BENEVOLENT HEGEMONY
TWENTY YEARS later, it is time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism. Today's lukewarm consensus about America's reduced role in a post-Cold War world is wrong. Conservatives should not accede to it; it is bad for the country and, incidentally, bad for conservatism. Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role.
What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world.
The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today. The leaders of Russia and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action. [snip]
ceip.org
I think I agree with the above opinion. I believe that, despite an overhyped corporate agenda (ie all that hype about "free" markets, "free" enterprise, etc), the US is merely enforcing a benevolent hegemony --or, at least, the closest thing to such a geopolitical endeavour.... That's why I think that the real power of the USA lies more in its social mythology than in its military. If the US is branded as today's unchallenged superpower, it's because no other country on earth can realistically challenge the US social model --except Europe. Other civilizations (China, Japan, Russia,...) could not but exert a malevolent hegemony. That's why I believe that even foreign leaders from China, Russia, and, to some extent, from Europe as well, don't challenge the American creed --they pretend to do so. Which Chinese or European leader could sincerely claim that his or her national model could be extended worldwide? None. Why? Because their very social fabrics ARE NOT multicultural! That is not to claim the US is perfect: Americans still pay a heavy price (toll?) to smooth out bigotry, racism, and parochialism within their own country.... Well, at least, since Americans have tackled these issues (over the last 200 years), it brought them to the forefront of multiculturalism. For that matter, all the countries that currently oppose and fight against the so-called US hegemony don't have any ALTERNATIVE AGENDA: they don't say "hey! wait a minute.... Instead of Uncle Sam's one-size-fits-all program for the world, we the French (or the Chinese/Russians/....) want to offer you our Beaujolais-Nouveau program, that is a worldwide French-minded agenda!"
All the opponents to "globalization" have to offer is their own brand of isolationism!! What's Austria's reviving nationalism? What's France's neonationalism? What's Belgium's protofascism? What's (Northern) Italy's pet chauvinism, after all? It all comes down to the same thing: they're all facets of a crystallized European isolationism...
Gus. |
