Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm Immanuel Wallerstein Comment No. 47, September 1, 2000 "The U.S. Elections and the Rest of the World" The rest of the world is watching the U.S. elections with interest, some concern, and the knowledge that what happens in the U.S. matters to them. But are the U.S. elections taking account of the rest of the world? Not to any significant degree. Anyone who watched the successive Republican and Democratic nominating conventions cannot but be struck by the fact that there was scarcely a mention of the rest of the world in either convention. And the campaign, which is becoming passionate and lively, has not really made any foreign policy issue central. What the candidates are discussing is what to do with the present and prospective surplus in the U.S. national accounts. There are five kinds of expenditures being debated: education, health, life-time income (social security), defense, and tax abatement. No doubt there are important differences between the two parties on these questions, but except for defense (so far the least debated issue) they are all internal U.S. questions - how to divide up the booty within the world's richest country, or in the language of both candidates, how not to leave any one (that is, any U.S. citizen) behind in what is now seen as a period of exceptional prosperity. How do we explain this extraordinary self-preoccupation of the most powerful nation in the world today? There are some obvious reasons. The United States has a long isolationist tradition, deeply ingrained in the national psyche. It was overridden between 1940 and 1989 by what was seen as serious menaces to U.S. national interests - first the Axis powers, then the Communist bloc. Neither of these external foes now exists, or exists in a form serious enough to lead U.S. public opinion to support spending large amounts of money to do anything about it. Since 1989, various groups in the U.S. have tried to demonize the remaining Communist states (North Korea, China, and Cuba) and the asserted threat of Islamic fundamentalism (these days incarnated by Osama bin Laden). But the U.S. public, to the extent that it follows these issues at all, tends to yawn, except for specific interested segments of the public. Furthermore, insofar as one can say that the U.S. government has a clear foreign policy on the questions related to these states (nuclear proliferation, human rights, terrorism), there does not seem to be any significant difference between the dominant view in the two parties. Both Gore and Bush for example are committed to a cautious policy towards China. Both Gore and Bush seek to limit nuclear proliferation everywhere by a kind of "finger-in-the-dike" policy, offering threats, bribes, and persuasion on all and sundry, with limited effect, be it said. Both Gore and Bush are wary about the prospect of sending U.S. troops anywhere, to do anything. Both Gore and Bush are committed to defend Israel, but wish the Palestine question would be settled somehow. Both Gore and Bush want to have better relations with Mexico, but not really at the price of opening the borders significantly. Both Gore and Bush wish that the Europeans (and Canada) would stop trying to act so independent of the U.S. and neither is sure what to do about it. It is not that these policies have no critics. The dominant positions in each party, which are so similar, have their strong critics within the party, but the strong critics remain a minority and basically ineffectual. I think it can fairly be said that whether the one or the other wins the election will make only a marginal difference in U.S. foreign policy. It will make a lot of difference internally, to be sure. And of course that might have a long-run effect on the rest of the world, but the effect will not be immediately visible. What Gore and Bush believe in above all is furthering the full access of U.S. capital to investments everywhere, which both are convinced will be good for the U.S. And both believe that what is good for the U.S. is automatically good for the rest of the world. Actually, behind their upfront optimism about the economic future of the U.S., both are in fact somewhat worried. And their worry reflects the worries of U.S. public opinion. We have a curious situation in the U.S. now in many ways. Rarely have things seemed so good to so many as in the last five years. It should be remembered, however, that this is true only of the last five years. In 1992, George Bush lost to Clinton because of the state of the economy (downsizing and the size of the national debt). In 1982, when Reagan was President, the Democrats swept the Congressional races because of the state of the economy (unemployment). In 1980, Reagan nosed out Carter largely because of the state of the economy (stagflation). And in 1973, most Americans were convinced that Libya was about to buy the United States (the oil price rise). This may not be how economists analyze what happened, but it is how the U.S. public thought about it. Most Americans are happy things are now going so well. But most of them are also waiting for the other shoe to fall, for the bad times just down the road. This is why so many have been suddenly responsive to the "populist" rhetoric of Gore. This is why Bush is talking a centrist language, so-called "compassionate conservatism," so unusual for a Republican candidate. This ambivalence - confidence mixed with nervousness - means that no one has much energy for the problems of the rest of the world. Yes, the Republicans have relaunched their old vote-getter, more funds for the military. The Democrats have responded by saying, okay a little more. It's doubtful this debate is going to swing too many votes. But yes, if the Republicans win, they will be a little less concerned about violating the ABM Treaty than the Democrats. Still the actual difference may only be rhetorical, and the protagonists of Realpolitik seem to be dominant among Bush's main foreign policy advisors, as among Gore's. When Eisenhower became President in 1952, his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, talked "rollback" in place of "containment," but the very next year, when Russian troops were in the streets of East Berlin, Dulles practices "containment" and not "rollback." And again in 1956, and again in 1968, and again in 1981. One should be hesitant to take rhetoric too seriously. What this whole current de-emphasis on foreign policy in the U.S. elections really suggests is that the U.S. is adrift on the world scene - not sure how to promote its own interests, not to speak of the world's interests. The policies are both cautious and heavyhanded, without however a clear vision of what is happening globally, and with a naive faith that somehow the good guys and the market always win in the long run. And that the U.S. is the most wonderful, and the luckiest, country in the world. One would very much like to hear what the rest of the world is saying in the privacy of their inner councils - in Beijing and Tokyo, in Paris and Berlin, in Pretoria and Brasilia. I don't think either Gore or Bush would be too pleased, if they knew. Immanuel Wallerstein [These commentaries may be downloaded, forwarded electronically or e-mailed to others, but may not be reproduced in any print medium without permission of copyright holder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.] ______________________________________________ Go to List of Commentaries Got to Fernand Braudel Center Homepage -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 12222 ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
