Francis Fukuyama has continued to distance himself from the Bush-era neo-conservatism, with an interesting article in Newsweek about the end of the American “brand”. Fukuyama’s argument is that the US brand had two core concepts:

The first was a certain vision of capitalism—one that argued low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. Reaganism reversed a century-long trend toward ever-larger government. Deregulation became the order of the day not just in the United States but around the world.

The second big idea was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world, which was seen as the best path to a more prosperous and open international order. America’s power and influence rested not just on our tanks and dollars, but on the fact that most people found the American form of self-government attractive and wanted to reshape their societies along the same lines—what political scientist Joseph Nye has labeled our “soft power.”

However, he argues that both these concepts have been devalued in the eyes of the world. First, with respect to deregulation, he argues that for many, ‘it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state’. He believes that the financial markets were not sufficiently regulated, which has resulted in the present financial crisis. [My personal belief is that there were plenty of regulations... possibly too many... but they were not the right regulations.]

His second argument is that the US has damaged its credibility with respect to introducing “democratic freedoms” by attempting to introduce countries to such measures at gunpoint (Iraq being the primary example). But the US is also willing to overlook a lack of democracy in certain strategic allies. “Democracy” has become a reason for military intervention, not something to which countries should voluntarily aspire. He argues:

We don’t have much credibility when we champion a “freedom agenda.”

The American model has also been seriously tarnished by the Bush administration’s use of torture. After 9/11 Americans proved distressingly ready to give up constitutional protections for the sake of security. Guantánamo Bay and the hooded prisoner at Abu Ghraib have since replaced the Statue of Liberty as symbols of America in the eyes of many non-Americans.

He concludes by saying that American democracy needs to reform itself, both internally and externally.

I caught the end of Insight on SBS last week, which featured a New York audience rather than an Australian audience. I was fascinated to see that many of the audience saw the US as a country to be admired and emulated by others. Essentially, they believed in the American “brand”. Personally, I’m not sure how strong the US “brand” was in the first place. The Regan era was certainly not free of inappropriate and heavy handed intervention into the foreign policies of other countries. The US tanks didn’t go in directly, but US dollars funded the tanks and guns of others on the basis that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Many of these interventions can be regarded as a contributing factor to present problems. I would suggest that this made some parts of the world cynical about US foreign policy before the Bush administration even entered Iraq.

All this talk of the US brand makes me think of an anecdote involving the movie Air Force One, featuring Harrison Ford as the US president whose jet is hijacked by terrorists. I went to see it in the cinemas in Australia when it came out (about 10 years ago, from memory). There was a terribly patriotic and schmaltzy moment at the end which was obviously supposed to make the audience feel proud of America and the US President (if not slightly tearful). It didn’t work at all in Australia: the audience burst into uproarious laughter and groans for about two straight minutes, and someone shouted, “Oh, come off it!” It’s not that the audience was particularly anti-American, but this scene was not something that would appeal to an Australian. We’re not into worship of political office (quite the opposite). But perhaps the filmmakers had thought this kind of portrayal would have a universal appeal, and had believed in the power of the American brand overseas.

I agree with Fukuyama that the US’s status globally has been damaged by its foreign policy and the financial crisis. I suspect that if Air Force One were shown in present times, people would not laugh and groan as they did 10 years ago; rather, they might boo and catcall.

It will be interesting to see what a new President will do. One thing that perhaps Americans could learn from Australians is a certain realism as to the flaws of one’s system and the flaws of politicians. The only way in which one can improve is not to blindly assume one’s greatness, but to recognise that not everyone in the world admires you, and that there may be some valid reasons for this. Hopefully the US will have the strength to rebuild itself in a way which reflects the admirable freedoms and principles it espouses.

(Hat tip: A roll of the dice - good to see you guys are back and blogging!)