Books.org participates in affiliate programs including Bookshop.org and the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. We may earn a commission from qualifying purchases made through links on this page, at no additional cost to you.
Overview
The United States finds itself at the center of a historically unparalleled empire, one that is wealth-generating and voluntary rather than imperialistic, say the authors of this compelling book. William E. Odom and Robert Dujarric examine America’s unprecedented power within the international arenas of politics, economics, demographics, education, science, and culture. They argue persuasively that the major threat to this unique empire is ineffective U.S. leadership, not a rising rival power center.
America cannot simply behave as an ordinary sovereign state, Odom and Dujarric contend. They describe the responsibilities that accompany staggering power advantages and explain that resorting to unilateralism makes sense only when it becomes necessary to overcome paralysis in multilateral organizations. The authors also offer insights into the importance of liberal international institutions as a source of power, why international cooperation pays, and why spreading democracy often inhibits the spread of constitutional order. If the United States uses its own power constructively, the authors conclude, the American empire will flourish for a long time.
Synopsis
A thought-provoking and timely analysis of American power, with unexpected conclusions about the most serious threat we face in coming decades
Publishers Weekly
Like Jim Garrison (see above), these two policy experts recognize that the United States has risen to such unprecedented levels on all fronts that no other nation or even alliance of nations can counterbalance its power. But unlike Garrison, who wants the U.S. to create a global society, Odom (former head of the National Security Agency) and Dujarric (a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) envision "strong prospects for sustaining the American empire for a very long time." The tone is cautiously pragmatic, calling for the preservation of Liberal (with a capital L) institutions that will propagate American values and urging political leaders not to overreact to terrorism, which they deem "a tactic, not an enemy." (Mar.) Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.
Editorials
Publishers Weekly
Like Jim Garrison (see above), these two policy experts recognize that the United States has risen to such unprecedented levels on all fronts that no other nation or even alliance of nations can counterbalance its power. But unlike Garrison, who wants the U.S. to create a global society, Odom (former head of the National Security Agency) and Dujarric (a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) envision "strong prospects for sustaining the American empire for a very long time." The tone is cautiously pragmatic, calling for the preservation of Liberal (with a capital L) institutions that will propagate American values and urging political leaders not to overreact to terrorism, which they deem "a tactic, not an enemy." (Mar.) Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.Foreign Affairs
How durable is U.S. power? The authors of this thoughtful, well-researched study offer mostly optimistic answers. Looking at sources of power ranging from military strength to academic institutions and scientific accomplishments, Odom and Dujarric conclude that the current position of the United States could last for decades — if not longer. Their basic argument is that the United States is strong because it has a depth and breadth of liberal practices and institutions that other societies cannot match — and that because liberal institutions generally reflect long-term cultural habits and trends, they will not soon catch up. This case is a sort of synthesis between Francis Fukuyama's end of history and Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations: liberal values lead to success, but not everyone can get there.The most important warning the authors offer is that, because of poor leadership (they point to examples in both the Clinton and Bush administrations), the United States could adopt bad policies that cause others to band together against its power. This claim seems a little inconsistent; surely a society as well ordered as the liberal one they describe would do a reasonably decent job of choosing national leaders. In any case, the authors leave themselves a realistic if inelegant escape hatch: Bush's unilateral, confrontational policies are dangerous and poorly conceived — unless they turn out well.