How the United States is Viewed by the International Community

In order to begin this investigation, it is first helpful to consider what has been written about U.S. hegemony and its impact on the development of the global community. Knight (2005) in his examination of the overall power and authority asserted by the United States, in the context of globalization, argues that even though President Bush and members of his administration have argued that the U.S. does not have imperialist tendencies, most foreign entities view the U.S. as nothing more than an imperialist nation. While Knight argues that the United States is not seeking to create an empire in the classical sense of the word-i.e. a nation that dominates all others-he does argue that the U.S. has asserted its powers in recent years such that only its objectives could be achieved. This process has lead to the development of coercive relationships that, in many cases, have not favored developing nations.

Although the creation of an empire though imperialist ideologies may not seem like a negative situation overall, the reality is that the actions that the United States has taken to preserve its hegemony in the international community has come at a price. Panitch (2003) in his examination of world opinion about the actions taken by the US in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks is able to demonstrate this point. According to this author, in the months after the terrorist attacks when the US launched an attack on Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden, the Ipsos-Reid polling organization surveyed global public opinion about the actions taken by the US. The following results were obtained: "...Whereas 85 percent of Americans and between 58 and 66 percent of those in other G7 countries supported the American-led war in Afghanistan, the war was opposed by 70-75 percent of the population in the world's poor counties, including even those in Latin American in this hemisphere" (p. 234). Panitch argues is that what this effectively demonstrates is that there was little sympathy for what happened to the United States on September 11.

While global opinion of the United States demonstrates the negative impact that foreign policies aimed at hegemony and imperialism have produced, other authors examining the development of the United States have made the argument that the current push toward world domination by the US is having a negative impact on the ability of the US to make credible choices for economic and social development (Roy, 2004). Roy (2004) in his examination of the current push toward America's world domination notes that the process has corrupted the development of government overall. As noted by this author: "In this new age of empire, when nothing is as it appears to be, executives of concerned companies are allowed to influence foreign policy decisions. The Center for Public Integrity in Washington found that at least nine out of the thirty members of the Bush Administrations' Defense Policy Board were connected to companies that were awarded military contracts for $76 billion between 2001 and 2002" (p. 11). Roy contends that as the government corruption becomes more pervasive the ability of the US to protect itself from terrorist attacks will wane.

Although the predictions made by Roy in his analysis of the current imperialism expressed by the United States are quite apocalyptic in nature, there is some amount of truth the arguments that Roy makes. Government was established by the Founding Fathers as a means to provide for the safety and well being of the people. Government was supposed to remain an untainted organization that was beyond reproach and corruption. As the United States pushes toward imperialism and the creation of an empire, the government has grown more corrupt, allowing third party interests to make critical decisions for the country. While the government may rationalize this choice by arguing that the decisions made with respect to foreign policy do not have direct ramifications for the citizens of the United States, September 11th seems to prove that theses decisions do indeed have an impact on US citizens. Overall, the foreign policies undertaken by the federal government will ultimately impact the well being of all citizens in the United States.

Domestic Problems

In addition to the fact that the United States is experiencing considerable problems when it comes to the development of foreign policy, it seems reasonable to argue that the government's focus on the country's external environment has created a situation in which the domestic development of the country is being compromised. Walsh and Hodgkinson (2005) in their examination of the budget proposals that have been put forth by the president for 2006 note that significant increases in the national deficit promulgated by both the war in Iraq and the global war on terror are forcing the president to curtail many domestic programs. Specifically, these authors note the following:

More than 150 government programs would be either abolished or drastically curtailed, including such politically sensitive initiatives as a plan to promote drug-free schools; subsidies for Amtrak, the national passenger rail company; oil and gas research incentives; and grants to help communities hire extra police officers. Farm subsidies, student loans, veterans' medical services and Medicaid benefits for the poor and disabled would also be scaled back (p. 15).

While spending for domestic programs will be curtailed, defense spending will increase. While Walsh and Hodgkinson note that increases in defense spending will be smaller than they have been in recent years, increases are budgeted nonetheless.

In addition to the fact that many domestic programs are being sacrificed as a result of placing more emphasis on defense spending and the war on terror, the shifts that have occurred in the context of government spending have served as the impetus for the development of a massive budget deficit. Feldman (2005) in his analysis of the budget deficit notes that at the present time, the budget deficit totals more than $400 billion and is expected to climb to 1.9 trillion in the next several years. As the United States government attempts to move the economy forward, it will face notable challenges when it comes to balancing the foreign deficit with the need for domestic spending on issues such as healthcare and education. With no salient plan in place to reduce the deficit, more domestic programs will need to be cut in order to maintain debt service and ensure that spending for the war on terror is kept in place.

Although the federal government has not revealed a full scale plan for reducing the deficit, Sanchez (2004) reports that Bush's fiscal plan for the next three years is to keep reducing domestic spending as a means to balance the budget. Sanchez notes that when Bush took office, domestic spending accounted for 15 percent of the administration's budget. In his first four years in office, Bush was able to cut this by 1 percent. Bush is moving ahead with cuts that should allow greater reductions in domestic spending in the next three years. Therefore, Bush is now justifying reductions in domestic spending by arguing that these painful cuts will enable the country to reduce its overall deficit. These reductions may indeed reduce the deficit over time; however, these reductions are coming at a time when federal spending on defense and foreign policy continues to increase. As such, it is clear that the government is trading domestic welfare for the imperialist notions of maintaining international hegemony.

Conclusion

When all of the data is summarized, it becomes evident that there are two reasons for reducing the global presence of the United States. First, as the US pushes toward a greater global presence, the desire to assert imperialism on other countries in the international community increases as well. This situation leads to considerable corruption in government and further diminishes the overall reputation of the United States in the international community. The overbearing attitude to the US in the international community has served as the basis for many foreign countries to look at the US in disdain, even when ruthlessly attacked by terrorists. By diminishing its presence in the global community, the US could promote a more peaceful development of the international community while drawing the hatred and disdain of the world community away from American citizens.

The second reason for reducing global presence is the impact of the imperialism on the development of the domestic economy. At the present time the US faces a budget deficit of more than $400 billion. In an effort to combat this deficit, the government is now cutting critical domestic programs. While this process may ultimately aid in the reduction of the deficit, the reality is that money not spent on domestic programs will be spent on terrorism or defense. As such, the government is systematically reducing domestic spending in an effort to combat the hatred that it has encountered as a result of imperialist foreign policy initiatives. When placed in this context, it becomes evident that the US has created a cycle of imperialism that must be broken in order to save the US from social, economic and political ruin. The only method to accomplish this goal is for the US to reduce its global presence.

In the end, the federal government's pursuit of an empire-primarily through military and political coercion-has created notable tensions for the US and its citizens in many parts of the world. Because the US chooses to place its imperialist longings before its altruistic obligation to do what is in essence right, every citizen in the US has been placed in a precarious position. The September 11th terrorist attacks clearly demonstrate this point. Although President Bush claims that the Muslim world hates the US because of their freedom and democracy, the reality is that the US is hated because of its dominance of the international community. Given this realization, it seems feasible that the best policy that the federal government could pursue is one that notably limits the presence of the US in the international community.

References

Feldman, A. (2005). Future shock. Money, 34(1), 64-65.

Knight, A. (2005). Empire, hegemony and globalization in the Americas. NACLA Report on the Americas, 39(2), 8-14.

Panitch, L. (2003). September 11 and the American empire. Interventions: The International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 5(2), 233-241.

Roy, A. (2004). The new American century. Nation, 278(5), 11-14.

Sanchez, H. (2004). Bush plan aims to curb non-defense, non-homeland security spending. Bond Buyer, 350(32032), 5.

Walsh, G., & Hodgkinson, E. (2005), Country Report, United States, 3, 1-35.