(3/2011) Book Review: The End Of Arrogance

Review By Loyd E. Eskildson

“The End of Arrogance” by Steven Weber (Political Science Professor – Berkeley) and Bruce Jentleson emphasizes foreign policy and provides a welcome dose of reality to counteract those American leaders who insist on living in the past. They begin by defining ‘arrogant policies’ as those that carry with them a strong sense of entitlement, that others should simply listen and agree. They also contend that it is not convincing to look backward at what may have existed in the past, when competition for ideas and economic growth took different forms and was much less vibrant. No one, including the U.S., is entitled to set global values. Their major claim is that the era of U.S. ideological dominance is over.
 
The authors contend that in the 20th century, a few ideas promoted by the U.S. shaped world politics, including:

1) Peace is better than war.

2) Capitalism is better than socialism.

3) Democracy is better than dictatorship.

The U.S. was their paragon. While the current prevailing consensus within the U.S. is that they still hold, world opinion holds otherwise.
 
The U.S. itself blasted apart the ‘Peace is better than war’ belief when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.
 
Capitalism did beat socialism; however, a new form has governments owning and directing large and strategic parts of the economies of some of the most critical states and their economic sectors. It’s not just China – national companies now own 75% of the world’s known oil reserves. Meanwhile, in the U.S. the state’s Federal Reserve repeatedly bails out private banks – hardly a dictate of free enterprise.
 
China’s nondemocratic state has had the greatest success meeting the needs of its people, pulling some 300 million out of poverty in two decades. Its political legitimacy is a function of performance, not just process (as in the U.S.), and has impressed the world. Our economic (soft power) and military power (hard power), on the other hand are declining in full view of others – starting with the embarrassing recent results in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continuing with our dragging most of the world into a near depression, becoming the world’s leading debtor, hollowing out our manufacturing capabilities, inability to either protect New Orleans’ citizens from Katrina or adequately help them recover, and a political inability to resolve major problems. (Even China’s Premier has chided the U.S. for its financial system collapse, irresolvable political conflict, and embarrassing and innumerable conflicts of interest within government.) And, unfortunately, most everyone else in the world is well aware of our hypocritical on-going support for ABC (anything but Communism) governments in Iran, Egypt, San Salvador, etc., as well as supporting Iraq’s Hussein to counter Iran.
 
Weber and Jentleson also take umbrage at our leaders’ repetitive contention that we’re facing a ‘global war of ideas.’ They contend that instead we’re in a global ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Thus, “wars’ on poverty, terrorism, drugs, cancer, etc., as well as trade wars, culture wars etc. use inappropriate metaphors. This creates a need for a new form of leadership, not continued reliance on ‘generals making strategic decisions and soldiers following orders’ to achieve clearly-defined goals with overwhelming force.
 
During the late 1940s, the U.S. had about half the global GDP; in 2006 it was about 28%, and falling. Per the authors, we have grossly underestimated the creative and destructive potential of other peoples, as well as their resentment towards the idea of relying on U.S. hegemony. Further, our notion that ‘people everywhere’ want the same thing is belied by what they say and do; the problem is not a matter of better communicating U.S. values. (‘Wandering’ around Vietnam during the 1960s made this obvious to me – Why in the world would a struggling peasant farmer (then the majority of its population) or jungle person living in near Stone Age conditions care about democracy? Their concern was getting fed tonight, and staying safe from the V.C., ’White Mice’ (local police, dressed in white uniforms), and ill-controlled government troops.) 
 
Today’s marketplace of ideas has several key characteristics, per Weber and Jentleson. An evolving global digital infrastructure providing photos and videos no longer allows governments to be key brokers of credibility. This digital infrastructure also allows virtual groups to easily gather together – eg. Facebook. Secondly, the world is increasingly young, urban, and non-Western. Europeans and North Americans comprised only 17% of the world population in 2003, and that proportion is falling. Third, markets constantly breed new competition – both for economic growth and ideas. These new competitors include non-state actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda – entities that the U.S. has not been able to effectively address.
 
‘Intellectual property’ (IP) is a topic Americans hear a lot about, usually in the context of others not respecting such. The authors, however, point out that other nations have a different perspective - eg. What would Africans would think of IP limiting their access to AIDs drugs, a WMD that will likely kill 100 million of them?
 
More than a million legal/illegal immigrants enter the U.S. each year. We take that as an affirmation of our values. However, most no longer see America as the prime land of opportunity. A 2005 Pew survey of young people in 16 nations, including Canada, G.B., France, Germany, Russia, Indonesia, India, and China, found that the U.S. led in only one nation – India. (America Against the World, pg. 35)
 
Elsewhere, Clayton Christensen has made a major contribution by pointing out that emerging technologies usually perform worse and cost more than established ones – eg. early miniature disc memories. Those that dismiss those new technologies, however, are often rudely surprised when their developers improve on the early offerings. Similarly, say Weber and Jentleson, with new government structures. Thus, the U.S. should be more humble when observing the early struggles of alternative government forms, even taking lessons from them.
 
Finally, “The End of Arrogance” contends that Americans are too process-driven when evaluating government. This goes beyond arrogantly dismissing China’s new approach to also dictating the form of our democracy – eg. the ‘best government is that which governs least.’ The authors make the much more sensible argument that the best government is one that serves and protects its people best.
 
Bottom-Line: The U.S. needs to recognize that we don’t have a monopoly on good ideas, that whatever we value isn’t necessarily better than what others come up with, and that what worked in the past does not guarantee it will work in the future. In fact, it (eg. laissez faire) may never have worked – it simply seemed to succeed in the absence of strong competition. Regardless, per the authors, if the U.S. wants to remain a player, it’s going to have to refine its sales pitch and change its values. 

Loyd E. Eskildson is retired from a life of computer programming, teaching economics and finance, education and health care administration, and cross-country truck driving.  He’s now a blogger and reviewer for Basil & Spice.  Visit Loyd E. Eskildson’s Writer’s Page.

Copyright © 2006-2011, Basil & Spice. All rights reserved.

Copyright © Basil & Spice. All rights reserved. http://www.basilandspice.com/journal/” target=”_blank”Basil & Spice does not provide professional advice, diagnosis or treatment of any kind — medical, legal, professional, personal. The opinions you read on this site are those of members of the Basil & Spice community, not necessarily those of Basil & Spice.

Read more at Basil & Spice