It is now little more than a year ago that I published my
book ‘NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, A First Generation Immigrant in Search of
American Exceptionalism’ in which I argued for the need to overhaul the
American political system, including the need for a constitutional requirement
to develop and maintain a national strategy transcending administrations and
providing a compass for public policy direction.
Now, that argument has been picked up and elaborated upon in
a recently published, excellent, book by Ian Bremmer, titled ‘Superpower, Three
choices for America’s Role in the World’. Ian Bremmer has a PhD in political
science from Stanford University, is President and Founder of Eurasia Group, a
leading global political risk research and consulting firm, and a foreign
affairs columnist and editor-at-large for Times magazine.
Bremmer’s focus in his book is—not surprisingly— on foreign
policy and he chastises U.S. policy makers since the end of the Cold War for
not choosing and sticking with a clear cut foreign relations strategy, but
instead stumbling from one crisis to another without a clear compass on where
they want to see America go and what role they want to see America play in the
world.
I recommend the book. It should be required reading for the
contestants in the 2016 race for the White House. I like the book, in the first
place because it convincingly makes the case for the need for a comprehensive
foreign relations strategy. I also like the book for—after careful analyzing
and weighing the alternatives—coming down on the choice for what Ian Bremmer
terms the ‘Independent America’.
In essence, the book offers a continuation of the age old
debate about the role America should play in the foreign affairs arena. Ian
Bremmer wants future administrations to make a choice between three strategies
in dealing with foreign affairs.
1.
In the case of the ‘Indispensable America’, the
strategy is based on the belief that, in the interconnected world of today,
America has no choice but to be actively involved in directing or influencing
the outcome of developments outside of its borders. The idea is that only
America can defend the values on which global stability increasingly depends.
2.
In the case of ‘Moneyball America’, the strategy
is for America only to get involved in global affairs if U.S. interests are at
risk or opportunities arise to strengthen America’s hand in global positioning.
3.
In the case of ‘Independent America’, the strategy
is for America to stay out of the role of the policeman of the world and turn
down the responsibility to solve other people’s problems. In this view America’s
strategy should be to lead by example by building and exhibiting exceptional
cohesiveness and inner strength at home.
Bremmer’s three forked road only makes sense if one accepts
that building inner strength and an interventionist foreign policy role are
mutually exclusive. People will argue, like so many administrations have done,
that America is powerful and rich enough to play first fiddle both on the
national and the international stage. But what evidence can we bring to the
table to support that point of view? Given the build-up of an $18+ Trillion
national debt in the post-Cold War era and lack of measurable progress on
issues of national importance, it is probably fair to conclude that a hard
choice needs to be made. Failed or inconclusive interventions in Iraq and
Afghanistan have largely contributed to our indebtedness, kept us from
addressing urgent policy matters at home and undermined our reputation abroad.
I do believe that America’s global standing would be greatly
enhanced if it embarked on a strategy—and kept it in place even as the White
House changes hands—that set out to offer in one generation an outlook on an
America where:
·
What can be achieved in life no longer closely correlates
with where you were born, who your parents are, who you know or what gender or race
you belong to;
·
Immigrants who obey the law and bring talent, skills
and drive with them are welcome and respected;
·
The level of education one gets no longer
closely correlates with the social status and the financial capacity of the
student or parents;
·
The level of health care one gets no longer
closely correlates with the location and the financial capacity of the patient;
·
The corrupting influence of money has been
eliminated from the election process;
·
The national debt is kept under a limit
expressed as a percentage of GDP (in a range from 50-70%) and each administration
has an obligation to balance its budget;
·
Levying taxes is no longer a dirty word or a
political suicide, but wasting money on causes that do not support the larger
national strategy is;
·
An effective safety net is in place for those (and
only for those) who are too young, too old or too incapacitated to provide for
themselves and—temporarily—for those who are involuntarily unemployed;
·
The infrastructure is the envy of the world.
America has tried and failed time and again to reshape the
world in its own image by intervention, diplomatically, militarily and
economically. The American people no longer support an adventurous and costly
interventionist policy. It is time to change tack and build the inner strength
required to lead by example. If America focuses for a generation on being the
best it can be while protecting its people and its borders, it is hard to
imagine a nation that can surpass it in global standing, strength and
durability. It will take extraordinary willpower and discipline to learn not to
get distracted from this strategy by events and provocations that will
undoubtedly come up, but that too is part of building inner strength.
No comments:
Post a Comment