The Mighty and the Almighty

Disclosure: I do not believe in American Exceptionalism. I believe what Mme. Albright specifically rejects, that the United States is just another country. Moreover, I believe the United States has, wily nilly, become an Empire, and now the Empire drives American policies - what happens to those riding tigers. Recent foreign adventures have ripped off the veil covering American intentions, exposing them for the world to see. Mme. Albright specifically disagrees with all the foregoing. She believes the United States has a central role in bringing about universal "respect for the individual" (p. 289). However, in concluding the book, she makes clear that the United States is not accomplishing that goal right now. I agree with her eventual appreciation of the facts, and her prediction that Iran will be the central power in the Middle East for the foreseeable future (p. 249).

In her discussion of Al Qaeda (chapter 13) and Saudi Arabia (chapter 14), it becomes clear that Mme. Albright views the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden (OBL) as aberrations, not the norm or desired outcome. She complains, if only Arabs could see through the propaganda of Muslim radicals, then they would be with us, not the Arab radicals. Apparently, Mme. Albright cannot come to terms with the notion that there is another way of seeing the world, a way that leads people to radical actions she cannot approve. She is at pains to point out that "reasonable" Muslims do not interpret the Qur'an as does OBL or Saudi Wahhabbis. In her view, the Qur'an should be considered in a manner similar to modern Christian and Jewish interpretations of their ancient scriptures. She does accept that Jewish and Christian documents are replete with violent episodes, and even approve polygamy, slavery, revenge, murder and many more practices now considered  abominations. However, she believes those things are not the dominant message of those religious books. For that reason, she hopes that, sooner or later, Muslims will reject the extremists and make peace with the West. Thus, specifically, she rejects the thesis of Prof. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations.

Mme. Albright is forthright in her allegiance to Catholicism, perhaps confused by her discovery late in life of having had Jewish parents. Whatever her religious beliefs, she firmly believes religion has a place in government. At the very minimum, government officials need to understand religion because so many of the people are religious. Further, in today's conflict with terrorists, it is particularly important to understand Islam and its relation to the West. Even more than merely understanding, Albright believes people are motivated and guided by their religious beliefs. So, she thinks it is impossible to understand politics and diplomacy without also participating in religion. While she supports the traditional American separation of Church and State, she apparently believes the influences of religion cannot and should not be totally removed from government. That seems to be the result of her faith that religion is primarily a good influence on personal and governmental behavior.

My view: The key premise in her line of thinking, which is pretty much standard fare in "centrist" American politics, is that morality is based on religion (p. 13). My mother used to believe that, too, relying on the Church to instill "morality" in her children. Readers of my work know I utterly reject that fantasy. I generally view religion as a positive evil in modern times, even if, prior to the Renaissance, it was on balance a civilizing force. I also think it reflects a lack of philosophical depth to think that morality is based on religion.

For Mme. Albright, the lines between religion, politics and government are fuzzy, if they exist at all. While she is critical of the Religious Right and many of President George W. Bush's policies and actions, she does not criticize the motives of the Conservatives now in charge. She agrees in extending America's basic goodness to the rest of the world. The President is right to attempt bringing democracy to Arabs, but should go about it in a different way.

While it is difficult to pin this down, Albright does reveal how Washington Democrats think. The Democratic Establishment shares more "culture" with the Conservatives now in charge than most people realize. They believe in American Exceptionalism; particularly, that the United States is a force for good in this world. They believe the standard mythology taught in 9th grade Civics and 1st year college Western Civilization. Almost all of them have a Christian religious background, and are nominally practicing Christians. For the most part, they associate with each other and share in the common society of Washington, D.C., the core of which has always been a Southern city surrounded by ramshackle black ghettoes. They are respectful of the President, if only because they covet the office so will not deprecate it.

When I was much younger, I had a better grasp of how those people see the world. Today, I find it very difficult even to describe their beliefs. It is clear that the Washington governing classes are of a social and cultural piece. Relatively speaking, I feel I live on Mars or Pluto, or maybe another star, compared to that society. What Albright's book demonstrates to me is that the Establishment does not think "outside the box." That is why such things as the war in Iraq cannot end. Mme. Albright is convinced the United States has a responsibility to make things better in Iraq. Albright opposed going to war in Iraq, but that no longer matters. Now that American troops occupy Iraq, the United States is responsible for outcomes. My argument, that the war is wrong, so we should cease and desist from our immorality, is never discussed.

Mme. Albright scarcely discusses what should be the place of the United States in this world. She generally assumes the country is a Great Power and should be involved in just about everything. In her view, the United States has a mission, which she does not see as Imperialism. While she does not say so, I think she would reject the notion, which I and others put forward, that there is an American Empire. On the other hand, I think she does agree that the United States is the successor power to the former British Empire. As a former Foreign Minister (Secretary of State) of the Empire, I think her practices were more determined by intellectual calculation based on that reality than her "inner," emotional denial of an American Empire. (I rate her performance in office about "B" or "B-". She owes her success to being pragmatic rather than ideological.)

For me, one of the most troubling aspects of the book is Albright's easy re-affirmation of her anti-Communism. She is, however, straightforward in admitting this may be a residue of her childhood experiences in Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic). About Vietnam, she writes,

Although Columbia had been a center of anti-war protests, neither Brzezinski nor I had joined them. We agreed the war had been mismanaged, but we did not share the casual attitude exhibited by some protest leaders toward the dangers of communism. We believed firmly in America's goals for the cold war and thought it possible to develop a better approach to to achieving them. (p. 36)

In short, she shared with Bill Clinton instrumental criticism of the Vietnam, while at the same time not opposing government policy. Mme. Albright, in her words, clearly did not and does not question the basic values and premises of American foreign policy. As Secretary of State, she continued the work of her predecessors. Her present criticisms of the Bush Administration square with her criticisms of the Johnson-Nixon era in accepting the rationale and goals of American foreign policy. Unlike Woodrow Wilson or George Marshall, she is not a policy innovator.

In the end, Mme. Albright makes seven specific recommendations which should guide diplomacy. They are unexceptional. That follows an examination of the United States' relations with the Arab world, which emphasizes the central role of religion, which is also unexceptional. In short, the book is unexceptional.

This is a useful background work, for those interested in the Clinton Presidency. It reveals a little of what "centrist" Democrats think and believe, especially those in Washington. However, I don't think this book helps the United States to get out of the Iraqi morass. There is no examination of philosophical, historical or policy fundamentals. That sort of book would have been out of character for the pragmatic Mme. Albright.