Editor’s note: In this article for Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, MWI Non-Resident Fellow Dr. Jahara Matisek, Dr. Travis Robison, and Dr. Buddhika Jayamaha, identify how a weakening social contract between American foreign policy elites and the general public is undermining the logic and rationale of US war efforts.
Americans today resent seemingly endless military deployments across the globe with no discernible security benefits, feel abandoned by the supposed economic benefits of globalization that have not accrued to a majority, and are suspicious of laissez-faire capitalism. In this article, we argue that the US role in world affairs is fundamentally shaped by its democratic system of governance. US foreign engagements historically depended on the government’s ability to maintain an implicit and explicit social contract with the American public that guaranteed domestic prosperity in exchange for supporting foreign-policy goals. The social contract remained legitimate to the extent that the government fulfilled its obligation to pursue goals abroad that contributed to the public interest. When the government failed to do so, the public withdrew its support by demanding new policies and electing new leadership to act in accordance with the public’s will.
Growing levels of domestic political turmoil increasingly point to a failing American social contract that does not contribute to improves economic wellbeing for all Americans. The indictment of America’s foreign-policy elites is the result of a fundamental breakdown of the social contract that undergirded the domestic legitimacy of American global engagement during the twentieth century. Our article suggests that strategic retrenchment may provide an opportunity for reevaluation that will contribute to the strategic solvency necessary for maintaining American leadership in the twenty-first century.
Maj. Jahara “FRANKY” Matisek, US Air Force, is an assistant professor in the Department of Military and Strategic Studies at the US Air Force Academy and is a non-resident fellow at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He was an instructor pilot on the C-17 and T-6 with over 700 combat hours and holds a PhD in political science from Northwestern University. He is currently deployed as a pilot on the E-11 BACN.
Lt. Col. Travis Robison, US Army, served in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan and completed his PhD in political science at the University of Pennsylvania. He is currently the commander of the 2nd Battalion, 11th field Artillery Regiment, 25th infantry Division.
Buddhika Jayamaha is a former US Army airborne infantryman and veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division with numerous deployments to Iraq. He holds a PhD in political science from Northwestern University and is an assistant professor in the Department of Military and Strategic Studies at the US Air Force Academy.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Master Sgt. Michel Sauret, US Army
Today we might view "the contract" more in terms of a contract that government has entered into with the market; wherein, the primarily goal of the contract is to:
a. Facilitate, service, expand and protect the free operations of the market and to, thereby,
b. Provide for America's national security today and going forward.
In this regard, consider the following from the Catholic University of America paper: "Moral Communities or a Market State," by Antonio F. Perez and Robert J. Delahunty (see page 643):
"We agree with Bobbitt that a global transition from Nation States to Market States is now well underway. The chief thesis of this Article is that the Supreme Court has embarked on a program of reshaping constitutional doctrine so as to encourage and facilitate the emergence of a fully developed Market State in this polity, with a view to positioning the United States to be successful in meeting the competitive challenges of a new, post-Cold War international order. In taking this course, the Court has increasingly aligned itself with the prescriptive views of American business and political elites, for whom globalization is understood 'not merely [as] a diagnostic tool but also [as] an action program.' From this perspective, globalization 'represents a great virtue: the transcendence of the traditional restrictions on worldwide economic activity.., inherent' in the era of Nation States. Proponents of this vision of a globalized economy characterize the United States as 'a giant corporation locked in a fierce competitive struggle with other nations for economic survival,' so that 'the central task of the federal government' is 'to increase the international competitiveness of the American economy'."
In this such "contract" arrangement, the people, and their various wants, needs and desires, these are, ideally, only to be provided for via the market and, thus, not through other government programs, processes or efforts.
From this such "contract" perspective, American foreign and domestic policies came to be directed toward eliminating such things as the "cultural backwardness" problems/obstacles of both our own country (homosexuality, sexism, racism, etc., immigration) and of other states and societies (too many to list); this, so as to better provide for the wants, needs and desires of the market worldwide.
This, of course, both at home and abroad, was — and indeed still is — an obvious formula for revolt; this, (a) by the various "old orders" who (b) see their dominant position, safety and status being compromised by such "changes."
Given such things as 9/11 and our 2016 election, I probably do no need to point to how such things as our "we will transform you — for the needs of the market" U.S. foreign and domestic policies — may have led directly to:
a. Overseas — such things as 9/11, and to the rise of self-described "cultural champions" like Osama bin Laden and Vladimir Putin. And
b. Here at home — to such things as the Brexit, and to the election of President Trump (again, significantly on "we want and need an old order/cultural champion" grounds?)
This returns us, it would seem, to the "social contract" question offered in the Catholic University of America article I address above, to wit: what is it that we want:
a. A moral community (wherein, "security" is seen through the lens of providing for [a] an "old order" and this, thus, [b] only for a very limited time), Or:
b. A market state (wherein, "security" is seen [albeit as being more painful/taking the necessary medicine] in more lengthy and all-encompassing terms?)
In my fourth full paragraph above (begins with "From this such 'contract' perspective"), I obviously should change — re: eliminating our "cultural backwardness problems" here at home — "homosexuality" to "homophobia" and "immigration" to "fear of/concern with immigrants."
Note that these such matters — and how the U.S. Supreme Court has seen and dealt with them as "cultural backwardness" obstacles to U.S. competitiveness in the world of globalization today — these are discussed in the "Moral Communities or a Market State" paper I reference above.
The following additional excerpt — from the paper "Moral Communities or a Market States" — may be useful in addressing such things as the "social contract" and "strategic retrenchment" issues being explored here:
"The Nation State, so viewed, represents a bargain between the State and its people: On the one side, there is the people's commitment to upholding the State by the willing sacrifice of wealth, liberty, and even life; on the other, there is a reciprocal pledge by the State to provide for the people's welfare. In America, the Nation State's commitment to the welfare of the community prescribed a set of principles that ultimately shaped post-New Deal constitutional change. Chief among these principles was the recognition of the Nation State's authority, not only to provide public goods and to correct market failures, but also to pursue certain collective moral goals-such as wealth redistribution, a social safety net, and eventually racial equality" -through significant regulation of private contracting" and regulation of the use of private property. In subordinating private liberty to the needs of the community, the New Deal Supreme Court proclaimed that 'regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process.'
Bobbitt argues persuasively that the constitutional order of the Nation State is no longer tenable. Bobbitt explains that, viewed from the angle of the Nation State's post-Cold War defaults:
'No nation-state can assure its citizens safety from weapons of mass destruction; no nation-state can, by obeying its own national laws (including its international treaties) be assured that its leaders will not be arraigned as criminals or its behavior be used as a legal justification for international coercion; no nation-state can effectively control its own economic life or its own currency; no nation-state can protect its culture and way of life from the depiction and presentation of images and ideas, however foreign or offensive; no nation-state can protect its society from transnational perils, such as ozone depletion, global warming, and infectious epidemics. And yet guaranteeing national security, civil peace through law, economic development and stability, international tranquility and equality, were the principal tasks of the nation-state.' Further, the financial burdens of a commitment to the 'ever-improving welfare of its citizens'–aggravated in the West by demographic considerations and, perhaps, by growing difficulties in extracting taxes–is one of the reasons why the contemporary Nation State appears to be defaulting on its side of the bargain."
Based on the above, the "social contract" — largely based on the idea of the nation-state — is now obsolete; this, because it has been largely "overcome by events;" most specifically, those associated with such things as globalization.
If this indeed is the case, then the nation-state, the old "social contract" relating to same, and/or "strategic retrenchment" so as to improve these such (obsolete?) items; none of these, it would seem, can help us?
There is a fundamental aspect that always seems to be missing in discussions of American leadership; if you would lead, you must have followers. If people (or countries) don't want to follow you, you can't be their leader. You really can't make them follow you, so they must have a reason for wanting to follow you. During the Cold War, there was such a reason – we secured the world against a specific threat (communist aggression) and we guaranteed access to world trade. Since the end of the Cold War, these terms no longer exist, no matter how much we wish to ignore that.
Read the full article here.
Links into a fairly assertive pay wall. Unusual, as such, from here.
(FYI, not a comment.)