Who Speaks for America?: Why Democracy Matters in Foreign Policy (Hardcover)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: United States, Cold War, New York Times (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Americans are often assailed for their lack of knowledge concerning foreign affairs. Collective current-events acumen seems confined to the U.S. unless an incident is covered live by CNN and involves high-tech gadgetry and explosions. Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation and a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute, admits a national detachment, but blames the process and culture behind the making of foreign policy, not the American people, for creating this climate of skepticism and ignorance.

"The public's values," writes Alterman in Who Speaks for America?, "are a good deal closer to the liberal republican values of the country's original founders than are those of the establishment that professes to represent them. The problem is not that the public does not care. Rather, it has no idea how to force the government to respond to its preferences." The preferences Alterman indicates are based on a wide range of public-opinion polls that demonstrate the sharp dichotomy between what citizens consider important and worthwhile and what lawmakers, self-appointed experts, corporate lobbyists, and other elitists comprising the "punditocracy" actually put into practice as foreign policy. For instance, polls reveal that the public attitude toward the United Nations is overwhelmingly favorable; that nearly all forms of covert governmental action conducted abroad are viewed as inexcusable; that there is strong public opposition to the size and scope of U.S. arms sales across the globe; and protecting the environment is given a higher priority than insuring adequate energy supplies. All of these opinions are inconsistent with current American foreign policy, yet voters are unable (or, some would argue, unwilling) to exert any meaningful and sustained influence over the manner in which the government interacts with the world.

According to Alterman, the primary reason for a lack of public access to this process is the attitude historically held by leaders that the public is ill-equipped to make decisions concerning foreign affairs. "How, then," he asks, "can the United States claim to be a functioning democracy when one of the most crucial aspects of public policy allows for almost no democratic participation?" The short answer is that it can't, so Alterman offers an "immodest proposal" for overhauling the current system--though immodest is putting it lightly. He should be credited for highlighting a significant problem in this informed and important book, but it must be noted that his solutions are so sweeping, and the implications so vast, that actually activating them would require restructuring the electoral process and creating new institutions from the ground up--a radical idea with a familiar ring. --Shawn Carkonen

From Publishers Weekly

Alterman (senior fellow at the World Policy Institute and a columnist at the Nation) marshals history, polemic and policy prescription into a plea to "transform American politics into a truly democratic endeavor." Alterman describes how the Founders' belief in public deliberation and limited foreign entanglements gave way to a dominant executive and a "national security" state impervious to public scrutiny. In this "New World Order," the president?not Congress?wields the power to make war, and American environmental policy can be determined by unelected bureaucrats at the World Trade Organization, while the media perpetuate a "pseudodemocracy" of sound bytes and images. Far from being truly democratic, American foreign policy has become the exclusive province of an "elite" of pundits, corporations, ethnic lobbies and think tanks. To democratize American foreign policy, Alterman proposes electing "citizen juries" reflecting the class, gender and ethnic diversity of the population, who would conduct televised hearings with policymakers and deliberate about various international issues. At first their role would be solely educational, but "over time... the system could gradually transfer key components of the making of U.S. foreign policy to the jury." Such a process would lead to a foreign policy more reflective of the values of the American people, a stronger role for the United Nations, free trade linked with workers' rights and an end to covert action and U.S. support for repressive dictatorships. This is an accessible book that makes a carefully argued indictment of the foreign policy-making process.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 244 pages
• Publisher: Cornell University Press; 801st edition (October 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801435749
• ISBN-13: 978-0801435744
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.3 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,949,484 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars History Lessons, February 3, 2001

By	O. M. Suarez "aerobol" (Mayagüez, Puerto Rico) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

As a non-US citizen, this eye-opening book is a challenge. Intricate, with massive information and intense analysis, the book is a must to understand how US foreign policy evolved and revolved around similar interventionist attitudes. History tells, according to Alterman, how it can repeat itself with the help of US officials. Rewritten history as in the Orwellian 1984 is the means by which the most antidemocratic facets of US state policies are set into place. I learned about this book in a C-Span 2 panel and Alterman's words did not disappointed me a bit.

5.0 out of 5 stars Compelling case for a democratic foreign policy, July 22, 2008

By	J. Davis (San Diego, CA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Eric Alterman is a rare journalist who actually believes in a democratic foreign policy. Yes, it is depressing that this thesis is even controversial, but it unfortunately is. Alterman makes an eloquent case for more public participation in the nation's foreign policy.

To prove his contention that leading intellectuals are anti-democratic, Alterman quotes one think tank policy "expert" who flat-out says, "I don't think the people should have any voice in foreign policy," (he does not unfortunately name the elitist). Alterman demonstrates that the elite consensus is wrong; popular opinion on foreign policy is neither irrational nor constantly shifting.

Best of all, Alterman is intellectually honest. A supporter of high levels of immigration, he nonetheless honest enough to admit that the American people want immigration greatly reduced. (This fact has been supported by numerous opinion polls conducted by the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations).He challenges pro-immigration advocates to make a better case for their position to the American people. I highly recommend Who Speaks for America.

3 of 63 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars This book goes against the writing of founding fathers, October 7, 2003

By A Customer

Our founding fathers had the good sense to create the United States as a represenative republic instead of a democracy.

The mess with true democracy and the recall mess in California show why the founding fathers were on the money with the idea of a represenative republic instead of giving the masses immediate control through the chaotic process of a true democracy.

This book as with all Eric Alterman books, his Altercation on msnbc.com, and his column in "the Nation" are designed to show us that the country should be to the left so that it goes along with Eric Alterman's ideals.

The purpose of this book and other Alterman books is to say since the government won't do things my way, I'll create a book based on questionable documentation to show why I'm right.

I don't fault Eric Alterman for his leftist and radical beliefs which are to the left of most liberals, democrats, and even Bill and Hillary Clinton.

What I don't like is when Eric Alterman tells the rest of us why were wrong when we don't agree with his leftist, liberal, and radical beliefs.