We've become Schizophrenic. Or maybe more accurately, we have Multiple Personality Disorder. Since the time of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, America has developed multiple voices representing multiple strands of our cultural outlook arguing and at odds.
The rest of the Western World - and possible the rest of the First World - is 
following. Last week, the European Union threatened sanctions against Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe. Forced elections, killing opposition leaders, a failure to create a promised coalition, massive financial crisis with purposeful inflation stemming from printing worthless money (new trillion dollar notes). The EU - and anyone with a conscience - rightfully has trouble with Mugabe's authoritarian lock on the country, and poor rule to boot.
What's interesting is that traditionally, the EU hasn't inserted itself into non-member countries' internal issues. Zimbabwe isn't a major trade partner. There's no security issue or imminent threat to the EU.
They simply took an unabashed moral stand. How unusual for them.
Making moral judgements, inserting itself into other countries' internal affairs and taking action to enforce its view - is usually America's thing. The theology and outlook behind it are particularly - and previously uniquely - American.
In fact, the "moral war" is the foundation of American political debate - and propaganda - for most of the 20th Century and beyond. It started when Woodrow Wilson introduced the idea that the United States should fight not based on its interests, but on its principles, like "Make the world safe for Democracy" the banner under which American entry into WWI was launched.
After that, we entered every war for some good, "altruistic" reason - because Americans saw themselves as above the "Raison D'Etat" or "Realpolitik" of Europe. Foreign policies based on pure national interest had led to many bloody wars for centuries in Europe and mass colonialism which consumed the globe.
America, "the shining city on the hill" had new and better ways of doing things - which is why we rebelled from British rule, right? Democracy, equality, property rights, pursuit of happiness - America was founded on principles. And how could they be wrong? They worked for us - and they are "inalienable rights" as our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution tell us.
Mix this "righteous" theology with America's previously policy of isolationism - as introduced by George Washington - and we develop an almost bipolar foreign policy outlook. Since Woodrow Wilson, the United States has either wanted to stay home, or go out there riding on a wave of virtue. We practically became missionaries - bringing democracy and freedom to the world! Or so we felt. Further, we also choose our battles - and sometimes create them - based on our moral outlook. We gave ourselves the right to intervene to preserve democracy and civil freedoms.
And when it hasn't gone well, we revert to isolationism. Win, or get out. The middle is intolerable to Americans - as it became in Vietnam. When we could no longer see the moral value of the war, we also no longer felt responsible for a conclusion that benefited the South Vietnamese - or to uphold our promises to them.
Good? Right? Useful? Bad? Wrong? Moral? Immoral? History will judge.
Of course even the leaders who went in to it for the national interest found that perhaps Vietnam wasn’t the seminal battle against communism that the initially thought it was… which made the whole thing even more complicated.
The bigger question – and a very tricky one because it is SO world changing – is: Is Morality in and of itself in the national interest? And then second to that: What do we, as a nation, as a community of nations and as a world find to be moral?
Once upon a time, America’s wars were much more like European ones – limited objective, and in the national interest. James K Polk himself would tell you the Mexican-American War was about Manifest Destiny.
Supposedly, Mexican troops gave settlers in Texas a hard time. Given that Texas was supposed to be part of Mexico, they had some reason…. But America not only defended those settlers, but felt it was necessary to take modern day Nevada, Utah, Arizona and California while the Union Army marched right into Mexico City and occupied it.
Don’t mess with Texas.
The United States’ interests were advanced and perhaps the American deserts were made safe for Democracy? But the national interest was clearly advanced.
In the Spanish American War, the United States saved poor, brutally treated Hispaniola (Cuba) from the colonial power that had ruled it for hundreds of years. A little Yellow Journalism fueled propaganda said that Spain sunk three American ships in Havana Harbor. That was apparently enough to not only kick Spain out of the Caribbean, but the entire Western Hemisphere – and all the way to the Philippines.
An accident in Havana led to the United States having an unprecedented powerful two ocean navy - The Great White Fleet – and later no opposition in building a canal in Panama and operating a Canal Zone.
No great moral feat – but an almost imperial advancement of a modernizing, rising America.
The great Shining City on the Hill was as amoral about its national interest as Europe and Asia.
Until 1918 – when it sent Doughboys to fight the War to End All Wars and to Make the World Safe for Democracy.
World War II – even with propaganda – had a clear moral necessity in addition to national interest. And when Korea rolled around – the specter of an imposing, fearsome communism made again made the moral choices seem easy.
Since then – beginning with Vietnam, and extending into Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Rwanda, Iraq II and Afghanistan – we have debated the morality of our decisions. And in some cases – like Kosovo, Rwanda and Somalia – we took actions on strictly moral/humanitarian grounds. We determined that morality was our national interest – and that it justified engaging a foreign conflict.
But did we do that when the Khmer Rouge were killing Cambodians – their own countrymen – en masse in fields? Did we did that when Idi Amin slaughtered his own people in Uganda?
If morality IS the national interest, how can we afford to always be on the side of 
right wherever and whenever needed? Where do we draw a line? When do we say we don’t have the human lives and money to risk? And why?
How do we define our morality? And who says we should insert ourselves into a bloody civil war in the Balkans, but not when Belgians are brutalizing people in the Congo?
At the same time, is it okay for the UK to defend a piece of rock off the coast of Argentina in the 
name of their national interest and property rights – long after a day and age when we kicked Spain out of the Western Hemisphere for far less than that?
Was it okay that Britain and France pulled out of their many colonies often before major political issues were resolved – and before the fledgling countries could establish their own defenses – after 150 or more years of colonization?
And while Europe clung to the mindset that the UK shared in the Falklands War - a purely national interest conflict, lacking any greater moral issue – isn’t it interesting that now they’re sanctioning Mugabe for running his country poorly and without regard to the people, despite a lack of any material national interest?
Has the EU joined us in Wilsonianism?
Our new president faces an unpopular war in Iraq – similar to Vietnam both in that we entered the conflict with a false idea of what its significance and consequences were – as well as a giant swing in national mood. Americans no longer support our efforts in Iraq the way they once did. And they were not at all prepared for the long-term issues and responsibilities that resulted from a far less simple and clear endeavor than they were promised.
The President, like each of us, faces the question of not only do we conduct a foreign policy based on morality – but what is the moral thing to do? Will pulling troops out of Iraq extricate us from a morally questionable, untenable, and clearly unpopular situation? Or will it be an abdication of a responsibility that came with turning a foreign society upside down without restoring a working (forget even balanced, fair or equitable) order?
Where does the United States’ interest lie in the moral mine fields future and present?
Very interesting. I have always viewed national interests narrowly: Those economic or political issues that directly impact the welfare or security of the state. In one sense, when the Iraq war became untethered from the WMDs and sponsoring of terrorism, the US was only left with a moral justification as a "national interest" (e.g. promoting freedom and democracy). My own view, is that while Americans are quick to start something based only or in part on a moral claim cloaked as national interests, morality is not something that can justify an enduring and protracted dedication of her time, talent and treasure in support of the same. In short, there needs to be more. Americans may lead with their heart, but at somepoint always begin to think about the costs.
Posted by: J.P. | January 26, 2009 at 06:59 PM