Bound to Lead

Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1990. 307 p., $16.50.

Somehow, in all my studies I have avoided reading this foundational book in international relations. I have of course heard references to Joseph Nye throughout and myself used the term "soft power" constantly. So, in a fit of realism, I decided to go back and read this book thoroughly to see what Nye had to say about power in the 20th century. And frankly, Nye's insights are prescient, innovative, and interesting even after almost two decades.

What is the nature of power in international relations? That has been a foundational question since the days of Greece. Without becoming too mired in political science jargon, Nye focuses squarely on both instruments of power and power conversion. Diplomats have long fretted about the balance of power and the means of creating a stable international system. The rise of the UK and the US seemed to demonstrate that the world was safest and most stable with a superpower hegemon that enforced the rules. But the author doubts both the viability of the theory and its applicability to Britain or the US. This book further argues that the tools used in international stability are changing. Military force is less convertible, more risky, and bears higher costs.

Nye deals squarely with the school of American declinism, which was going through a strong revival at the time of his writing. America's golden age as a superpower was likely exaggerated after the fact, since America was never overly dominant in the international system. Nye also points to the significant leads in innovative technology in the US, the structural deficiencies that were just beginning to become apparent in the Soviet Union and the hyperbole surrounding the rise of Japan. Although America's relative power may have declined somewhat, there was clearly no one who could honestly contest America's role as the leading power.

Twenty years after the books publication, Nye appears vindicated in nearly his entire analysis. I suppose that is why his material continues to be cited to this day. Fears of a Japanese takeover appear comical now, though it does shed some light on the current anti-Chinese warmongering. And in a world of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Boeing (I will avoid Citi and GM for the time being), the economic dominance of the United States remains viable and visible.

Despite the books strengths, I find that it has shaken my faith in the political science community. There is a real problem of small sample size in subject matter such as this. After all, how many hegemons have there been in a modern age? How can we truly make generalizable statements about international stability when we generally only discuss a period dating back to 1945? Political science seems less relevant than political analysis where examiners draw upon historical facts to discuss possible implications for the present without pretending to have predictive power. Perhaps that is the true political science after all.

No Impact Man

No Impact Man: The Adventures of a Guilty Liberal who attempts to Save the Planet and the Discoveries He Makes about Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process by Colin Beavan. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. 274 p., $25.00.

Pushing a point to the extreme often highlights important underlying principles. In this book, Colin Beavan does just that with his own lifestyle. For one year, this "guilty liberal" decides to swear off essentially all the conveniences of modern society: electricity, take-out food, public transportation, in short, anything that creates a negative environmental impact. The self-imposed environmental exile proceeds through stages, first cutting out trash and transportation, not purchasing new items, eating only locally grown food, and finally cutting electricity. As more and more of the modern lifestyle is trimmed away, Beavan finds a greater connection to his family and a deeper understanding about what makes us happy.

The book is written with a clear spiritual tone. That is, Beavan sees saving the planet as part of a larger search for the purpose of life and living. Beavan argues that mass consumerism has clouded our worldview to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice national happiness for gross national product. Production and consumption define society rather than wellbeing and relationships. Reducing frivolous consumption thus not only saves the planet, it also helps us live more meaningful lives.

In this context then, there are remarkable similarities between Beavan and the modern message of most religions. We long for a purpose greater than ourselves, a collective goal to strive towards. While Christianity focuses on heaven and a spiritual salvation, Beavan's brand of envrionmentalism focuses on harmony with the earth and temporal wellbeing. The two are not incompatible, and in fact the book highlighted for me how environmentalism can and should team up with religion to promote healthier living. After all, both teach that we are stewards of this earth and we have a responsibility both collectively and individually.

As evidence of this book's value, my personal behavior has been significantly influenced by Beavan's suggestions. I have realized how much I needlessly waste, and I am striving to better use what I already have. Lights are turned off more frequently, we are avoiding single-use packaging, and trying to eat more locally. The reminder that relationships and a life well-lived are more important than degrees and positions is also particularly pertinent at this time in my life.

If there is one downfall in Beavan's novel, it is the somewhat melodramatic and emotive focus on collective guilt. Indeed, while the conservative movement all too often utilizes the politics of fear, the left seems to be entrenched in the politics of guilt. Atoning for past sins is neither helpful nor particularly appealing. The book shines when it focuses on the individual and what we can do today to have a better life and be better stewards of this world; it fails when it starts cataloging the past excesses of humanity. We cannot change the past, we can only learn lessons. So let's focus on making the present better using what we already know.