Shop the Business Savings Event
Buy used:
$10.39
Get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime
FREE delivery Wednesday, January 15 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35
Condition: Used: Good
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Added to

Sorry, there was a problem.

There was an error retrieving your Wish Lists. Please try again.

Sorry, there was a problem.

List unavailable.
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Hardcover – August 3, 2004

3.4 3.4 out of 5 stars 11 ratings

The New York Times hailed John B. Judis's The Emerging Democratic Majority as "indispensable." Now this brilliant political writer compares the failure of American imperialism a century ago with the potential failure of the current administration's imperialistic policies.

One hundred years ago, Theodore Roosevelt believed that the only way the United States could achieve peace, prosperity, and national greatness was by joining Europe in a struggle to add colonies. But Roosevelt became disillusioned with this imperialist strategy after a long war in the Philippines. Woodrow Wilson, shocked by nationalist backlash to American intervention in Mexico and by the outbreak of World War I, began to see imperialism not as an instrument of peace and democracy, but of war and tyranny. Wilson advocated that the United States lead the nations of the world in eliminating colonialism and by creating a "community of power" to replace the unstable "balance of power." Wilson's efforts were frustrated, but decades later they led to the creation of the United Nations, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank. The prosperity and relative peace in the United States of the past fifty years confirmed the wisdom of Wilson's approach.

Despite the proven success of Wilson's strategy, George W. Bush has repudiated it. He has revived the narrow nationalism of the Republicans who rejected the League of Nations in the 1920s. And at the urging of his neoconservative supporters, he has revived the old, discredited imperialist strategy of attempting to unilaterally overthrow regimes deemed unfriendly by his administration. Bush rejects the role of international institutions and agreements in curbing terrorists, slowing global pollution, and containing potential threats. In The Folly of Empire, John B. Judis convincingly pits Wilson's arguments against those of George W. Bush and the neoconservatives.

Judis draws sharp contrasts between the Bush administration's policies, especially with regard to Iraq, and those of every administration from Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman through George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The result is a concise, thought-provoking look at America's position in the world -- then and now -- and how it has been formed, that will spark debate and controversy in Washington and beyond. The Folly of Empire raises crucial questions about why the Bush administration has embarked on a foreign policy that has been proven unsuccessful and presents damning evidence that its failure is already imminent. The final message is a sobering one: Leaders ignore history's lessons at their peril.

Customer reviews

3.4 out of 5 stars
11 global ratings

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers

Top reviews from the United States

  • Reviewed in the United States on October 8, 2004
    In twenty-five words or less, this book says President George Bush's "liberation" of Iraq is remarkably similar to President McKinley's "liberation" of the Philippines more than a century ago.

    So, what do Filipinos think of Bush? According to the Sept. 6, 2004, edition of The Financial Times of London, Filipinos gave Bush the biggest margin in any of the 35 countries surveyed by GlobeScan, in conjunction with the University of Maryland. The poll says 57 percent of Filipinos support Bush, compared to 32 percent for Sen. John Kerry. This isn't recent bubble of popularity; in 2002, a survey by a Manila-based polling group, Pulse Asia, found that Bush enjoyed a 56 percent trust rating -- much higher than the president of the Philippines.

    Judis, one of the most perceptive and knowledgable writers in America, uses all the history that fits to argue that "through international organizations and treaties, the United States would keep the peace and promote prosperity much more effectively than it could accomplish acting alone." He doesn't ask what will happen if others use his recommended techniques against America.

    He cites the experience of presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush to argue "Until the 1890s, the United States had adhered to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's advice to stay out of 'foreign entanglements'." Of course, this ignores US invasions of Canada in 1775/76, 1812/14, and major threats in 1846 and 1865/67 which produced the Confederation of Canada, up to this century and the victimization of Canada by seizing lands in the Alaska Boundary dispute. It also overlooks the Monroe Doctrine, which in effect made the Caribbean "an American lake" and all of the Americas into a US colony.

    "Bush was ignorant" Judis argues, saying his "religious beliefs seem to have grown out of a sense of personal redemption from sin -- in his case, alcoholism . . . . " After Sept. 11, 2001, he says US foreign policy was shaped by neoconservatives such as Irving Kristol and Wohlstetter who were both Trotskyists (i.e. communists) and former socialists who had undergone a sudden and complete transformation of faith similar to what Bush experienced.

    True! True! True! He cites facts again and again and again. Only the uncurious and ignorant can dispute his facts. His conclusion addresses everyone who cares very deeply about the future, "When America goes out alone in search of monsters to destroy -- venturing on terrain upon which imperial powers have already trod -- it can itself become the monster."

    This isn't a political book that will die with the election results, no matter who wins. The lessons Judis cites will live with us for decades, regardless of who is elected and whatever decisions are made. Maybe, in a century, 57 percent of Iraqis will think Bush was right. The real issue is the blood, treasure, toil, suffering and misery to get to that happy conclusion.

    Judis says there are much better techniques than shooting first and letting Allah sort out the good guys. This book is for the years ahead. The election of 2004 is a mere speed bump on the road of history. The future may be a smooth highway, or a rutted mass of potholes and quagmires, depending on what voters decide.
    7 people found this helpful
    Report
  • Reviewed in the United States on September 30, 2004
    The title should have been "How to Make a Statement with Selected Facts and an Obvious Agenda" or perhaps "How to Ignore Objectivity: A Primer for Prospective Bush Bashers with Citations" ... either way you get a book that is great to read if you hate Bush as much as you hate studying history and forming your own conclusions.

    An magnanimous effort at non-partisanship was made to spread the imperialist legacy between politicians from three parties... two men who passed away before most readers were born are compared to the sitting Republican president only months prior to an important election... that's fair isn't it?

    How much more pertinent it would have been to discuss the imperialist errors of John F Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, or his introduction of military advisors to Viet Nam? Was this imperialism? The author's criteria suggest that these are prime examples but, oddly enough, JFK sees no developed analysis.

    Perhaps you seek to unravel the events leading to the Carter Administration's disruption of the Russian food supply and the subsequent dismantling of the American farm economy with poor agricultural planning and a disastrous boycott of the Soviet Union? There too is an example of an imperialist attitude by holding back food from another nation's populace... no developed information here either.

    If you like this book, you should read Michael Moore. Moore is equally objective and more inclusive of counter-examples which may stimulate earnest consideration of the facts as presented to the reader... right. Point is, if you are the sort of person who would buy this book anyway, it will probably be a good read to discuss by the water cooler so that you can present selected facts which cannot be immediately refuted by your misguided and pitiful Republican or Moderate conversational foil.
    6 people found this helpful
    Report