Promised Land, Crusader State : The American Encounter with the World Since 1776

Rating:
Summary: America's varied doctrines of dealing with the world
Review: I first saw Walter McDougall on the C-SPAN Booknotes show discussing this book in 1997. He impressed me so much that I went online and ordered it from Amazon instantly. It is a great read because McDougall writes clearly, concisely, and with a rare vividness for a scholar.

This is not a book of American History per se. It is a book about American's developing and changing doctrines of how to deal with the world beyond our borders. McDougall discusses eight doctrines with four under the "Old Testament" heading (when America was basically turned inward and worried only about the Western Hemisphere), and four under the "New Testament" (when America became a player on the world stage and, briefly, a colonial power).

Understanding these doctrines is essential to understanding America's changing place in the world. These doctrines conflict with each other and yet the all still echo through history to our present. This leads to some of the complexity in our present political relationships with the world and our own muddled sense of ourselves and our role in the world. Certainly, America has done some wonderful things for the world, but the wake of our great ship of state has also made navigation tough for some of the smaller barks trying to stay afloat in the storms of history.

This is a fine book and a great read. I encourage everyone, especially students and young people, to read it carefully and to consider seriously the arguments Prof. McDougall has put forth. You will be better off whether or not you end up agreeing with him.


Rating:
Summary: A history of American Foreign Policy.
Review: I picked this book up in the discount section and was prepared to read a boring analysis of American foreign policy. I was surprised because this is a concise history of the development of American foreign policy. Professor McDougall also destroys some myths viewed as facts by the American public. One item is the Monroe Doctrine. McDougall details what the Monroe doctrine was in reality, not what they tell you in the American history books. The book is divided into two parts, Promised Land (Old Testament) and Crusader State (New Testament). In each section, there are four chapters detailing the development and stages of American foreign policy. I thought the outline and stages of American foreign policy was a nice touch in showing the reader how different things influenced American foreign policy.
This is a great read for those trying to figure out American foreign policy. I actually learned how to view our foreign policy in the light of these eight stages in development and how Iraq and Vietman figure into the equation. This was written before the present Iraq war so it would be great to see how Professor McDougall views the present conflict. A good read.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointingly superficial
Review: It is difficult to know how to tackle "Promised Land, Crusader State." It consists largely of obiter dicta, written in an excessively (to my taste) breezy style, in which the author almost never pauses to debate a point. For example, McDougall calls Eric Nordlinger, the author of the excellent book "Isolationism Reconfigured," "by far the most sophisticated 'neo-isolationist'" (p. 201), but does not even suggest a rebuttal of Nordlinger's arguments.

Some of the book's faults, however, may be gathered by looking at McDougall's treatment of Wilson and U.S. participation in the First World War. The American note to Berlin following the sinking of the Lusitania was hardly "stern but innocuous." It embraced the preposterous principle that the U.S. government had the right and duty to protect U.S. citizens traveling on ships flying the flags of belligerents. By holding the Germans to "strict accountability" for any American lives lost through U-boat action, it set the United States on a collision course with Germany.... The author endorses U.S. entry into the war because a triumphant Germany would have dominated the Atlantic. But, even assuming that our nonintervention would have led to a total German victory (highly doubtful), more probable results than German control of the Atlantic would have been the downfall of the Bolsheviks in Russia and the prevention of Hitler's coming to power.

The most serious defect, however, is that from time to time McDougall pays lip service to the notion that, when all is said and done, the purpose of our foreign policy is to defend our freedom at home.... But just how seriously can we take his concern for American liberty when, in discussing Wilson and justifying the entry into Wilson's war, McDougall breathes not a word regarding the war's frightful cost to that liberty? The savage assault on economic freedoms and civil liberties and the precedents created for their subsequent erosion are well known (see, for example, Robert Higgs, "Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government," 123-58). Why were these outcomes not worth mentioning, as actual results of the war, to balance the speculative danger of New Jersey's quaking under the guns of an Imperial Kriegsflotte? In fact, World War I presents a perfect illustration of why the Founders wished to keep clear of war, and McDougall's silence is itself exemplary of how involvement in foreign wars leads to ignoring the destruction of liberty at home.

Still, in contrast to many other analysts, the author makes some useful points. "Vietnam was a liberal war," he rightly states (p. 195). "The mythology that enveloped the Marshall Plan" (p. 180) set the stage for attempts to fabricate viable and prosperous societies through the infusion of American billions. (He could have strengthened his case had he been familiar with Tyler Cowen's demolition of that mythology; see "The Marshall Plan: Myths and Realities," in "U.S. Aid to the Developing World: A Free Market Agenda," edited by Doug Bandow, 61-74.)...

While McDougall rejects global meliorism, what he advocates is a highly interventionist form of containment, including preventing disturbances from regional powers such as Iraq and Iran; using the government to expand trade (NAFTA, GATT, and "jawboning Beijing"); joining in Margaret Thatcher's "New Atlantic Initiative" (why, incidentally, is this lady, who pressed Bush to go to war in the Gulf and was the last-ditch friend of Gorbachev and last-ditch foe of German reunification, supposed to be worth listening to?); and, above all, maintaining "the balance of power" throughout Eurasia. This last task alone gives U.S. leaders license to extend their activities, if not to Rwanda and the Sudan, then virtually anywhere else they wish.

In the end, "Promised Land, Crusader State" turns out to be disappointingly superficial, never even broaching key questions. We are told, for instance, that the American public "never raised a ruckus" over this or that interventionist move. Yet there is no hint of the unfathomed ignorance, "rational" or otherwise, of Americans in foreign affairs (even George Will thought Iranians were Arabs) or of the leverage that ignorance gives to political elites and special interests pushing their own agendas. Why suppose that U.S. leaders are immune to such pressures or to the blandishments of institutional and personal power? Why even assume that they are any better--any more expert or far-seeing or public-spirited--in handling international relations than they are in running domestic affairs? If they aren't, why shouldn't they be reined in, sharply? Most important, how is incessant intervention abroad compatible with the Herculean task of restoring liberty at home?

Rating:
Summary: Ambitious Promise, Inconsistent Delivery
Review: McDougall attempts to outline "The American Encounter With the World Since 1776" in his small volume, "Promised Land, Crusader State." Such an ambitious promise could never be fulfilled in such a small space given that there is little agreement about how to characterize "America's encounter with the world" and the effects that encounter has had on the lives of Americans (both good and bad).

McDougall imposes a paradigm on American foreign affairs which is easily seen from his table of contents. McDougall tries to shoehorn the history of American foreign relations into these eight traditions (divided into two testaments), and does so with surprising results. However, such a paradigmatic book will always suffer from the fact that some things just don't fit and that there could be other paradigms that would be more useful.

Still, McDougall brings attention to two important areas. First is the need for America to have the "moral high ground" when conducting foreign affairs. It is not enough for America to simply engage in games of power and politic, especially since such tactics were part of the Old (European) World and that America was the New ("exceptional") World. Second, McDougall leaves open the question of whether various historical actors were "heroes" or "villains." This critical look at the foreign policy decisions made by people such as Jefferson and Wilson allows the reader to safely criticize their history without feeling "un-American."

Standing alone, this book would rank a 3 star rating, but if the value of this book is enhanced if one already has a background in the history of American foreign policy or is reading this book in conjunction with other background materials, hence a 4 star rating.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting essay on America's foreign policy traditions
Review: McDougall identifies 8 different traditions in American foreign policy, which fall into two "testaments." The "old testament" consists of traditions such as liberty, unilateralism and the American System. Essentially, it involves Americans perfecting their own country and looking towards their own part of the world as the place they need to be most concerned. The "new testament" consists of such traditions as containment, expansion and meliorism. It calls for American to play a much broader role in the world's affairs, although for different reasons. McDougall does not purport to have written a comprehensive diplomatic history as to explain it and how it might be used to conduct future diplomacy. "Promised Land" is not highly ideological - some will find his questioning of the Marshall Plan's success and attack on foreign aid infuriating. Others will be unhappy with his assertion that the US is perhaps well served by its participation in the UN and Nato, as long as the USs ability to act unilaterally when necessary is not impeded. For example, he points out that Washington's famous injunction was against "entangling alliances" rather than all alliances and that those which serve the US interest without limited its freedom of action are consistent with Washington rather than opposing it. In perhaps the most interesting "revision" of the entire book, he repudidates the notion that America has ever been an isolationist nation, saying that it really was a concern for our ability to act unilaterally that was at issue and points to a long history of interventionism to protect US interests dating back to Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates. Finally, the book explains the role of religion in the changing nature of America's policies from that of a promised land where we would lead by example primarily to one where we would be more willing to intervene.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting essay on America's foreign policy traditions
Review: McDougall identifies 8 different traditions in American foreign policy, which fall into two "testaments." The "old testament" consists of traditions such as liberty, unilateralism and the American System. Essentially, it involves Americans perfecting their own country and looking towards their own part of the world as the place they need to be most concerned. The "new testament" consists of such traditions as containment, expansion and meliorism. It calls for American to play a much broader role in the world's affairs, although for different reasons. McDougall does not purport to have written a comprehensive diplomatic history as to explain it and how it might be used to conduct future diplomacy. "Promised Land" is not highly ideological - some will find his questioning of the Marshall Plan's success and attack on foreign aid infuriating. Others will be unhappy with his assertion that the US is perhaps well served by its participation in the UN and Nato, as long as the USs ability to act unilaterally when necessary is not impeded. For example, he points out that Washington's famous injunction was against "entangling alliances" rather than all alliances and that those which serve the US interest without limited its freedom of action are consistent with Washington rather than opposing it. In perhaps the most interesting "revision" of the entire book, he repudidates the notion that America has ever been an isolationist nation, saying that it really was a concern for our ability to act unilaterally that was at issue and points to a long history of interventionism to protect US interests dating back to Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates. Finally, the book explains the role of religion in the changing nature of America's policies from that of a promised land where we would lead by example primarily to one where we would be more willing to intervene.

Rating:
Summary: a pivotal text
Review: Since America won the Cold War, there has been great confusion over what principles should guide our Foreign Policy. The options range from the isolationism of Pat Buchanan to the interventionist nation-building of Bill Clinton. Anyone wishing to understand the ongoing arguments should read this terrific book. McDougall's compelling thesis is that there is a fundamental dichotomy in US Foreign Policy, with two competing doctrines each influenced by four different themes. There is the Promised Land (or Old Testament) impulse, which is based on four key traditions:

OLD TESTAMENT (Promised Land) Exceptionalism (focus on liberty at home, avoiding entangling alliances) Unilateralism (as opposed to isolationism) The American System (Monroe Doctrine) Expansionism (Manifest Destiny)

This was the prevailing approach to foreign policy--designed to protect America's liberty and independence from the outside world--until 1898 and the Spanish American War, at which point a New Testament gained ascendancy, likewise guided by four traditions:

NEW TESTAMENT (Crusader State) Progressive Imperialism Liberal Internationalism (Wilsonianism) Containment Global Meliorism (reforming other nations internal problems)

The adoption of the New Testament policy marked the triumph of the "do-gooder impulse" and represented America's desire to influence the rest of the world and try to make it a "better" place. Given this context, we can see that Buchanan and Clinton are representatives of two great historic trends in American thought; what remains is for us to decide between the two.

After presenting the historic development of each of the eight traditions, McDougall concludes with a chapter on whether each would serve us well now. The only New Testament tradition that he sees any value in is Containment. In fact, he treats Containment well throughout the book. It seems as if he's a little overawed by George Kennan (the father of Containment). In particular, he gives the policy credit for defeating the Soviet Union. While he does criticize the price paid (huge debt, internal dissent, etc.), I believe that he overestimates the policy. First of all, if containment did work, it too 36 years to do so and that is simply too long. Second, it would seem that you have to consider the Reagan Era policy to be quite different than what had come before, especially the active support of counterrevolutionary movements in Soviet Bloc countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola). Generally, the discussion of how US policy won the Cold War is somewhat weak.

But his final conclusions, that we should return to the Old Testament--taking care of our own internal problems; being prepared to act unilaterally, if at all; remaining strong enough to deter challenges; and thereby, continuing to fulfill our unique destiny--is cogent and extremely powerful. This is a pivotal text for understanding our role in the world, past, present and future.

GRADE: A

Rating:
Summary: A good, sweeping history
Review: This book offers a good, sweeping history of United States foreign policy from independence through the present. The author's Old/New Testment metaphor is useful, and his arguments are for the most part convincing. Some more background as to the role of the colonial wars in forging American identity would make the work more complete, but what is here is worth the read.

Rating:
Summary: Making sense of US Foreign Policy Schizophrenia
Review: To many observers, American foreign policy appears schizophrenic--an odd mix of high-minded idealism and crass realism. On one end, American hegemony has coincided with an unprecedented degree of geopolitical stability and material prosperity; on the other, America has started fights when none existed and has meddled where it did not belong. In other words, some see America as a beacon, others as a beast. It is little wonder that the exercise of American power, most lately in Iraq, has proven so controversial.

This ambivalence was well captured by Senator Fulbright who wrote that, "The inconstancy of American foreign policy is not an accident but an expression of two distinct sides of the American character. Both are characterized by a kind of moralism, but one is the morality of decent instincts tempered by the knowledge of human imperfection and the other is the morality of absolute self-assurance fired by the crusader spirit." Walter McDougall, of the University of Pennsylvania, tries to cast light into these American contradictions by looking into the Old ("Promised Land") and New Testament ("Crusader State") of its foreign policy.

Mr. McDougall's purpose is to dispel certain myths surrounding American foreign policy and unify seemingly inconsistent traditions. The former goal is achieved through a meticulous reading of primary and secondary sources; for example, Mr. McDougall renames the hallowed principles of the Old Testament: Liberty for Exceptionalism, Unilateralism for Isolationism, Expansionism for Manifest Destiny, and the American System for the Monroe Doctrine. The New Testament is similarly described in four traditions: Progressive Imperialism, Wilsonianism, Containment, and Global Meliorism.

What connects these diverse traditions is the belief that foreign policy should never compromise liberty at home. What is more, these traditions coexist in the American mind and influence its foreign policy. In that sense, argues Mr. McDougall, simple dichotomies between realism and idealism miss the mark; American foreign policy is at the same time "good, bad and ugly." Only after appreciating this reality can one hope of understanding the basic tenets of American foreign policy and make sense of its apparent schizophrenia.