Jacksonian Idealism and the Quest for Prestige in the Making of the American Empire.

The current American Empire confirms Thucydides'opinion that there are three essential motives that cause states to seek to expand their influence abroad: gain (defined as power and wealth), security and honour. But while the first two factors have received the lion's share of analytical attention so far (see inter aliaZakaria, 1999; Kagan, 2003; Mearsheimer, 2001; Gaddis, 2003), honour construed as the search for prestige in world politics deserves further examination.It is frequently stated (Layne, 2006; McDougall, 1997; Morgenthau, 1952; Kennan, 1951)that too a great extent the US expansion abroad, of which the current involvement in Iraq is but the latest episode, represents a direct result of the desire inherited from the days of Woodrow Wilson to spread democracy to other shores. Accordingly, these accounts contend that the principal problem of American foreign policy consists of a naive legal-moralistic concern with reshaping the world in America's own image, which leads to a dangerous and costly overextension of the US resources to areas that do not warrant in strategic terms a commitment of such magnitude. More often than not, the prescription offered is for the US to give up its illusions, acknowledge the harsh realities of international politics, and follow a moderate course of action by embracing either offshore balancing or selective engagement.However, by contrast to this engrained view, I am arguing that another and substantially different form of idealism may be at work in the US expansionist actions. Rather than seek to advance the cause of democracy all over the globe, this version of idealism is concerned with enhancing and preserving US prestige in relation to other states. Unlike the doctrine of Woodrow Wilson, which was advocating employing collective security, international norms and multilateral organizations for the benefit of all humankind, prestige-seeking encourages unilateralism and is self-promoting in the sense its sole concern lies in projecting abroad the image of continual American success. Moreover, since prestige is essentially intangible, the advantage sought is symbolic and at odds with realpolitik logic (Morgenthau 1985). Recent analyses (Kohut, Stokes, 2006; Mead, 2003) have hypothesized in a similar vein the existence of a so-called Jacksonian security subculture in American foreign policy, whose chief aim would be the vindication of American image in the world.My paper seeks to take this insight further by linking the Jacksonian approach to the quest for prestige, by identifying its main defining features, and tracing it through the historical record of American foreign policy. The tentative conclusion reached is that on the one hand, a policy of prestige is less benevolent and more aggressive than Wilsonian idealism and that, on the other hand, it is considerably difficult to discount as realist scholars would advise because of its considerable and enduring grip over the American national psyche. Appeals to moderation are therefore not likely to work unless prestige is also taken into consideration. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]