The book is now almost ten years old, so why bother. After all, a lot internationally has happened during the past decade--9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq--while the author has since contributed a second, updated tome (Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War) with a similar theme. Nonetheless, A Republic, Not an Empire remains a topical work because it roots Buchanan's foreign policy philosophy of "Enlightened Nationalism" in our national experience, a history of which most Americans are only dimly aware. His lengthy historical account remains highly educational, despite the passage of time, to interested but non-scholarly readers.
Agree or not, the Founding Fathers' concept of enlightened nationalism is a credo that only went into eclipse following Europe's collapse during WWII. At that point, a philosophy of globalism became the only realistic strategy for America in the face of a mounting Cold War. As a result of Cold War necessity, the US became actively involved in the affairs of other nations, contrary to the precepts of the older Founding Fathers America First tradition. The trouble is that the Cold War is long over, while a continuing globalism has sucked the republic into an interventionist role the nation cannot possibly fulfill. Worse, such demands are destroying the foundations of the republic as the ill-conceived Patriot Act shows. Hence, the time is ripe to take another look at that older counsel that counts domestic strength as the strongest defense in an unstable world.
Like any opinionated book, there are aspects to gainsay, but the thrust should not be overlooked. In short, the volume's overriding value is to revive an older tradition at a time when foreign policy elites are concocting ever more overseas commitments. I think Buchanan is right-- in fact, the time is ripe for a revival. The last ten years have confirmed the direction of this book. The republic simply cannot survive more debacles rooted in overseas meddling like 9-11 and Iraq. In addition, the economy has been driven into the ground big-time, thanks in large part to international policies that have shifted manufacture overseas. However, there are two aspects of foreign policy determination that I think the author needs to deal with more forthrightly.
First is the question of empire. Despite the book's title, Buchanan can't seem to bring himself to call a spade a spade. But Americans need to know that what has arisen since WWII is an American overseas empire, anchored by 700+ military bases and a series of US-controlled financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Whether it's also a "free world" is a separate question, but it is an empire as any number of interventions over the past 60 years demonstrate. By facing up to this, we situate a disengagement more clearly within the anti-imperial tradition Buchanan seeks to vindicate.
Second is the more serious question of how economically workable a return to America-first would be. I'm no economist, but several money-driven facts seem clear. Capital has no nationality. Investments go where they earn the biggest profit regardless of the human damage. According to orthodox theory, as I understand it, this all ultimately works out for the best because of the invisible hand of the marketplace. But that's theory. The fact is that free trade agreements like NAFTA have hollowed out the economy, such that we don't even manufacture our own diapers anymore, while our working people are being driven into low-wage penury. And if we complain, Repubocrat elites tell us globalization represents an irresistible force beyond challenge, and that the only alternative is a dreaded "isolationism"-- a charge, incidentally, the author is at pains to rebut in the book.
But these are basically the same people whose allegiance is to empire-first and the trade agreements that further those aims. Seems to me that reviving an enlightened nationalism would require re-industrializing our economy ahead of such trade agreements, and that such a step, in turn, would require reviving a system of tariffs and an active role for government in directing economic policy. Now, just how feasible and what the consequences of such an overhaul would be is, I think, a paramount question whose time has nevertheless come. Buchanan has shown himself willing to break from the Washington pack and take on fresh thinking. I hope he and others pursue it. As a result of this seminal book, the historical basis for such a re-direction is laid.
less
0 comments
Post a comment