In the Western intelligentsia’s indictment of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism, no sin holds greater opprobrium than unilateralism. Despite the presence of some sixty nations in the American-led coalition in Iraq, the liberal battle cry roils against what the elites perceive to be a new smug level of triumphalism and quasi-imperialism.
To be sure, the likes of Dr. Howard Dean and university faculty club critics more or less agree that Saddam Hussein is not the sort of guy they would choose to take out to lunch. But at the same time, they denounce American unilateralism as arrogant and self-righteous — a threat to world order.
On the surface, this anger against alleged White House braggadocio manifests itself in political terms — the familiar charges that the administration is ignoring the international community, betraying America’s traditional allies (“old ” Europe), shunning the venerable route of multilateral diplomacy. But in truth, the Left’s angst over President Bush’s confident prescription for foiling terrorism is more cultural than political.
A main current of “progressive” thinking today is post-nationalism — i.e., narrow definitions of national self-interest are to be subordinated to the higher values of world community. Yes, the president’s critics may proclaim their faithful devotion to this country’s heritage, to its precious open and democratic society. But they resent the absolutist connotations of a fierce nationalism and what they denigrate as the cocky rigidity of an us-versus-them world-view.
Much has changed culturally in the “progressive” outlook since the disastrous presidential candidacy of George McGovern three decades ago. Then, opponents of this country’s role in Vietnam cited the supposed corruption of our South Vietnamese allies, the prospects of an unwinnable jungle-based guerilla war, or their belief in the Communists as a possibly redemptive force.
None of those arguments come into play in the Left’s opposition to the American action in Iraq. Since McGovern’s time, two important intellectual currents have gained prominence in normative “progressive” thinking, and in the process undermined traditional interpretations of national sovereignty — multiculturalism and moral relativism. Post-nationalism has come to the fore in an increasingly secularized American culture that takes issue with the traditional trinity of God, Mother and Country. When President Bush labels certain regimes in absolutist terms, charge the cognoscenti, he underscores the “yahoo” limitations of his simplistic frame of reference.
Adherents of post-nationalism reject a pre-emptive foreign policy as both bellicose and bourgeois. Even if the use of force is intended to end a despotic regime, the military option must be “authorized” to render it legitimate. Otherwise, the unilateral intervention represents a swaggering, morally wrong act, defying as it does the sacrosanct notion of “world opinion.” Whether the “self-aggrandizing” President Bush cloaks his “unilateral schemes” in crusader or humanitarian terms, antiwar critics claim. the venture will engender Iraqi hatred rather than respect for the United States.
Israel’s supporters have every reason to worry about the growing consensus in the Democratic Party in favor of multilateral diplomacy. Were the United States to formulate its foreign policy toward Israel based on the will of the world’s main fulcrum of multilateralism — the United Nations — it would be bad news indeed for the Jewish state. Yet in his tortured reasoning, Senator John Kerry besmirches President Bush for pursuing a supposed unilateral policy regarding Saddam Hussein, while claiming he would not empower the United Nations to call the shots in the case of Israel. At least we must praise President Bush for the consistency of his world-view.
What is the alternative to the president’s alleged hubris, his use of power politics, according to this post-nationalist mindset? The respectable forum for reducing tensions must, according to Kerry and Company, be the conference table. There, the moral high ground will remain assured against atavistic politicians resorting to war and force and assertions of national hegemony.