The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson

This is a balanced book, well-grounded in history, with an objective air and a very pleasing integration of specific quotes from both the past and the present. It strips away the false airs of the neo-cons, and with trenchant scholarship shows how deeply ignorant America's neo-conservatives and their leading light are of the lessons of history. The early portion of the book provides an excellent overview, concise, documented, easy to absorb, of the origins of American imperialism in the early century of Christian millennialism followed by civil millennialism. The chart on page 17 is useful, covering the seven period of various styles of American imperialism or avoidance thereof. The book documents the explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of empires based on conquest and distance rule, and of foreign political entanglements. I especially liked a 1780 quote from Reverend Samuel Cooper that captures my own personal belief in how America should relate to the world: "Conquest is not indeed the aim of these rising states; sound policy must ever forbid it. We have before us an object more truly great and honorable. We seem called by heaven to make a large portion of this globe a seat of knowledge and liberty, of agriculture, commerce, and arts, and what is more important than all, of Christian piety and virtue." I find it relevant that Mark Twain, among many others in our history, was a staunch opponent of American imperialism. The middle portion of the book provides a non-judgmental review of how America was lured into imperialism for largely economic reasons, including a fear of losing access to China as well as coaling stations for a global navy. At the same time, there is a recurring theme throughout the book of the arrogance and ignorance of white Protestants, who believed-as the Spanish did when they began the genocide in the Americas-that the heathen are savages that must be either absorbed or exterminated. Especially interesting to me is the concept discussed in the book regarding the early American view that all land not under direct human cultivation was "waste land" whose occupants merited removal as a precondition to "civilized" stewardship [exploitation] of the land. Theodore Roosevelt is discussed in both negative and positive terms-I have the note in the margin here of Roosevelt as the originator of what can easily be called "macho shit racism"-yet Roosevelt also matured, and ultimately set the stage for a discussion of the League of Nations concept. Woodrow Wilson is the other historical figure in the center of the book, and his ideal of a collective multinational "conscience of the world" receives a good review. Critical within this section is Wilson early understanding that the "balance of power" model for nations was an inherent unstable model. To this I would add a pointer to my review of Philip Allot, The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State where he documents the absurdity of

This sounding against American Empire shows the remarkable, and unsettling, resemblance of the current Bush escapade to the first brush with empire in the period of McKinley onward. The Cuban venture, of Rough Rider fame, and especially,the Philippine quagmire show the same sequence of intoxicating military escape followed by quicksand colonial ambitions. Many are accused of forgetting history. Bush couldn't have forgotten anything--he doesn't read history.

John B. Judis' Folly of Empire is a wonderfully contructed case against American imperialism. From the Puritans to Fanklin Roosevelt to the current President, Judis clearly cites and explains the history and the role of imperialism in American. He champions the Wilsonian belief that imperialism will inevitably lead to strong nationalism as well as world conflict. He also goes on to explain the source of the American drive towards imperialism. He cites America's vision of having a special role in history, a milienial mission. He states that this vision and the various interpratations of it are responsible for American foreign policy throughout this country's history. In comparing the Indian Wars and the conquest of the Philipines to the present situation in Iraq as well as other areas of foreign policy, Judis makes a very clear and easily accessible overview of imperialism in America. I found this book to be intriguing and logical; it was well worth the read.

In twenty-five words or less, this book says President George Bush's "liberation" of Iraq is remarkably similar to President McKinley's "liberation" of the Philippines more than a century ago. So, what do Filipinos think of Bush? According to the Sept. 6, 2004, edition of The Financial Times of London, Filipinos gave Bush the biggest margin in any of the 35 countries surveyed by GlobeScan, in conjunction with the University of Maryland. The poll says 57 percent of Filipinos support Bush, compared to 32 percent for Sen. John Kerry. This isn't recent bubble of popularity; in 2002, a survey by a Manila-based polling group, Pulse Asia, found that Bush enjoyed a 56 percent trust rating -- much higher than the president of the Philippines. Judis, one of the most perceptive and knowledgable writers in America, uses all the history that fits to argue that "through international organizations and treaties, the United States would keep the peace and promote prosperity much more effectively than it could accomplish acting alone." He doesn't ask what will happen if others use his recommended techniques against America. He cites the experience of presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush to argue "Until the 1890s, the United States had adhered to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's advice to stay out of 'foreign entanglements'." Of course, this ignores US invasions of Canada in 1775/76, 1812/14, and major threats in 1846 and 1865/67 which produced the Confederation of Canada, up to this century and the victimization of Canada by seizing lands in the Alaska Boundary dispute. It also overlooks the Monroe Doctrine, which in effect made the Caribbean "an American lake" and all of the Americas into a US colony. "Bush was ignorant" Judis argues, saying his "religious beliefs seem to have grown out of a sense of personal redemption from sin -- in his case, alcoholism . . . . " After Sept. 11, 2001, he says US foreign policy was shaped by neoconservatives such as Irving Kristol and Wohlstetter who were both Trotskyists (i.e. communists) and former socialists who had undergone a sudden and complete transformation of faith similar to what Bush experienced. True! True! True! He cites facts again and again and again. Only the uncurious and ignorant can dispute his facts. His conclusion addresses everyone who cares very deeply about the future, "When America goes out alone in search of monsters to destroy -- venturing on terrain upon which imperial powers have already trod -- it can itself become the monster." This isn't a political book that will die with the election results, no matter who wins. The lessons Judis cites will live with us for decades, regardless of who is elected and whatever decisions are made. Maybe, in a century, 57 percent of Iraqis will think Bush was right. The real issue is the blood, treasure, toil, suffering and misery to get to that happy conclusion. Judis says there are much better techn

If you like History, are care about the future course of American foreign policy and its place in the world, this is the book for you. Wonderfully written and researched, it helps the reader understand how the views of two important presidents were shaped by events in the world and how George Bush should learn from their experiences. Those that do not study histroy are doomed to repeat it and those who care about the future direction of the country should start by reading this wonderful book.