Anti-Americanism is in the air these days. Foreign Policy featured an article in its current issue on the subject, and Foreign Affairs has published its own piece recently. When two main organs of the U.S. establishment are singling something out for special treatment something is up.

Much of the world enjoys American music, jazz in particular. The U.S. offers spectacular scenery, and, generally, a warm welcome to its many visitors. American authors are widely translated and distributed. So, its hard to imagine a world against jazz, the Grand Canyon or Moby Dick.

Though it may be absurd to see critics of U.S. policy as anti-American, that is what they are called. The tactic is transparent. Demonize your adversary by attaching a label they would not choose themselves, and that your target audience finds offensive. Canadian critics of U.S. trade policy or the Iraq invasion become anti-American for the supporters of U.S. policy.

But, what is going on today is more than the usual name calling. What is at issue is the nature of America, and the identification of threats to its existence. The search for anti-Americanism turns up … Americanism; that is what needs a closer look.

Music, geography and literature are American or not, can be liked or not. Americanism is something else. Call it an ideology, a philosophy, a view of the world; at heart it is about the American republic, its empire, and supremacy in the world.

We have just witnessed the third commemoration of the September 11 attacks. In 2001, nine days after that date, in an address to a joint session of Congress, the U.S. President laid out the Bush doctrine. It has been compared in importance to American cold war policy as presented in the Truman Doctrine of 1947. The prominent neoconservative, Norman Podhoretz, in a remarkable essay has called that period World War III, and calls the post Sept. 11 period, World War IV.

Many people outside the U.S. might think that such ideas of two world wars taking place after 1945 originate in senility, or reflect a form of harmless insanity common to intellectuals who have spent too much time alone with their thoughts. But, for the American president, the new conflict is akin to the cold war period in that it has ideological roots and is world wide. And, anyone one who thinks talk of World War IV is an illusion, or an exaggeration, would be mistaken.

Indeed there is no better way to understand current American politics than through a look at the Bush doctrine.It has four main elements. First, it makes world politics a struggle between the forces of good (guess who) and evil. For Podhoretz, Bush has made a call for America to defend freedom that is reminiscent of World War III with Truman fighting Stalin and Communism, and Reagan taking on the evil empire, a war that was won when the U.S. rebuilt its military strength post Vietnam, and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-90.

Second, the doctrine declares that in the fight against terrorism (World War IV) countries that aid and abet terrorist groups will themselves come under military attack from the U.S., and that regime change will follow. Think of the invasion of Afghanistan, and the replacement of the Taliban; and, Iraq, and the ousting of Saddam as the first encounters in that war.

Third, the Bush doctrine specifies that preemptive force will be used by the U.S. Since terrorists have attacked the U.S. itself, on its own soil, something that never occurred in World Wars I or II, the U.S. government has a clear responsibility to ensure this is not repeated. Instead of the cold war strategy of containment and deterrence of threats, the U.S. is now prepared to take action without either UN sanction or in direct retaliation for an act of war.

Finally, the principle that states were either with the U.S. in the war on terrorism or against the U.S. was inherent to the new approach to world affairs. In June of 2002, Bush made this point explicit. While he supported the idea of the creation of a Palestinian state, he called on the Palestinian authority to denounce terrorism. No state could support or harbour terrorists or fail to prosecute terrorism and be supported by the U.S.

The Bush doctrine was a new statement of American foreign policy by the supreme commander of the greatest military force in the history of the planet. Polls show national security ranks first in the American mind. Americans support the President in times of war, irrespective of whether they were in favour of the decision to go to war in the first place. Little wonder that Senator John Kerry looked like he was auditioning for a military command at the Democratic convention that nominated him for President.

American foreign policy has been bipartisan in its period of world leadership. Kerry has precious little time to establish his own agenda for America, and should he somehow win, there is no reason to believe the climate of public opinion would allow him to move away from the Bush doctrine.

The last thing he needs is to become one of the anti-Americans. But, there are those who think the Bush doctrine is dangerous, wrong and outdated, and that “us against them” needs to be dropped in favour of “it’s one world, ” and it’s about time we figured out how to promote common security.

Duncan Cameron

Duncan Cameron

Born in Victoria B.C. in 1944, Duncan now lives in Vancouver. Following graduation from the University of Alberta he joined the Department of Finance (Ottawa) in 1966 and was financial advisor to the...