The Hegemonic Bubble of the United States (Correcting the Abuse of American Power)

Author: (American) Soros, translated by Yan Qing et al.
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-12-01
Features: I believe that Bushism's preemptive military actions are disastrous, and most people around the world agree. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a practical application of Bushism, yet it provoked allergic reactions worldwide. This is not to defend Saddam Hussein (Saddam Hussein), but because the Americans had no clear evidence to prove any connection between Saddam and the "9/11" attacks, nor any clear evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, yet they still invaded Iraq. Today, the ideological gap between the U.S. and other countries in the world is greater than ever before. Countries outside the U.S. believe that the U.S. has overused its dominant position in the world. Meanwhile, the U.S. domestic media, influenced to some extent, believes that Saddam Hussein clearly poses a direct threat to U.S. national security. Only after the consequences of the invasion of Iraq became apparent did people realize they had been misled. In my view, the Bush administration intentionally used the "9/11" attacks to implement policies that the American public could never tolerate. I would say that the Bush administration's American hegemonic dream is both unattainable and contradictory to the traditional principles the U.S. has always upheld. This hegemonic dream threatens our values and sense of security. It also threatens the entire world, because the U.S. is simply too powerful. The U.S. holds the primary position in the world today, and in the foreseeable future, no other country or alliance of countries can replace this position. The U.S. could only lose its hegemonic status due to its mistakes. Today, the U.S. is making such mistakes because our country is in the hands of a group of extremists, whose strong sense of mission is closely tied to their stubborn and self-willed approach to handling matters. Due to the overuse of the U.S.'s advantages, these extremists are making our country weaker rather than stronger.
These fiery words will undoubtedly provoke fierce opposition from many people, but given the severe circumstances, such statements are justified. In these extraordinary times, my main goal is to persuade the American people to oppose President Bush in the upcoming election. We have been deceived. When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, he promised a low-key foreign policy, not the Bushism we see today. If Bush loses the 2004 election, his policies will be seen as a temporary anomaly in U.S. political history, and the U.S. will be able to restore its appropriate position in the world. Conversely, if Bush is re-elected, the voters will endorse his policies, and the American people will have to bear the full consequences. However, simply defeating President Bush at the polls is not enough. The U.S. must re-examine its role on the world stage and approach issues with a more constructive perspective.

My personal sensitivity to the Bush administration's extreme measures may largely be attributed to my background. I am Jewish and grew up in Hungary during World War II, having lived under the rule of Germany and the Soviet Union at different times. From a young age, I understood how political systems affect people's survival. When I heard President Bush say, "You're either with us or with the terrorists," it felt like the sound of an alarm bell. Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft once claimed: "To those who use the illusion of losing freedom to intimidate peaceful people, I say, your 'strategy' only helps terrorism, because it undermines our national unity and erodes our resolve. You provide ammunition for America's enemies and sow discord among our friends." Ashcroft's words deeply troubled me. I felt sad because the general public was not as vigilant as I was. This is not the America I chose as my home. In 1947, when I fled Hungary, I first came to London, England, to study at the London School of Economics. There, I was deeply influenced by the philosopher Karl Popper and learned about the differences between open societies and closed societies. After achieving success in the financial markets, I founded a network of foundations to promote the development of open societies. As a practitioner of democracy in many parts of the world, I felt I had the ability to contribute to rethinking America's role in the world. To do this, I want to present a conceptual framework. This framework took shape during my student days and has been refined through my later work. In many ways, it differs from popular notions. Some of the terms I use may be unfamiliar to readers: such as open society, reflexivity, radical fallibility, fertile fallacies, the unknown principles of humanity, and the various stages of the boom-bust process. Therefore, in the appendix, I provide a brief explanation of the conceptual framework.

The origin of this book stems from my previous work, "George Soros on Globalization." In that book, I examined our international financial and trade institutions (IFTIs) and proposed ways to make them more effective. At that time, my main concern was the prevalence of market fundamentalists—those who oppose any intervention in market forces. Market fundamentalists were the right-wing forces attacking the IFTIs, while the anti-globalization movement was the left-wing force attacking them. I recognized the flaws in the global capitalist system and believed that reforming and strengthening our IFTIs could fix these flaws, while damaging them could not. Without a doubt, my views are in stark contrast to the Bush administration's stance. However, the "9/11" attacks presented an opportunity: a moment when the U.S. could reflect on itself and change its attitude. I did not want to let this opportunity go to waste. President Bush has led the U.S. and the world in a different direction. He asserted the right to take preemptive military actions through the "9/11" attacks. My primary concern now is the overuse of the "preemptive" approach. The government of the world's most powerful nation has fallen into the hands of extremists, who adhere to the primal form of social Darwinism, viewing life as a struggle for survival that must be won through violence. This is a distorted view: "survival of the fittest" requires both competition and cooperation. The U.S.'s pursuit of military hegemony and market fundamentalism are, in fact, intertwined, because market fundamentalism also emphasizes competition and undermines cooperation. Yet, the Bush administration used the threat of terrorism as a pretext to mobilize all Americans. Before the "9/11" attacks, the prevalence of misguided ideologies was limited by the normal functioning of American democracy. The war on terror temporarily silenced critics and brought Americans to a state of emergency. It was at the moment the U.S. invaded Iraq that we entered what I call the "far-from-equilibrium territory." I found that the process of pursuing U.S. global hegemony is similar to the boom-bust cycles common in the stock market. Now, the bubble has burst. The purpose of this book is to explain how we became entangled in the chaos we face and what role the U.S. should play on the world stage. In Part I of this book, I will critically examine the Bush administration's policies; in Part II, I will clearly outline a constructive vision for the U.S.'s role.