinski
and Kagan unite in arguing against fatalism. American decline is not
preordained, but neither is the status quo. If Americans want to remain on top,
they will have to fight for that position, making some painful changes in the
process (including, Brzezinski says, to a dysfunctional, paralyzed political
system). But it’s worth it, chiefly because the current international order —
more or less stable and free from world war for seven decades — will not
maintain itself. Given what else is out there, the world still needs America.
Jonathan
Freedland is an editorial page columnist for The Guardian of London.
STRATEGIC VISION
America and the
Crisis of Global Power
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Illustrated.
208 pp. Basic Books. $26.
THE WORLD AMERICA MADE
By Robert Kagan
149
pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $21.


Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου