Oblivious Empire by Mark Hertsgaard

¶ … Oblivious Empire" by Mark Hertsgaard and "The March of the Flag" by Albert J. Beveridge. Specifically it will compare and contrast the evolution of America's "special purpose" in the two readings. These two readings take very different views of America's place in the world. Beveridge, writing in 1898, speaks of America as an imperial institution who owes it to the world to master it, while Hertsgaard looks at the arrogance of that stance, and American's own ignorance of the world and out place in it. Both of these essays are thought provoking, but Beveridge's stance that America is the obvious "ruler" of the world seems outmoded and arrogant, and even frightening sometimes because it is so intense and so determined in its view that America is the "best." That arrogance is exactly what Hertsgaard is rallying against in his essay.

First, these two writers really disagree on almost every aspect of American imperialism. Beveridge is an ardent supporter, and believes Americans have an obligation to the rest of the world to "save" them from themselves. He writes, "It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon His chosen people; a history heroic with faith in our mission and our future; a history of statesmen who flung the boundaries of the Republic out into unexplored lands and savage wilderness" (Beveridge). He sees Americans as a special "elite," uniquely qualified to bring their brand of democracy and living around the world. He also sees them as chosen by "God," a notion that is so pompous and self-indulgent that it is almost difficult to read. That is a very arrogant idea, and yet, perhaps unconsciously, that seems to be a part of the current administration's ideas about foreign policy, as well. Hertsgaard, on the other hand, believes Americans have used that elitist attitude to put off the rest of the world and become arrogant and uniformed at the same time. He notes, "The embarrassing truth is that most of us know little about the outside world, and we are particularly ill-informed about what our government is doing in our name overseas" (Hertsgaard 69). These two writers are talking about the same people and the same country, but it sounds almost as if they are speaking about two different countries entirely. Beveridge is elitist and arrogant in his stance about America's superiority, and it seems almost as if that attitude, which is still prevalent among many Americans, is what has gotten us into the mess we have overseas, where so many foreign countries view us with skepticism and even fear. Americans do not take the time to learn about other countries or even our own foreign policies because as a nation, we are essentially self-adsorbed and selfish, and totally disinterested in anything that does not remotely affect us at the time. Other countries and their cultures are not so one-dimensional (of course, some are), and they do not appreciate this attitude in Americans, especially when they travel overseas, which Hertsgaard makes clear in this essay. In contrast, Beveridge seems to think that there is nothing wrong with oppression and overtaking "weaker" people as a foreign policy, something Hertsgaard clearly opposes. Beveridge writes, "The Opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I answer, the rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government" (Beveridge). Beveridge's clearly expansionist views illustrate the idea that America is somehow better than everyone else is, and chosen by "God" to lead the others, no matter what the cost. Hertsgaard illustrates just how dangerous that position is, and that it exists even today in our own administration, even though it seems incredibly old-fashioned and without any merit or standing on the world stage.

Beveridge seems to be foretelling the current views of the administration and their foreign policy, even though his views seem so old-fashioned and antiquated. He says, "Shall the American people continue their march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength, until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind?" (Beveridge). His ideas almost sound like a Hitler or a dictator intent on taking over the world, and this seems to be how much of the world sees us, which is extremely frightening. Hertsgaard believes that this idea of American elitism has continued over the years, and that Americans are bullies when it comes to getting their own way in world politics. He writes, "American elites sometimes talk of our nation's isolationist tendencies, but the correct adjective is unilateralist. The United States has hardly shunned overseas involvement over the years; we simply insist on setting our own terms" (Hertsgaard 71). He also notes that many of our ideas about overseas involvement are hypocritical and self-serving, another thing the American people do not recognize or seem to care about. He notes, "Virtually every one of Washington's allies in the Middle East is an absolute monarchy where democracy and human rights are foreign concepts, and women in particular are second-class citizens" (Hertsgaard 78). We would not stand for this in our country, and in fact, we fought an absolute monarchy to gain our freedom in the Revolutionary War, and yet, we support this type of government in our allies, even when we make outcries against it in other areas of the world, like Latin America. That is a very two-faced policy, and other nations recognize that and do not appreciate it. The two authors could not be farther apart on these ideas. It is clear Hertsgaard is not a fan of these policies and procedures, and he is not afraid to criticize them. Beveridge, on the other hand, finds little to criticize, and everything to praise in his essay, and it is clear if the two men met in a debate, they would have very little agreement between them on their positions about America's place in the world.

Both authors show how the idea that America is superior and has a duty to set other countries on the "right" path has been common throughout history, from the foundation of the country to the present day. Beveridge writes, "The American people can not use a dishonest medium of' exchange; it is ours to set the world its example of' right and honor. We cannot fly from our world duties; it is ours to execute the purpose of a fate that has driven us to be greater than our small intentions" (Beveridge). Beveridge is happy about this superiority, and encourages it, never demanding anything from the American people but support of his position. Hertsgaard, on the other hand, believes the problem lies with the people and the fact that we are oblivious of what our government is doing and therefore we are oblivious overseas. This seems totally true, when you look closely at American voting results. According to the Federal Election Commission, in 2004, 55.3% of eligible Americans voted for our next president, and in 2002, on 37% voted. What does this say about our society when just over half of Americans care enough to take 10 minutes out of there day, to decide who is the face of our country? It says we are oblivious, and very irresponsible, and it makes a sad statement about our society. It is easy for us to blame everyone else, from Iraq to China for our woes, when in fact, we are responsible for much of our own problems and anguish ourselves, simply because we will not even take responsibility to vote and elect someone who represents our own values and ideals on the world stage.