The London School of Economics and Political Science Conquest of Spirits
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Conquest of Spirits: Ideological history as an explanatory factor in the Bush administration’s resistance to balance-of- power thinking Adam Quinn A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School o f Economics for the degree of Doctor o f Philosophy, London, June 2008 UMI Number: U615929 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615929 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 . A M f U v f r S ' v ... ^ ■ ' i>' .i-H ■:'■'11 7371 ■ •' ' Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 3 Abstract This thesis argues that America’s national ideological history is crucially relevant to understanding the Bush administration’s resistance to thinking about international order in the balance-of-power terms prescribed by realists. Bush pursued a world order based on the assumption of an underlying harmony of interests and the universal validity of an idealised conception of American liberal political values. He also sought an indefinitely sustainable American primacy in terms of hard power. The thesis argues that this strategy, despite some suggestions that it was ‘revolutionary’, was in fact the latest evolution of long- established trends in American internationalism. The thesis seeks to make the case that a nation’s foreign policy strategy is the product of interaction between national/international circumstances and an evolved national culture or ‘character’ reflecting embedded ideological principles developed over the course of that nation’s history. Thus, it suggests, American internationalism has particularities that Can only be fully understood through awareness of the United States’ ideological journey over the course of its history to a posture of global engagement. The thesis uses analysis of five key periods to make its argument for the relevance of ideological history, starting with the Founders’ Era and proceeding through presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman before concluding with the Bush administration. It argues that the ideological cast given to America’s pursuit of its interests in the early decades of independence impacted upon the nation’s 20th Century leaders’ construction of their arguments justifying the transition to international engagement. As a result, rather than contentedly entering into the existing Europe-dominated world order based on ‘the balance of power’, US leaders made America’s internationalism conditional on the pursuit of a new world order reflecting the ideas of liberal universalism and military might in the service of ‘civilisation’. 4 Acknowledgements It is said that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. In that case it is hopefully a good omen that this thesis owes a debt to so many others who made it possible. On the surface, the categories to be thanked divide into the personal and the professional, though such is the nature o f the PhD process that this line is far less bright and clear in real life than on paper. First and foremost on the home front, I must thank my parents, Jim and Margaret Quinn, without whose crucial support - financial and otherwise - it would not have been possible to begin this thesis or to see it through to completion. Thanks also to the rest of my family, especially my grandmother, Catherine Quinn, and my uncle, David Langan. In their own ways, they all chipped in to the dubious cause o f making me what I am today. I would also like to thank Jenny Gibb, who despite the formidable combination of looks and brains in her possession was inexplicably prepared to hold my hand through so many of what Harry Truman termed “years of trial and hope”. To her I extend my love, along with just a touch of incredulity. Finally in this category, I would like to thank my adoptive godfather Kingsley Dempsey, without whom there would have been far fewer extended dinners, bottles of Chateauneuf and off-colour imperialist jokes over the last several years. For hisjoie de vivre and for his boundless generosity - past, present and future - 1 am not alone in owing him the sincerest thanks. At the LSE, the greatest thanks must of course go to my supervisor, Michael Cox. Apart from the essential assistance he provided in the development and completion of the thesis itself, he was also a source of good example and sound advice as I negotiated for the first time the occasionally treacherous waters of academic life more generally. For the pastoral (dare I say paternal?) role he played in my introduction to a new world, I will always be grateful. Thanks also to William Wallace, who was responsible for getting me through the door in the first place and for setting the snowball rolling down the hill during my first three months at LSE. I would also like to thank the great many colleagues who entered the Department of International Relations with me all those years ago, or followed me through the door not long thereafter, and who were an invaluable source of insight, warmth and wit over the course of my studies. For their willingness to share ideas, offer solidarity through the occasional tough times, and laugh at my jokes more regularly than I imagine they deserved, I thank them, especially (in alphabetical order): Kirsten Ainley, Karen Barnes, Felix Berenskoetter, Annika Bolten, Douglas Bulloch, Stephanie Carvin, Patrick Cullen, Alexandra Dias, Bastian Giegerich, Eva Gross, Marjo Koivisto, Chris Mackmurdo, Tim Oliver, Sinikukka Saari, Rashmi Singh, Jill Stuart, Page Wilson, Marco Vieira, and Bill Vlcek. Thanks also to the various residents at the house on Leman Street, who over the years provided similar service. Finally, I would like to thank all those scholars, too numerous to name individually, who inspired, assisted and entertained me, either in person or from afar, over the course of my research. Most of them were busy men and women who had no need to see me, and in some cases may now have forgotten that they ever did. I remember their contributions to my cause, large and small, and will remain ever appreciative. Such errors as are contained in the thesis - 1 wish there were few but suspect there may be many - are of course entirely my own. The last, but certainly not least, words of thanks must go to my examiners, Inderjeet Parmar and Timothy Lynch. Their intelligent engagement with the thesis allowed my viva to be as enjoyable an experience as any examination can be. My research was funded in part by LSE Research Studentships and by teaching at that institution’s departments o f International Relations and International History. I would also like to acknowledge the employment of various kinds extended to me by the universities o f Westminster, Birmingham and Leicester. Without all these sources of income, the numbers simply would not have added up. I only hope I gave good value in return. 5 Contents Introduction P• 11 1. Location in the literature and theoretical underpinning • Introduction P 23 • Positioning the thesis within IR and US history P• 24 • Realism P 25 • Liberalism P 31 • The ‘empire ’ school P 37 • A note on ‘exceptionalism ’ P- 40 • The study o f ideas and discourse P 42 • Works explicitly on the subject o f ideology and US foreign policy P- 43 • Defining ‘ideology ’ P 45 • Continuity and change in national ideology P 48 • The relationship between national ideas and national circumstances, and the relevance o f history P 49 • The usefulness o f public statements as evidence P 54 Justification o f the periods under study p. 56 Conclusion p. 58 The Founders’ Era Consensus: ‘A Hercules in the cradle’ Introduction p. 61 National and international context p. 64 The Union as a means o f excluding the balance ofpower system p. 68 Trapped between titans: a divided America's vulnerability to European power politics p. 76 o British antagonism p. 77 o The French Revolution p. 80 o Neutral rights in wartime p. 86 The Farewell Address and the emergence o f the non-alignment consensus p. 90 Consensus emerges: Jefferson’s embrace o f Washington’s doctrine p. 94 “Our hemisphere ...offreedom ”: the Monroe Doctrine as logical endpoint o f the Founders ’ Era consensus p. 97 Conclusion p. 103 7 Theodore Roosevelt: ‘The nation that has dared to be great’ • Introduction p. 106 • National and international context p. 108 • The ‘strenuous life ’ and the pursuit o f national greatness p. I l l • Military strength, restraint and the ‘soldierly virtues ’ p.