|
The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism | 
 enlarge | Author: Andrew Bacevich
Publisher: Metropolitan Books
Category: Book
List Price: $24.00
Buy New: $12.75
You Save: $11.25 (47%)
New (56) Used (16) from $12.75
Avg. Customer Rating:  144 reviews
Sales Rank: 488
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 224
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.8
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.6 x 0.9
ISBN: 0805088156
Dewey Decimal Number: 320.973
EAN: 9780805088151
ASIN: 0805088156
Publication Date: August 5, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
From an acclaimed conservative historian and former military officer, a bracing call for a pragmatic confrontation with the nation's problems The Limits of Power identifies a profound triple crisis facing America: the economy, in remarkable disarray, can no longer be fixed by relying on expansion abroad; the government, transformed by an imperial presidency, is a democracy in form only; U.S. involvement in endless wars, driven by a deep infatuation with military power, has been a catastrophe for the body politic. These pressing problems threaten all of us, Republicans and Democrats. If the nation is to solve its predicament, it will need the revival of a distinctly American approach: the neglected tradition of realism. Andrew J. Bacevich, uniquely respected across the political spectrum, offers a historical perspective on the illusions that have governed American policy since 1945. The realism he proposes includes respect for power and its limits; sensitivity to unintended consequences; aversion to claims of exceptionalism; skepticism of easy solutions, especially those involving force; and a conviction that the books will have to balance. Only a return to such principles, Bacevich argues, can provide common ground for fixing America’s urgent problems before the damage becomes irreparable.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 139 more reviews...
 Factually true, logically weak January 6, 2009
Most of the facts that Andrew Bacevich puts forth are quite true. The central core of the book, the weakness of the idea of American exceptionalism, is indeed valid. That excptionaism and the resulting imperialist tendencies make American government more of a threat to American citizens and society, and actually the whole world, than most foreign powers. Even though he gets that right, it is based on some misunderstandings which only serve to bring him to some misguided conclusions.
His premise is that, because Americans have a fetish about freedom, they have succumbed to consumerism and dependence on foreign oil and other goods, in order to live the good life. This dependence has put a premium on military might to protect the freedom to consume. He sees this as the primary cause of the Middle East conflicts. Americans protecting their interests, using the false front of freeing the people of that region from tyrants, use military might to protect their supposed right to cheap oil.
He is writing from a background as a retired army colonel. When he speaks of The United States, America or Americans, he is generally speaking of the collective political apparatus of the state, not about the people at all. This does set the tone for much of the book and his outlook. There are times, however, when he does refer to the people with those terms, thus, adding a bit of confusion to the logic.
A fundamental error in his logic, which affects most of his conclusions and recommendations, is that he misconstrues the notion of freedom. He states that "freedom has an underside", reflected in the things that he doesn't like about American society.
The only coherent understanding of freedom is that it has limitations only in the responsibility to refrain from interfering with the freedom of others. That is not the understanding of freedom that Bacevich uses. His statement in the first section of the book is telling. "In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Washington's resolve that nothing interfere with the individual American's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness only hardened."
It may be that politicians wanted Americans to think that they were interested in preserving freedom, but everything that they did was destruction of freedom for Americans. As he noted later in the book, American politicians and military leaders used the pretext of freedom for Middle East countries to initiate aggressive military and political intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, with the objective of installing friendly governments. Yet he doesn't grasp his own inconsistent understanding and misuse of the term throughout his discussions.
Through much of the book, that disconnect was quite disturbing, because I agree with most of what he said. Imperialism is weakening America, morally, politically and financially. American politicians are trying to impose on the world standards that they themselves refuse to abide by. Frequently, however, I would be jolted by something that didn't fit, conclusions that were wrong. It seems to come down to the idea that freedom is the problem.
In his conclusion, he comes close to being right, but then veers off course by construing that international relations are only political or military. He quotes his master, Niebuhr, saying "Yet he [Niebuhr] understood that a nation satisfies its interests more easily when those interests are compatible with the interests of others." What he is stating is the essence of free trade. When people are free to trade with whomever they want on whatever terms they want, the interests of each are made compatible. Lack of coercion creates benefits of cooperation for both parties.
Where he goes wrong is to believe that the interests of American politicians are the interests of the Americans. That is the root of most economic fallacy and problems in international relations. The self interest of politicians is almost always at odds with the self interest of citizens. Bacevich treats them as one and the same. On the very last page, he quotes Neibuhr again, "social orders will probably destroy themselves in the effort to prove that they are indestructible." The reality is that politicians will destroy social orders because their own self interest is in power, and power ultimately destroys freedom and progress.
Bacevich's line of reasoning seems to be based on his understanding that "Freedom is the alter at which Americans worship, whatever their nominal religious persuasion." That unrestrained pursuit of life, liberty and happiness leads to the outward projection of military might to protect American's right to buy stuff for cheap. That has led to a dependence on foreign countries for cheap oil and cheap goods. The American standard of living is thus, according to Bacevich, the result of imperialism. The conclusion is that Americans must accept a lower standard of living in order to bring the imperialist government in line.
There are, in fact, many people who do worship at that alter that Bacevich talks about. But the freedom he is talking about is not freedom with any coherent meaning. That false freedom denies that anyone else has freedom to pursue their own self interests. Because Americans are free to trade does not in any way give any philosophical support to the idea that they have a right to force others, domestic or foreign, to trade with them on terms that they themselves set. That is not freedom, in any coherent sense, but rather the use of coercion, the rejection of freedom of others. True freedom is, in fact, a two way street.
In the Middle East, Americans have no right, whatsoever, to the petroleum resources of any nation. If every Middle East country stopped producing and selling oil, that would probably be harmful to Americans in the short run. That fact does not give the American military or the CIA the right to interfere militarily or politically in the workings of any other nation. Americans can and would adjust. But moreover, that scenario is very unlikely to ever happen. The fact that Americans are dependent on foreigners for oil, means that they are dependent on us for other things. When Americans pay in dollars, foreigners have to buy something from Americans to use those American dollars.
Bacevich suffers from the illusion that dependence is a bad thing, and that Americans would be better off by being independent of any country for any good. The very sound and widely accepted fact is that international trade between individuals makes all parties better off. Thousands of different factors give comparative advantage to different regions, different cultures and different people. When someone concentrates on what they are good at and trades for what they are not good at, they are significantly better off. The more international the structure on which comparative advantage can be pursued, the higher the standard of living will be for all involved. It is not dependency but rather interdependency.
The notion that nations trade is the fallacy that promotes imperialism. Nations don't trade, the people of the nations do. Neither they nor their state apparatus has any right to coerce others to trade.
A more realistic line of reasoning to me is that economic freedom created prosperity. That prosperity allowed the possibility of large, powerful government that was capable of imperialism. That large government and imperialism is a threat to the very freedom that created the prosperity, and, thus, massive government and imperialism must be resisted by all people interested in true freedom and future prosperity.
If the individuals in America were held responsible for their own lives and were free to trade with people, at home and in other nations, unhindered, and the people in other nations were free to trade with Americans without coercion and the threat of military force, America would be a shining star among nations in the world. Terrorists would not target Americans, because American military would not be using force for economic and political benefit. America's military prowess could be deployed in true defense, not interfering in the politics of other nations, and, as Bacevich states, "We don't need a bigger army, but rather a smaller foreign policy."
I wanted to give the book 4 stars, because it is engaging. I cannot, however, because I think the weakness of some of the assumptions and the resulting conclusions affect its contribution and validity.
 The Limits of Power December 29, 2008
Great book although depressing to see where we have been and what we need to do. A must read regardless of your political leanings. Shows Congress is as much to blame as our presidents when it comes to war policy due to abdication of their responsibilities.
Best Political Insight In Years December 28, 2008
In this short book, Bacevich gets right to the point--the American way of life since post-WWII can best be described as the desperate drive for "more"; this penchant for more drives our foreign policy, threatens our economic stability and national security, and profoundly affects how we are perceived around the globe. This book is not preachy. I read lots of political works, but this one, more so than any book in the last several years, really made me see myself, as well as my country, from a fresh perspective.
 A watered-down wakeup call December 22, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Bacevich uses history from primarily the last half-century to point out the flaws with the way our country has been operating.
I applaud the effort, and understand these short books are more of a motivational device for readers. As such, I feel the book serves its purpose. I wish, however, that Mr Bacevich would have chosen to dig beneath the veneer of events as presented by the mainstream media.
On one hand, he questions the handling of many popular events, but never the reporting of said event. It left me with the same bad taste the 7:00 news would. I guess my only point is that if you can't trust the leadership to accurately inform you of their decisions after an event, how can you trust them to accurately report on the event itself?
With the exception of a brief discussion of fact manipulation prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bacevich has left most of the truths "in the closet" - perhaps to not be labelled as a conspiracy theorist? Anyway, the book is still a good wakup call attempt, focusing more on military actions as opposed to something like The Revolution: A Manifesto which focuses more on the political side.
 The decline of America has been predicted many times before. December 21, 2008
1 out of 11 found this review helpful
First it was communism and Sputnik. Remember? America was never going to be a great power again. Then it was Korea and Viet Nam. And America was never going to be a great power again. Remember? Then it was the Japanese industrial revolution and we could not make anything anymore, and, of course, America was never going to be a great power again. *sigh* It get's kind of old does it not?
Reality: At the dawn of the 21st century, there are no genuine competitors to the title of "super power." France, hardly a true ally, even calls the United States a "Hyper Power," (to their great dismay). Most nations have dismantled their militaries with the exception of Great Britain. Canada is a laughing stock. France and Germany can barely meet their UN peacekeeping duties. All of Europe together could not solve the unrest in the Balkan wars, and needed American assitance.
Economy? We have the highest per capita production of any nation (Opps...someone forgot to tell you that). Our GDP is greater than all of Europe combined. We are far and away the wealthies nation on earth. Even in Iraq, the tide has turned in our favor (you know that because you don't see it on the news anymore. What happened to the nightly coverage?)
Sadly, there are always ready and anxious readers who slather at the possibility of America's downfall. Remember the book "The Decline and Fall of Great Powers?" About 20 years ago, and the author, John Kennedy (no relation to any political figure), had a great following! Surely America was done for! Many slathered and hoped, but it was not to be. One has to sense the disappointment. What a shame!
And here we go again. *yawn* What these anti-Americans never get right is that America is the most adaptable country in the world. We re-invent ourselves routinely because we are free to do so. As long as America is free, our people (not the government) will adapt to new realities faster than any other country in the world.
PS: Someone should tell all the immigrants from all over the world that we are near collapse. They still seem to be under the delusion that America is the last best hope.
Joseph M. Vottis
|
|
|
Powered By Czao Online Store | |
