Empire,
War and Revolution
May
8, 2000
Dr.
Buzzanco
profession
before the Vietnam debates, its subject – America’s role in a
non-American
world – remains the most vulnerable to conflating
objective
truth with patriotic homily. Of all
branches of history, it is
closest
to the state, particularly in a state/empire.”
With
these words, Bruce Cumings concludes his article “Revising Postrevionism, Or the
Poverty of Theory in Diplomatic History.”
A re-read of his article at the conclusion of this course is extremely
pertinent to the difficulty in studying diplomatic history for the first time. Because we are all observers of current
events and since many of the events of our lifetime are foreign policy related,
a person whose lifetime spans the entire period of the Cold War brings to this
course a great deal of this “baggage.”
Furthermore, one also cannot discount their former education, work and
military experiences, and familial influences from their examinations of U.S.
diplomatic history. This paper will
attempt to highlight some of the lasting impressions of this course on a
capitalist, businessman from a conservative, Republican family.
Anders
Stephanson’s book Manifest Destiny is one of the best on the subject,
and since it was read at the beginning of the course, it allowed considerable
mental application to the books and discussions that followed. His thesis is that shaping the nation along the
lines of goodness as devised by God led to expansionism of first the
continental nation, then of the world.
This concept has credibility from the Seminole Wars to Kosovo, and from
youthful fores with lemonade stands to venture capitalists investing in the dot
coms. The desire to achieve and address
self-interests has motivated Americans from the beginning of the republic, and
the nation-state has followed the desires of its citizens. Yes, this is materialism, and perhaps such
driven attitudes has resulted in wars fought for the wrong reasons, genocide,
and the creation of a class society that has not yet realized equality among
its people. But its roots are ingrained
in the general belief that God approves.
Very few incidents in U.S. history are not justified by the
decision-makers as having been “noble,” a euphemism for divinely ordained, even
when the resulting decision would otherwise be questionable on any moral
grounds: Indian Wars, the
Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Argentina, Dominican Republic, Vietnam and Kosovo. No state department official or ambassador involved in any
decision regarding these incidents would ever admit to not believing that these
actions were the “right” thing to do, thus divinely inspired.
One
can reject religion being the main driver, but what is the other common
element. It’s not always
economic, witness Cuba and the ridiculous U.S. embargo for 40 years. As Paterson points out in Contesting
Castro, the U.S. was reluctantly developing diplomatic relations with
Castro in 1960, until he questioned U.S. materialism and its role in the Cold
War, and high sugar tariffs. Such
questioning was seen as belittling the divinely ordained operations of the
country that was on the right side of the Cold War. Thus we broke off
relations, established an embargo, and for forty years have not maximized what
would be in the best economic interests of either the Cubans or the
Americans. Where is the purely
materialistic pattern here?
Americans
pledge allegiance to the flag under God, swear on a bible to uphold the
constitution as leaders, and take oaths to protect the constitution so help us
God as soldiers. When foreign policy
issues arise, we hold prayer services, and identify divine implications to our
explanatory rhetoric, such as Elian Gonzales’ fate being ordained because
dolphins followed his raft instead of sharks.
These
comments are not meant to dissuade belief in God, but only to comment on the
crutch that Americans use to establish “goodness” in its actions, and to
identify an excuse when things go wrong. That such a concept has historical
significance has not previously been envisioned by this writer, but the
opportunity to study in depth the concept of manifest destiny from its
beginning sheds light on religion not previously considered.
Stephanson
also addressed American exceptionalism as it applies to the Cold War, and this
concept is readily observable when considering the proxy wars fought by U.S.
and Communist soldiers. With missionary
zeal, the U.S. became, in Reagan’s words, “the leader of the free world,
against the forces of the “Evil Empire.”
Though Reagan coined the phrase, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford and Carter all adopted similar phraseology to connote the
exceptionalism of America. There was no
gray, only “our” white and “their” black.
And while it is somewhat obvious that Paul Nitze’s NSC 68 is an economic
document, is it not also a religious document?
Did it not require the U.S. to defend freedom everywhere, or as Truman
claimed “aggression anywhere is a threat to peace everywhere.” Nitze, Acheson and Truman, as I recall, were
neither agnostic nor atheist, nor were they even Catholic!
American
exceptionalism was endangered in Korea, and was defeated in Vietnam, but with
firm belief that the causes were “noble.”
Korea has held the negotiated peace for forty-eight years; Vietnam for
two. Yet coming to grips with the
reasons for involvement are still masked in exceptionalism.
Several
writers and students have also addressed the concept of racism. While generally accepting the notion that
racism is part of foreign policy decision-making, it probably is tertiary
behind religion and economics, and unlike these concepts, is seldom part of conscious
policy. John Dower’s exceptional book Embracing
Defeat dealt with this issue, as had his previous work War Without
Mercy. There is no question that
dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “easier” because the victims were
not white, but to claim racism as the paramount issue rather than Truman’s
desire to end the war, or in Alperovitz’s view demonstrating might and resolve
to Stalin, would be overly presumptive.
Indians were driven from their land because they were in the way of
expansion, the fact that they weren’t white made it easier, and the fact that
they were not Christians allowed missionaries’ zeal to take place on the
reservations, thus divine ordainment once more prevailed.
In
summary, the opportunity to interact with students who are much further along
the history academic path has been very rewarding, and their help in explaining
the various history schools of thought is appreciated. More seminar-type courses will be helpful in
examining the issues raised here and expanding on those of greatest interest.
The class began with the
reading of the Bernath lecture, and ended with the fellowship of classmates,
beer and canoles. In between, there was
a lot of invigorating intellectual discourse on topics from Jackson to Reagan,
Taft to George W., and Buchanan to Chomsky.
While not necessarily accepting all of the tenets of the New Left, and
the teachings of the radical Marxist historian, these readings, discussions and
e-mail exchanges have caused this moderate capitalist student to, hopefully,
stay true to Cumings’ charge that the diplomatic historian’s code ought always
to be one of “thinking otherwise.”
Perhaps this accomplishment should be seen as a victory for the Bernath
lecturer, or at least as a good start toward a work in progress.