In a season of intense debate about US foreign policy, “American Empire” is a polarizing concept. While the term was once reserved for policies of direct rule over conquered territory, commentators across the spectrum have recently adopted “empire” as a shorthand for American efforts to introduce democracy in other sovereign nations. Closely linked with the hot-button issues of global trade and development, the goal of spreading democracy inspires vigorous argument among scholars. This seminar will take a step back from the political fray, examining the opposing arguments and considering the history, values, and interests embedded in the concept of American Empire.

To its critics, coercive foreign policy, however well intentioned, is antithetical to the ideal of consensual government. Democracy, they claim, must arise from a bottom-up process. In trying to impose it on other countries, we undermine stabilizing structures and generate opposition to the values we aim to spread. An opposing viewpoint claims that world stability rests on democratic government; from volatile dictatorships and oligarchies arise terrorism, genocide, and war. It is therefore both the responsibility and the best interest of strong democracies like the United States to spread the values of freedom, equality, and self-government across the world. Under this view, American hegemony is threatened by the arrival of new global forces: rising national powers like China and Russia, anti-capitalist and anti-Western ideologies, and skyrocketing foreign debt.

Whether they take “American Empire” as a goal or a slur, scholars concerned with foreign policy must grapple with complex pragmatic questions about methods for advancing values like freedom, equality, and human rights. While many economists and political scientists tout the promise of increasingly frictionless markets for raising standards of living and preparing the ground for democratic governments, their critics point to abusive work conditions, increasing wealth disparities, and environmental destruction. Military and peacekeeping action draws similarly divided responses: should the U.S. consider it a matter of responsibility to apply military force when human and civil rights are violated, or are such methods ethically indefensible and practically counterproductive? The Iraq war has provided a case-in-point for critics on both sides of the question, at once showing the difficulty of effecting positive change and pointing out the dangers posed by antidemocratic forces.

To ask whether and how America should export democracy risks begging the question; can we presume any uniform definition of democracy, or that the U.S. is its best representative? This seminar will present alternative democratic models from both the global north and south in order to challenge and refine the definition of democracy. It will also take a historical look at the concept of democracy and its constitutional manifestations. Speakers will include John Comaroff (Anthropology), Thomas Ginsburg (Law), Jennifer Pitts (Political Science), Charles Lipson (Political Science), Sankar Muthu (Political Science) and John Mearsheimer (Political Science).