Empire of liberty

We do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current administration is out to remake our national character into something (dangerous militarism) it has never been." -- Democratic strategist Gary Hart. \nPopular support for this proposition might not be wanting, but, if historian Robert Kagan is to be believed, empirical evidence is. \nIn his riveting new book, "Dangerous Nation," Kagan assaults the commonplace notion that the United States has traditionally wished to evoke support from others by remaining a status quo power, as opposed to a revolutionary one. This claim is deployed to indict the Bush administration for seeking "unilaterally" or "preemptively" to "impose" democracy on others at gunpoint. \nBut it's a myth that the United States is "by nature inward-looking and aloof, only sporadically and spasmodically venturing forth into the world, usually in response to external attack or perceived threats." As Kagan shows, America's journey toward continental and then global preeminence began from the liberal republic's first days: Jefferson foresaw a vast "empire of liberty" spreading west, north and south across the continent. Indeed, it was decided even before the establishment of the union itself that American allegiances would transcend blood and soil. This unique brand of nationalism bespoke a people committed above all to "liberal republican ideology." \nThis "new universalistic nationalism," Kagan explains, reflected Americans' exceptional view of themselves as "the advance guard of civilization." Hence Kagan's ironically approving title ("Dangerous Nation") in the first of two installments on the history of American foreign policy. \nThis is not the story usually portrayed in America's classrooms. Indeed, it is often forgotten that John Quincy Adams remarked of "the universal feeling of Europe in witnessing the gigantic growth of our population is that we shall, if united, become a very dangerous member of the society of nations." From the very moment American "global revolutionaries" arrived on the scene, their visions of a "far-reaching empire" aroused fear not only among those located on the frontier but also within every major system of tyranny in the world. This fear -- not only of America but also for the national independence movements which it would inspire and would gain its support -- as Adams contentedly understood, enjoyed the value of being justified. \nUnlike many critics of the Bush administration, I do not believe that its policies have been out of step with America's character. On the contrary, those of us who've become stern imperialist warmongers in recent years have grown impatient with those who can't see that it is reviving a long-dormant national tradition. \nIn a dangerous world, America has occasionally been quite dangerous itself. This fact is in need of particular contemplation today, in a world where a league of dictators from North Korea to the Sudan and Iran to Venezuela are aligning against the United States and its "sister republics" around the globe. Americans could do worse than to re-learn and take to heart the wisdom of their own Founding Fathers and -- dare we hope? -- likewise remember that internationalism is not only America's legacy; it is our abiding purpose.