America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton Studies in International History and Politics) [Kindle Edition]

Tony Smith (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review

[Smith's] account of the 20th century is just about as close to unputdownable as it gets in the genre of political history, and ends up advocating what seems to be an appropriate level of optimism for what remains, after all, a terrifying and chaotic world. -- Washington Post



America's Mission provides a comprehensive historical review of the record of American liberal internationalism. Tony Smith argues persuasively that liberal internationalism is not a cultural quirk of unsophisticated Americans. Rather, it has built on powerful global historical trends. The liberal internationalist streak in American foreign policy has, in turn, been responsible for shaping a liberal world order conducive to American security and economic interests. -- Francis Fukuyama, New Republic



This work, formidable in scope and scholarship, is a rousing defense of liberal Wilsonian internationalism. . . . [Smith's] historical account [of attempts to implant democracy] is accompanied by a sophisticated analysis of the perspectives on democratization of Marxists, comparativists, and realists, who hold respectively, says the author, that the United States will not, cannot, and should not promote democracy worldwide. -- David C. Hendrickson, Foreign Affairs



Smith elegantly ties explanation of the past to prescription for the future. No other contemporary political scientist . . . has connected those two dimensions to this subject so well. -- Mark P. Lagon, Perspectives on Political Science



America's Mission is a book with a mission. It's aim . . . is nothing less than to overthrow the hitherto dominant theory dealing with American foreign affairs and to put in its place a different one. -- Theodore Draper, New York Review of Books



This contentious study of US foreign policy is sure to generate new debates about the ideals and realities that inspire and legitimize US foreign policy. -- Choice

Product Description

The strength and prestige of democracy worldwide at the end of the twentieth century are due in good measure to the impact of America on international affairs, argues Tony Smith. Here for the first time is a book that documents the extraordinary history of American foreign policy with respect to the promotion of democracy worldwide, an effort whose greatest triumph came in the occupations of Japan and Germany but whose setbacks include interventions in Latin America and Vietnam.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Format: Kindle Edition
• File Size: 8518 KB
• Print Length: 475 pages
• Page Numbers Source ISBN: 069104466X
• Publisher: Princeton University Press (September 30, 1994)
• Sold by: Amazon Digital Services
• Language: English
• ASIN: B001NPD40Y
• Text-to-Speech: Enabled
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #713,991 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Bush Should Have Read This, May 7, 2008

By 

The Spinozanator "Spinozanator" (Harlingen, Texas) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: America's Mission (Paperback)

Thomas Jefferson was the first president to insist that a world composed of democratic states would best enhance America's goals. Woodrow Wilson first fully described this as a philosophy for guiding foreign affairs. Wilsonianism and liberal democratic internationalism have come to be synonomous terms. Since then, the most consistent belief of US presidents about foreign policy has been that US security is best served by the expansion of democracy worldwide. Most administrations even before Wilson believed that the democratic form of government created nations less prone to war and more co-operative in trade than any other form. By the beginning of the 1900's, we were already making efforts to create governments in our image. The difference between this and Imperialism? - after applying the miracle cure, that country would be left autonomous, without having to answer to the US or any other country except by agreements beneficial to both.

Wilsonian philosophy has been best represented by the administrations of Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Reagan; almost absent during the administrations of Johnson, Nixon, and Ford (the ultimate Realists); and present to intermediate degrees in all the others. Meanwhile, the philosophy of Realism - that the threat of war by any given nation is the ultimate currency in world affairs - has predominated in the academic US. The mixture of degrees of Realism with degrees of Wilsonianism in any given administration has frequently resulted in the US backing of authoritarian regimes - to thwart the spread of Communism. Countries represented include Japan, Germany, Russia, Philipines, multiple Latin American and Caribbean countries, Iran, Viet Nam, and a few in Africa. Interventions have included a combination of economic, political and military activities, depending on the judgement of the sitting president.

"American Mission" endorses Wilsonianism over Realism, but the authors also endorse Realism (to an extent) by offering repeated examples of unwise efforts by US presidents to force a democratic government onto people unwilling or unready to accept it. On the other hand, the restructuring of Germany and Japan after WWII are examples of the tremendous benefits that accrue when democratization is successful.
Among the unanswered questions is "what would have happened if we had done nothing." The authors think the world of today would be much less democratized. There's no way to know that, but along with the successes, our efforts are littered with failures, complicated by the complex politics and maneuverings of the cold war.

The way each president handled foreign affairs, from Wilson to Clinton, is discussed in detail. All of them had opportunities to democratize. Whatever the degree of an administration's action or inaction, the authors' retrospectoscopes showed that all presidents could have done better - some of them much better. This scenario suggests how complex the situations were. The US was never the only actor on the stage, there were always power structures already in place built up over centuries, and many of them were subsequently shown to be unripe for democratic rule. Such was not the case in Japan and Germany, or in Guatemala where the opportunity was missed.

In many instances, serious efforts to democratize a country failed because the US stopped short of correcting a complicating wealth imbalance. The poster child for this scenario is the Philipines. As in Japan, 50-100 families in the Philipines had all the wealth in the form of land and therein lay the power. In Japan, McArthur nationalized these huge estates and distributed to the peasant farmers the equivalent of "30 acres and a mule." Democratization worked. In the Philipines, the US set up all the democratic infrastructures but failed to break up the vast wealth discrepancies. The land-holders therefore filled all the available governmental slots and maintained their wealth at the expense of the peasant majority.

This is an excellent review and interpretation of history but it was published in 1995. Bush is the only president who has gone beyond Wilsonianism to pre-emptive strikes - picking a country that could be virtually impossible to democratize, and then not having a plan beyond "shock and awe." Had Bush read this book it's highly unlikely he would have made such a decision. Of course, he's not the kind of person who would read such a book. One of the co-authors has a new book out now covering this most recent fiasco, called "A Pact With the Devil." I ordered it yesterday.