It isn’t often that you get 250+ people, many without chairs, to attend a lecture concerning global politics in the post cold war era. Unless, of course, the speaker is Francis Fukuyama — The author of The End of History and America at the Crossroads. He is, by many accounts, the most prominent Neo Conservative in academic circles, but lately he has been unpersuaded by the rationale for war and the Neo Conservative agenda. I had the priviledge of hearing him speak at The Miller Center.
In the course of tracing the roots of Neo Conservativism from depression-era leftists, he cites three mis-applications of the Wilsonian doctrine:
- Pre-emptive war — We have conflated our worries about stateless terrorism with the relative pre-2003 stability of Iraq. While the underlying sensibility of pre-emption — to strike first those who intend you harm — is nearly accepted fact, it hinges on solid intelligence. Furthermore, many cases of preemption require that you predict the future.
- Benevolent hegemony — The current imbalance of political and military power is unprecedented in history, but we presume it to be the natural order. American exceptionalism, which condones our invasion of Iraq while demanding that India not invade Pakistan, is predicated on the belief that we are benevolent with our power. While many Americans believe this to be so, the contradictions inherent in the policy undermine what benevolence we proclaim to posses.
- Nation building — If you had asked a political scientist in 1988 about a hypothetical end to Communism few would have predicted its end and nearly all would have expected it to be violent and protracted. The quiet demise of Communism set up an expectation that all enemies of America are paper tigers. This hubris has lead us into what is characterized now as a long war.
I’m a skeptic of Fukuyama’s thesis (see my previous notes) and still believe there is room in the world for grand re-ordering of society. I didn’t ask any questions, as the audience of professors, statesmen and one ambassador were better suited to the dialog. The audience was respectful but many questions probed the internal consistency of Neo Conservativism, particularly on the matter of vigorously endorsing democracy in one place (Iraq) while sanctioning obscene failures of human rights in another (Saudi Arabia). Fukuyama acknowledged these deficiencies as collateral for any administration and emphasized that devoting resources to one cause necessarily depletes options for another.
Had I wished to ask a question, I would have asked the following:
- Is the Bush doctrine Wilsonian?
- Realizing that hegemony — benevolent or not — breeds discontent among nations, what can America do to engage other nations to be part of the solution such that we are not acting as the world police?
Update: (26 May 2006): Helena Cobban, a fellow writer in Charlottesville was also at the event, summarized her experience with far more comprehension than I’ve given.