In "The Prince," which remains controversial to this day, long after Niccolo Machiavelli wrote it in 1513, the author and philosopher tells the famous Italian prince Lorenzo de Medici that it is better to be feared than loved.
Is this question now on the minds of some of America's leading intellectuals as a new presidential election approaches?
It is clear that American intellectuals have recently been striving to present a different, “less arrogant” image of America. Interestingly, this is true for both Democrats and Republicans.
Everyone concerned with American affairs has turned their attention to two highly important readings recently published in two of the most influential American political magazines.
The first reading, presented by the well-known American writer Michael Hirsh, was published by "Foreign Policy” magazine. In it, he discusses the views of Philip Gordon, the National Security Advisor to Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, and his deputy Rebecca Lissner, the author of the famous book "An Open World: How America Can Win the Contest for Twenty-First Century Order."
Gordon and Lissner's vision revolves around the need for the United States to rethink the contexts and paths of its foreign policy, become less arrogant, openly acknowledge its past excesses, and significantly scale down its ambitions. Adding further analysis, these strategic threads suggest that a different America is necessary, an American that is not like the one the world knew at the end of the twentieth century- the America of neoconservatives striving to make the twenty-first century an American century par excellence before the strategy shifted with the so-called "pivot to Asia" aimed at containing Russia and China.
Are there serious demands for the US to present a new global outlook different from that which has prevailed since the Allies' victory in World War II and was consolidated after the US unilaterally dominated the global order following the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Harris' friends are clearly convinced that Washington must abandon its strategic superiority complex and dreams of "Pax Americana." They suggest that the idea of leading a liberal world order is outdated and that striving to remain a dominant power now requires different tools and approaches that deprioritize military power.
Is this a moment of self-examination and candor from the American side?
In Lissner's book, she argues that with the decline of the unipolar moment, any illusions about the United States' ability to unilaterally and universally make the global order in its own liberal image must also fade away.
Does going in this direction make radical changes in the structural mentality of the US, both domestically and internationally, inevitable?
Perhaps the first thing this means is that America today is divided into two camps:
Harris' camp, which promotes- at least publicly- a break with ideologies and strategies of dominance and control, as well as plans for containment, albeit in a pragmatic manner that serves practical interests, like smooth trade and ensuring strong and effective cooperation on critical issues, especially on cosmological turning points like climate change, combating 21st-century pandemics, and regulating artificial intelligence before it crushes and eradicates humanity. The other camp, its plans are laid out in Project 2025, which is backed by hardline young Republican conservatives. They are the second edition of America's neoconservatives from 1997, and their ambitious right-wing project is dangerous for both America and the world.
The other perspective was presented by Richard Haass, and it was published in the “Foreign Affairs" magazine. Haass is a renowned Republican thinker and strategist; he is currently the honorary president of the Council on Foreign Relations and remains one of the most prominent thinkers shaping American foreign policy. In his lengthy article, it is clear that Haass is suggesting that we go in the opposite direction to that recommended by Machiavelli, and seek to make the US more loved than feared.
Haass recommends that the US engage with allies in different ways. Aligning himself with Professor Joseph Nye's concepts of American soft power, he proposes veering away from hard military power.
Haass believes that blunt military force is no longer effective, especially at a time when allies have started ignoring American preferences, preparing for consequences, and even circumventing them by diversifying their "diplomatic portfolios" and reducing their reliance on the United States by finding new backers in a world on the brink of inevitable multipolarity.
In a debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore held in the leadup to the 2000 election, Bush promised a humble but strong America. Those promises dissipated into hot air. So, are Haass's and Hirsh's suggestions merely soft promises, or are they strategic reassessments by a domestically exhausted and internationally troubled US?
