Francis Fukuyama has continued to distance himself from the Bush-era neo-conservatism, with an interesting article in Newsweek about the end of the American “brand”. Fukuyama’s argument is that the US brand had two core concepts:
The first was a certain vision of capitalism—one that argued low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. Reaganism reversed a century-long trend toward ever-larger government. Deregulation became the order of the day not just in the United States but around the world.
The second big idea was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world, which was seen as the best path to a more prosperous and open international order. America’s power and influence rested not just on our tanks and dollars, but on the fact that most people found the American form of self-government attractive and wanted to reshape their societies along the same lines—what political scientist Joseph Nye has labeled our “soft power.”
However, he argues that both these concepts have been devalued in the eyes of the world. First, with respect to deregulation, he argues that for many, ‘it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state’. He believes that the financial markets were not sufficiently regulated, which has resulted in the present financial crisis. [My personal belief is that there were plenty of regulations... possibly too many... but they were not the right regulations.]
His second argument is that the US has damaged its credibility with respect to introducing “democratic freedoms” by attempting to introduce countries to such measures at gunpoint (Iraq being the primary example). But the US is also willing to overlook a lack of democracy in certain strategic allies. “Democracy” has become a reason for military intervention, not something to which countries should voluntarily aspire. He argues:
We don’t have much credibility when we champion a “freedom agenda.”
The American model has also been seriously tarnished by the Bush administration’s use of torture. After 9/11 Americans proved distressingly ready to give up constitutional protections for the sake of security. Guantánamo Bay and the hooded prisoner at Abu Ghraib have since replaced the Statue of Liberty as symbols of America in the eyes of many non-Americans.
He concludes by saying that American democracy needs to reform itself, both internally and externally.
I caught the end of Insight on SBS last week, which featured a New York audience rather than an Australian audience. I was fascinated to see that many of the audience saw the US as a country to be admired and emulated by others. Essentially, they believed in the American “brand”. Personally, I’m not sure how strong the US “brand” was in the first place. The Reagan era was certainly not free of inappropriate and heavy handed intervention into the foreign policies of other countries. The US tanks didn’t go in directly, but US dollars funded the tanks and guns of others on the basis that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Many of these interventions can be regarded as a contributing factor to present problems. I would suggest that this made some parts of the world cynical about US foreign policy before the Bush administration even entered Iraq.
All this talk of the US brand makes me think of an anecdote involving the movie Air Force One, featuring Harrison Ford as the US president whose jet is hijacked by terrorists. I went to see it in the cinemas in Australia when it came out (about 10 years ago, from memory). There was a terribly patriotic and schmaltzy moment at the end which was obviously supposed to make the audience feel proud of America and the US President (if not slightly tearful). It didn’t work at all in Australia: the audience burst into uproarious laughter and groans for about two straight minutes, and someone shouted, “Oh, come off it!” It’s not that the audience was particularly anti-American, but this scene was not something that would appeal to an Australian. We’re not into worship of political office (quite the opposite). But perhaps the filmmakers had thought this kind of portrayal would have a universal appeal, and had believed in the power of the American brand overseas.
I agree with Fukuyama that the US’s status globally has been damaged by its foreign policy and the financial crisis. I suspect that if Air Force One were shown in present times, people would not laugh and groan as they did 10 years ago; rather, they might boo and catcall.
It will be interesting to see what a new President will do. One thing that perhaps Americans could learn from Australians is a certain realism as to the flaws of one’s system and the flaws of politicians. The only way in which one can improve is not to blindly assume one’s greatness, but to recognise that not everyone in the world admires you, and that there may be some valid reasons for this. Hopefully the US will have the strength to rebuild itself in a way which reflects the admirable freedoms and principles it espouses.
(Hat tip: A roll of the dice - good to see you guys are back and blogging!)
20 Comments
Yes and Frank was telling us that we had reached the end of history too.
Look, we also saw the end of the American brand back in the early 90’s and a few years later it was back roaring like a lion on heat. At the time Americans were questioning everything about themselves as they seem to do 247.
Frank needs to take a few breaths at times before he commits to paper as he can sometimes appear silly.
This blog should attract the usual redneck tirade from the US that seems to follow even the most mild criticism of anything about the US in a column that allows comments.
jc, I’ve got no doubt the Americans can come roaring back. They just need to think about how they want to do it.
boredacademic, there seems to be one extreme or the other where the US is concerned! Before anyone suggests it, I’d better say that I’m not someone who automatically hates all things US, nor am I someone who automatically supports all things US. Just for the record.
Ah Fukuyama tearing his hair and beating his chest and crying mea culpa. But we meant well.
he’s basically saying neoliberalism and neoconservativism have snuffed it and America looks like shit for giving birth to them. Right?
The neoconservative thing was just American realpolitik amplified by some people who thought they’d mix the self-imposed naivety and political evangelism of the hard left with the cultural chauvanism and total disregard for anybody else of the hard right: wonderful idea that.
Neolliberalism was a resurgence of laissez-faire notions selectively applied and pretty much compromised all over the place. There was, for example, a revisionist view of history by which the US and the UK grew to world economic powers by practising laissez-faire. That’s nonsense, they didn’t. Both of them protected their industries with tariff walls.
Tye neoliberals didn’t usher in a new laissez-faire era (apart from France and Holland I don’t think any cvountry’s actually ever really done liassez-faire) it ushered a new mercantilism. The BWIs simply crack open the markets of third-world countries without granting access to ours where the need it like agriculture.
It’s also hard to see whta various PPP arrangements which seem to grant private concerns publically funded monopolies has to do with competition or choice. It’s all smoke hiding a technocratic collusion.
I agree with L’eagle we need different rules, simple ones and a return to transperency and accountability. What we’ll probably get is a raft of Neo-Keynsian jargonistic econospeak which’ll persist until that falls on its arse.
Adrien, I totally agree that the US has never practiced true laissez faire in terms of world trade. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Doha negotiations had ever gotten off the ground…
There’s also the current hypocrisy. After a decade of calls to “let the markets do their job”, it’s now “unless that means we go out of business in which case the Government should make it worth our while with a half trillion pound sweetener”.
Welcome to the death of capitalism.
Very nicely said, DEM.
Good post LE.
We should not confuse the devaluation of the brand with some imminent demise of the US, though in terms of foreign influence that will certainly happen. That needs to happen, USA foreign policy over many decades has too many shameful aspects. The unalloyed self aggrandisement that emanates from the US, as you pointed out in reference to that movie, is laughable and and is worthy of mockery. It is not surprising that Aussies recoil from such self love, it is far too narcissistic and goes some way to explaining why the USA has been able to excuse and pathetically justify the way it likes to stomp upon the rest of the world. The great contradiction I find is that in my experience individuals citizens of the USA are amongst the most friendly, generous, and well informed people I have met.
I like Deus’ comment “Welcome to the death of capitalism” but don’t quite agree with it. More like “Welcome to the death of this experiment in capitalism”. The word “capitalism” suffers the same problem as the word “cancer”: singular tense. There are many styles of capitalism as there are many types of cancer. Each creates its own problems.
We are now in the process of creating another style of capitalism. I seriously doubt we will ever adopt the pure style of capitalism espoused by some, nor will we adopt pure socialism. Those who advocate such extremes want their dreams of a better world made reality. They can keep dreaming, the rest of us know life is not that simple.
Actually I would say that Thatcher preceded Regan’s deregulatory “revolution”. She gave spine to the capitalists who had been unable to find a rallying point in their battle with labour. The miners strike was a tipping point moment in my opinion. It is ironic that an American is unable to see this. And he probably can’t see the irony either.
The Death of Capitalism?
.
Not really. Same ol same ol’.
.
One of the things that’s become clear is that economists do tend to ideological bias perhaps without realizing it. One looks at the Great Slump and asks why the govt didn’t take action sooner. Then one wonders why when they did they set minimum wages so high as to impede the re-uptake. Keynes had become one of those economist slave-masters he cautioned politicians against.
Then Friedman comes in after Keynes’ wheels fall off. Now his wheels have. And around it goes. Who’ll come the rescue now? Stiglitz?
Thing is I know next to jackshit about financial markets. But I saw this coming years ago. It’s easy. Heaps of people spending heaps of money they don’t have.
I got a mortgage on the house but I want two houses (investment property) so I got another mortgage. But the builder jerked me around on the first house and it’s crumbling and he won’t come ’round and fix it. So I got a credit card to pay for the repairs and then I maxed it out and didn’t have enough money to go on holiday so I got another credit card……
(Sound of a plane screaming downward in spiral to crash against a gentle mountain).
And then we’ll pick ourselves up. And dust ourselves off and do it all over again.
Meantime: Does anyone have any good recipes for bark?
The end of Capitalism? Or business as usual?
That needs to happen, USA foreign policy over many decades has too many shameful aspects.
All foreign policy has shameful aspects. In fact one almost thinks that foreign ministers should be sociopaths. The problem with American foreign policy in realpolitik terms is that it’s been encumbered by what has been termed the naivety of infant superpowers.
The US had a certain supreme self-confidence untempered by the realistic appraisal of its own limitations. Additionally they had no real long-term view and, as an insular culture based on the evangelical roots of a Noble State they also labour under certain misconceptions collectively about the nature of others.
In Full Metal Jacket a US marine colonel tells the hero that “inside every Gook there’s an American trying to get out.”
This was true and untrue in the exactly opposite way that the charcater understands it. The Vietnamese were like the Americans in wanting to govern themselves. They wanted to do it in their own way. This fatal misunderstanding led to the US’s first humiliation. That current US leaders fail to learn th true lesson of Vietnam and instead learn the false one that there was insufficient commitment or inadequate control of the media testifies to persistent naivety.
The thing is that the US predominance in the world over the last two decades is an inevitable anomaly that was destined to end. Dubya and co, by spending outrageous amounts of money on an ill-considered bit of adventurism, have ensured the early demise of American hegemony.
The end of Capitalism? Or business as usual?
Proof positive that there’s always been plenty of bull in the stockmarket…
That’s so unfair DEM.
Before this latest shit-hits-the-fan stumble around i’th’ dark episode I was asking the Inside People, the Hipsters of High Finance if it was a bad thing that 300 trillion people out there had four mortgages and six credit cards on an annual income of 5 bucks. And they knew man, they were wise. Dig it -
.
They said: Naaah!
.
What we plebs don’t understand is that such a high level of finance requires a special kind of mathematics. Y’know where 2+2= whatever you want it to.
It’s very easy to be cynical about the Americans. But for all that they have been hypocritical about ‘free’ markets and ‘free’ countries, I think it’s worth recognising that there is some value in talking the talk, even if you don’t walk the walk.
In the end, as you note, most Americans believe the brand. In other words, they give a tip of their hat to genuine liberal democratic principles. This is far, far, faaaaar preferable to, say, China, who basically say that “too much freedom is bad and therefore we are going to control you.” If you had to have one of the two ruling you, which would you choose?
This flows through the US Government too - for all that there are manchurian candidates and wizards-of-oz behind the scenes, there are also a great many people (judges, bureaucrats, police and FBI, and so on) who do believe the hype and do believe that the US has certain strong liberal democratic principles that it must live and die by. In the end they got Nixon, and they may yet get Bush.
My point: there is value in the American brand, because if we can just get America to live up to its ideals then we are in business as a genuinely free civilisation. This is more that can be said for most empires.
Adrien - so true, I asked people to explain how massive personal debt was going to end up being a good thing to me too. They did, somehow, although oddly I can’t remember the actual words they said…
Paul - too true - where would I rather live? The US or China - I know which I’d choose. I wrote a review of Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? in which he spoke of the necessity to keep in mind that while the US has its flaws, they are nothing to some totalitarian regimes. The thing is that because a country is democratic and has freedoms, we know about its flaws whereas if it is totalitarian it’s a lot harder to identify…because no one can talk about it without risking being put in the slammer…
Paul - I think it’s worth recognising that there is some value in talking the talk, even if you don’t walk the walk.
In the end, as you note, most Americans believe the brand. In other words, they give a tip of their hat to genuine liberal democratic principles.
Talking the talk is useless unless you walk as well. Just ask someone in Russia c 1930.
This is far, far, faaaaar preferable to, say, China, who basically say that “too much freedom is bad and therefore we are going to control you.” If you had to have one of the two ruling you, which would you choose?
The States. But the reason the States is still preferable to the PRC is because the country was founded by people when talked and walked. Certain liberties are hard-wired into the system, try tho’ Bush has to remove them.
Talking of the PRC - a ray of hope????
Sorry Paul, spam filter ate your second comment. It’s voracious, but then it doesn’t eat the crazy Cyrillic spam we get…go figure…