Image courtesy of ABC News
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Although Princeton has tried in recent years to distance itself from Woodrow Wilson, his approach to education and his philosophy of global responsibility remain cornerstones in the intellectual foundations of this university. Wilson’s foreign policy is perhaps best remembered as being summed up by his famous opinion that it is America’s responsibility to make the world “safe for democracy.” This approach is echoed by Princeton’s secondary motto, “In the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity,” and embodied in the School of Public and International Affairs (which formerly bore Wilson’s name) and SPIA’s commitment to “lead.” SPIA was formed and molded to teach students to follow the Wilsonian method of diplomacy, one that places the United States and Americans as the leaders of global diplomatic efforts. Until its recent name change, the School held Wilson up to students as a touchstone of public and international affairs. But a simple name change does little to erase the fundamental impact Wilson’s thought and example has had on shaping Princeton, and especially SPIA, into places that seek to turn students (largely American students) into global leaders. SPIA, and Princeton as a whole, are built upon an idea of American global leadership that is self-contradictory and counterproductive.
American global leadership is, in the eyes of many, a core tenet of conservatism. Many Americans consider it our country’s responsibility to protect and foster democracy worldwide and be the “leader of the free world.” This, however, is fundamentally not our job. Extensive American involvement in international affairs is a gross usurpation by the US government of a role it was never meant to fill—and not just that, but of responsibilities that ought to be managed by other legitimate governments. The idea that America is responsible for (and capable of) managing the globe is born out of tremendous American hubris. The constitutional basis for much of American foreign policy is extremely shaky. Over recent decades, we have seen an increasing and concerning trend of concentrating foreign policy power in the hands of the executive branch at the expense of elected legislators. More and more foreign policy decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats and military officials. How can we claim to spread and encourage American values like democracy in such an undemocratic and un-American manner? George Bush said in his second inaugural address that the United States exists “to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” I disagree. This idea of international responsibility is nowhere in the documents that vested Bush and other officials with governmental power. American global leadership is inherently anti-American, not grounded in the Constitution, and practiced by people with no legitimate claim to the authority they exercise. The irony that democracy is being spread in such an undemocratic manner is almost painful.
Additionally, on what grounds is the United States qualified or legally justified to act within another country’s jurisdiction? Take, for example, the current question of US involvement in Ukraine. The idea that the US government is more responsible for and competent at managing Ukrainian affairs than the Ukrainian government itself boggles the mind. Let us not forget the terrible impact that US foreign involvement has had on other groups on whose behalf we have mobilized forces. For example, while the United States put itself forward as a defender of religious minorities in Iraq, the number of Iraqi Christians has fallen by roughly 70% since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. This and other similar examples should be very concerning to anyone advocating for an increased US role in foreign affairs. In a similar vein, where did the US government get the authority to export a Western program of abortion and contraception to other countries? Can other countries manage their own affairs, or do they need Uncle Sam to come through every now and then with an unsolicited delivery of condoms, guns, and democracy? Attempting to force other cultures to conform to our sexual norms through aid packages and economic pressure is a form of neocolonialism and should be repulsive to people on both the left and the right in America.
To paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episode III, by increasing American involvement in international affairs, we are “becoming the very thing we swore to destroy[1] .” Jamming democracy down the throats of other nations is inherently undemocratic. Take, for example, movements to ban the use of Chinese apps and devices in America. These movements position themselves as taking the necessary steps to check China’s authoritarian government (whose cardinal sin is internet censorship), and they propose to do so with authoritarian measures, including banning major platforms like TikTok and WeChat. In the name of free speech, they seek to ban speech platforms; in the name of preventing Chinese censorship, they seek to censor. Not only that, but they censor in the same style as the Chinese government censors. It appears that the chosen American plan of action for combatting authoritarian nations has been to become increasingly authoritarian—only slightly less so than our dreadful opponent. What, then, is left to defend? We are slowly becoming the very things we swear and fight to destroy.
Institutions like SPIA take (mostly) American college students and promise to equip them with the tools to be leaders of the world. They inculcate and steep them in an idea that, as the cream of the American crop, they have a responsibility to guide the entire world. They foster a culture of US global leadership that is self-contradictory and out of touch. The idea that America has a responsibility to manage the affairs of the entire world in the name of democracy is a foolish one, based on nothing in the US Constitution, born out of immense national hubris, and, whenever practiced, contrary to the very ends it seeks to fulfill. We need to radically change the way we approach international affairs.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.