The Arrogance of Power

Senator William Fulbright (1905 – 1995) served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1959 to 1974, a record term. This is the 50th anniversary edition of a book first published in 1966 when Fulbright was still in office and it still has a great deal to say as a commentary on power and its abuse. As Clinton observes, Fulbright believed that politics was about the power of ideas, not the idea of power. He comes across as a man of remarkable character and integrity, unafraid to speak his mind as a dissenter on matters of principle and policy in the name of what he called the higher patriotism. The book is developed from a series of lectures with case studies covering Latin America, USSR, China and especially Vietnam. Perhaps the two key chapters are the first and the last, on the arrogance of power and the two Americas, humanistic and puritanical. Fulbright is a keen observer of human and political nature, occasionally expressing himself with scathing wit and irony: 'not once, as far as I know, has the United States regarded itself as intervening in a Latin American country for selfish and unworthy motives – a view not necessarily shared, however, by the beneficiaries.' He excoriated the US intervention in the Dominican Republic, offering what he felt was constructive criticism which was then condemned as irresponsible instead of a necessary calling to account in the spirit of democratic debate.

The arrogance of power arises when power is confused with virtue and imbued with a mission. In this respect, Fulbright's main criticism of communism and indeed of revolution is not so much the content as the fervent fanaticism of its extreme proponents. He shows how the US faced a dilemma in being simultaneously hostile to communism and sympathetic to nationalism, which sometimes meant backing repressive military dictatorships and reactionary oligarchies. His view of human nature is pragmatic and humanist. He points out that commitment to ideologies is largely a question of birth and culture but that they may lead to antagonists demonising each other so that the enemy becomes 'the embodiment of doctrines that we consider evil' (p. 165). This is all too familiar. He elaborates on his humanistic theme in the final chapter contrasting the democratically humanistic America of Lincoln with another strand characterised by intolerant puritanism and a crusading morality - think of the war against terrorism: 'excessive ideological zeal is our problem as well as the communists'.' For these reasons, he feels that the US should concentrate on being an example of democracy rather than trying to export its political brand around the world. Politicians would do well to heed his advice.