無料のKindleアプリをダウンロードして、スマートフォン、タブレット、またはコンピューターで今すぐKindle本を読むことができます。Kindleデバイスは必要ありません。
ウェブ版Kindleなら、お使いのブラウザですぐにお読みいただけます。
携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。
ならずもの国家アメリカ 単行本 – 2003/11/1
ブッシュとネオコンの野望を撃て!
傲慢・思い上がりがエスカレートする“ブッシュのアメリカ”に鉄槌を下し、迷走アメリカと復活日本のあるべき姿を提示する。
レーガン政権の中枢にいた「保守本流の論客」による警世の書
「善意」はなぜかくも誤ったのか?
環境問題に関して、アメリカは日本の面目を失わせるようなことをした。アメリカが京都議定書を受け入れられるよう日本が最善を尽くしたにもかかわらず、アメリカは批准しなかったのだ。また、日本が喜んで受け入れた包括的核実験禁止条約を、アメリカは拒否した。国際刑事裁判所についても同様だ。
日本は国連決議をPKO活動の根拠にするようアメリカに働きかけてきたが、アメリカは都合のいいときだけ国連を利用するだけで、時によっては国連よりも便利なNATOや別の機構を利用すると言ってはばからない。こんな関係は、確固とした基盤を共有する同盟ではない。いつ何時、何かの圧力がかかれば、すぐにでも崩壊しておかしくない。だから、この同盟をもっと持続的で有効なものにしたいなら、今こそ再考し、再構築することが必要なのである。――(本文より)
傲慢・思い上がりがエスカレートする“ブッシュのアメリカ”に鉄槌を下し、迷走アメリカと復活日本のあるべき姿を提示する。
レーガン政権の中枢にいた「保守本流の論客」による警世の書
「善意」はなぜかくも誤ったのか?
環境問題に関して、アメリカは日本の面目を失わせるようなことをした。アメリカが京都議定書を受け入れられるよう日本が最善を尽くしたにもかかわらず、アメリカは批准しなかったのだ。また、日本が喜んで受け入れた包括的核実験禁止条約を、アメリカは拒否した。国際刑事裁判所についても同様だ。
日本は国連決議をPKO活動の根拠にするようアメリカに働きかけてきたが、アメリカは都合のいいときだけ国連を利用するだけで、時によっては国連よりも便利なNATOや別の機構を利用すると言ってはばからない。こんな関係は、確固とした基盤を共有する同盟ではない。いつ何時、何かの圧力がかかれば、すぐにでも崩壊しておかしくない。だから、この同盟をもっと持続的で有効なものにしたいなら、今こそ再考し、再構築することが必要なのである。――(本文より)
- 本の長さ449ページ
- 言語日本語
- 出版社講談社
- 発売日2003/11/1
- ISBN-104062116480
- ISBN-13978-4062116480
商品の説明
内容(「MARC」データベースより)
ブッシュとネオコンの野望を撃て! 傲慢・思い上がりがエスカレートする「ブッシュのアメリカ」に鉄槌を下し、迷走アメリカと復活日本のあるべき姿を提示する。レーガン政権の中枢にいた、保守本流の論客による警世の書。
登録情報
- 出版社 : 講談社 (2003/11/1)
- 発売日 : 2003/11/1
- 言語 : 日本語
- 単行本 : 449ページ
- ISBN-10 : 4062116480
- ISBN-13 : 978-4062116480
- Amazon 売れ筋ランキング: - 689,203位本 (本の売れ筋ランキングを見る)
- - 302位アメリカのエリアスタディ
- - 2,759位国際政治情勢
- - 4,237位政治入門
- カスタマーレビュー:
著者について
著者をフォローして、新作のアップデートや改善されたおすすめを入手してください。
著者の本をもっと発見したり、よく似た著者を見つけたり、著者のブログを読んだりしましょう
カスタマーレビュー
星5つ中4.5つ
5つのうち4.5つ
全体的な星の数と星別のパーセンテージの内訳を計算するにあたり、単純平均は使用されていません。当システムでは、レビューがどの程度新しいか、レビュー担当者がAmazonで購入したかどうかなど、特定の要素をより重視しています。 詳細はこちら
20グローバルレーティング
虚偽のレビューは一切容認しません
私たちの目標は、すべてのレビューを信頼性の高い、有益なものにすることです。だからこそ、私たちはテクノロジーと人間の調査員の両方を活用して、お客様が偽のレビューを見る前にブロックしています。 詳細はこちら
コミュニティガイドラインに違反するAmazonアカウントはブロックされます。また、レビューを購入した出品者をブロックし、そのようなレビューを投稿した当事者に対して法的措置を取ります。 報告方法について学ぶ
-
トップレビュー
上位レビュー、対象国: 日本
レビューのフィルタリング中に問題が発生しました。後でもう一度試してください。
2010年5月23日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
反米本と思って敬遠している人がいるとしたらもったいない! 現代アメリカ論、またそのアメリカに馬鹿のように「付き合っている」日本を論じた本として非常に優れた本です。筆者は、保守派の人ですが、9・11事件以前から、9・11以降のアメリカの行くえを予想しており、鋭い。歯ごたえのある本で、すらすら読める本ではありませんが、熟読に値する本です。小泉元首相に血道を上げた人たちも、この米保守派論客の立脚点を復習されてみては?
2005年5月12日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
世界超大国アメリカはその地位を保持するに相当する経済力や労働力、政治体制を兼ね備えた学ぶべき点の多い国家だが、9/11でも全世界に露呈した通りその実態は決して尊いものとは言い難い。それはブッシュ政権の強硬姿勢によって狂い始めた国家の歯車に原因があると言っても過言ではない。旧レーガン政権の関係者である筆者が見つめたアメリカの踏み誤った近年の政策を客観的に批判し、その問題の根底を問う。
戦争に関する記述は勿論、経済的背景を基にした国際政策や資源確保等取り上げるトピックは数知れず、若干古い本にはなってしまったが今や発効した京都議定書の不受理に関しても触れられている。例えば自分は京都議定書に関して様々に取り上げて勉強している人間なので、一つ一つのトピックに絞って考察してみれば必ずしも筆者の主張が全てではないと断言出来るが、それでもアメリカの真の実態が如何なるものなのか、客観的に知るいい指針にはなるだろう。
アメリカからは学ぶべき点も多いが、その一方で確かに混在するアメリカの許し難い政治実態や社会問題を露呈してくれる比較的手に取り易い一冊と言えよう。
戦争に関する記述は勿論、経済的背景を基にした国際政策や資源確保等取り上げるトピックは数知れず、若干古い本にはなってしまったが今や発効した京都議定書の不受理に関しても触れられている。例えば自分は京都議定書に関して様々に取り上げて勉強している人間なので、一つ一つのトピックに絞って考察してみれば必ずしも筆者の主張が全てではないと断言出来るが、それでもアメリカの真の実態が如何なるものなのか、客観的に知るいい指針にはなるだろう。
アメリカからは学ぶべき点も多いが、その一方で確かに混在するアメリカの許し難い政治実態や社会問題を露呈してくれる比較的手に取り易い一冊と言えよう。
2003年11月29日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
ブッシュ政権による非常に強硬かつ無手勝流の外交政策に関する著作はすでに多く出ているが、本書は、なかでも、最も優れたもののひとつであろう。著者によれば、「ならず者国家」とは、ほかならぬアメリカ自身のことである。ブッシュ大統領が就任するやいなや、ABM条約、京都議定書、国際刑事裁判所などの、重要で、しかも、かろうじて合意にこぎつけたような国際的取り決めから、一方的に離脱を実行した。そして、9/11を契機に、アフガニスタン、そして、同盟国を含む国連安保理を全く無視しつつ、イラクへの侵攻を断行した。著者は、アメリカだけが、まがりなりにも世界秩序を構築できたことを否定はしないし、アメリカが掲げてきた理念がもたらす希望にいまだ信頼を寄せるのであるが、現在のアメリカによるユニラテラリズム=単独行動主義は権力の濫用以外のなにものでもなく、ひいては世界中を敵に回す結果になりかねないと憂慮するのである。まさに、アメリカの良心というべき著作であろう。邦訳あり。
2003年11月24日に日本でレビュー済み
妊娠中絶に反対しても死刑執行をしまくるアメリカ。
成人男性の8人にひとりが重罪判決を受けているアメリカ。
自由貿易の原理を他国に押し付けながらも、鉄壁の保護関税
を平然とかけるアメリカ。
野望のためには平然と便宜的同盟を組むアメリカ。
エネルギー効率性が極端に悪いライフスタイルを維持する為に、
中東の覇権を必要とする、アメリカ。
ニューヨークとフロリダに基盤を持つ圧力団体が
外交の帰趨を進めるアメリカ。
ブッシュ(父)政権末期に起草されたドラフトが、
国家安全保障戦略となって以来、アメリカは自国以外の勢力
が台頭するのを排除するこれを真剣に考えるようになる。
その経済的、外交的な軍事的帰結はいかにアメリカを蝕んでいることか。
経験もある、いわゆる「ジャパンバッシャー」の手法よる本。
経済面での記述には同意しかねる部分もある。一個一個のファクトは
むしろ旧聞に属することかもしれない。しかし、それらが組みあがったとき、
古い保守サイドからの徹底したネオコン批判となるのだ。
そして、日本の真の独立とは何か?について考えさせられる。
アメリカの現状を把握する上で、本書を踏まえることは「常識」と
なるだろう。
成人男性の8人にひとりが重罪判決を受けているアメリカ。
自由貿易の原理を他国に押し付けながらも、鉄壁の保護関税
を平然とかけるアメリカ。
野望のためには平然と便宜的同盟を組むアメリカ。
エネルギー効率性が極端に悪いライフスタイルを維持する為に、
中東の覇権を必要とする、アメリカ。
ニューヨークとフロリダに基盤を持つ圧力団体が
外交の帰趨を進めるアメリカ。
ブッシュ(父)政権末期に起草されたドラフトが、
国家安全保障戦略となって以来、アメリカは自国以外の勢力
が台頭するのを排除するこれを真剣に考えるようになる。
その経済的、外交的な軍事的帰結はいかにアメリカを蝕んでいることか。
経験もある、いわゆる「ジャパンバッシャー」の手法よる本。
経済面での記述には同意しかねる部分もある。一個一個のファクトは
むしろ旧聞に属することかもしれない。しかし、それらが組みあがったとき、
古い保守サイドからの徹底したネオコン批判となるのだ。
そして、日本の真の独立とは何か?について考えさせられる。
アメリカの現状を把握する上で、本書を踏まえることは「常識」と
なるだろう。
他の国からのトップレビュー
Amazon Customer
5つ星のうち5.0
A Conservative critique of American Foreign Policy
2003年9月4日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
As my title indicates Clyde Prestowitz (the author)has impeccable Conservative credentials and heads a right-wing think tank in the US. Therefore, it should be and is surprising that a person such as this would choose to right a book so critical of America and especially her foreign policy. But, it is percisely because of his love of country and is lack of polemic that he is able to write such a satisfactory book, that is balanced in its analysis and emminently readable whatever your political persuasion. There are problems: he is a bit unfair on free trade and puts possibly (sadly) to much emphasis on the role of the EU. But at times his assessment of the failure of US foreign policy is exceptional. Highlights include he's account of the US role in Israel and America's energy problems. What Prestowitz argues is that America could be a virtual ruler of the world as the Romans were, but he does not believe that this would be best for America of the rest of the world. It is this insight that really makes the book interesting. If only all American conservatives were like this.
A must read for anyone in Washington and beyond.
A must read for anyone in Washington and beyond.
D. Cloyce Smith
5つ星のうち5.0
A lifelong conversative argues against unilateralism
2003年5月25日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
"Rogue Nation" examines a host of issues on which the U.S. has found itself at odds with the world: free trade agreements, global warming, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the treaty to eliminate land mines, the creation of an International Criminal Court, the war on Iraq, and more. The book is valuable regardless of whether or not the reader agrees with Prestowitz's politics (he's a longtime conservative and a former Reagan administration official) or his opinions on environmental, economic, and foreign policy concerns. Indeed, it's often hard to pinpoint the author's place on the ideological spectrum. For example, many conservatives will disagree with his support of several international agreements discarded by the Bush administration. Both conservatives and liberals will be dissatisfied about his ambivalence on the need for the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Many liberals will be turned off by his statement that, as of March 2003, "there is little choice for the United States and whatever partners it can gather to overthrow Saddam and occupy Iraq."
What troubles Prestowitz, however, is not America's international policies per se but the manner in which we pursue those policies--a manner that may not always meant to be arrogant but certainly seems to be to the rest of the world. What especially distresses him are certain unilateralist principles proposed and implemented by "neoconservatives" like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In a way, it's too bad that Prestowitz chose such a deliberately provocative title, since the book itself, while undeniably opinionated, makes considerable effort to present both sides of every issue. Yet he correctly acknowledges that much of the international community regards the United States as a "rogue nation"--whether we are in fact or not. Likewise, the author contends that, although we are not technically an empire, we often behave like one--or, just as important, appear to others to have imperial pretensions. In a world where perception is reality, Prestowitz argues, it is foolish not to be concerned about international opinion, since we depend on other nations as much as they depend on us for both economic well-being and domestic security.
Above all, Prestowitz proposes that America's people and its leaders become better listeners--and Prestowitz himself is an astute listener. He has interviewed an impressive number of foreign diplomats, ambassadors, and government officials, and he faithfully presents their views even when he seems not to concur. What matters less to the author is how accurate international opinion is about American intentions or plans. Instead, he strives to understand how they arrive at contrary judgments: he provides historical context for various controversies and describes events, blunders, and misunderstandings that tend to support such mistrust.
He also contends that Americans often seem to treat other nations as inherently inferior or, even more insultingly, that we seem to feel that other cultures would be better off if they became just like us. As Prestowitz notes, "Nations are very much like individuals. More than desire for material gain or fear or love, they are driven by a craving for dignity and respect, by the need to be recognized as valid and just a valuable as the next person or country." Rather than forcibly imposing our lifestyle on reluctant populations, we would be far more productive in providing a model worthy of admiration, "a city on a hill"--especially since most of the world's peoples greatly admire Americans themselves while they regard our government's policies with increasing suspicion.
Prestowitz's treatise is enhanced by a riveting journalistic style, an impressive array of evidence, and a lucid synthesis of a variety of foreign policy issues. I don't always agree with his views or his conclusions. For example, while I support his argument that we should greatly lessen our military presence in the Persian Gulf, I don't buy his assertion that shrinking our dependence on Arab oil would cut off funding for terrorism. (Although a reduction in oil imports would offer many other benefits, the implication that boycott or impoverishment would reduce terrorism seems questionable.) Yet, even when one disagrees, the book is still informative and challenging, and I found his overarching thesis to be irrefutable: America cannot survive this century on its own, and we cannot continue to act as if we can.
What troubles Prestowitz, however, is not America's international policies per se but the manner in which we pursue those policies--a manner that may not always meant to be arrogant but certainly seems to be to the rest of the world. What especially distresses him are certain unilateralist principles proposed and implemented by "neoconservatives" like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In a way, it's too bad that Prestowitz chose such a deliberately provocative title, since the book itself, while undeniably opinionated, makes considerable effort to present both sides of every issue. Yet he correctly acknowledges that much of the international community regards the United States as a "rogue nation"--whether we are in fact or not. Likewise, the author contends that, although we are not technically an empire, we often behave like one--or, just as important, appear to others to have imperial pretensions. In a world where perception is reality, Prestowitz argues, it is foolish not to be concerned about international opinion, since we depend on other nations as much as they depend on us for both economic well-being and domestic security.
Above all, Prestowitz proposes that America's people and its leaders become better listeners--and Prestowitz himself is an astute listener. He has interviewed an impressive number of foreign diplomats, ambassadors, and government officials, and he faithfully presents their views even when he seems not to concur. What matters less to the author is how accurate international opinion is about American intentions or plans. Instead, he strives to understand how they arrive at contrary judgments: he provides historical context for various controversies and describes events, blunders, and misunderstandings that tend to support such mistrust.
He also contends that Americans often seem to treat other nations as inherently inferior or, even more insultingly, that we seem to feel that other cultures would be better off if they became just like us. As Prestowitz notes, "Nations are very much like individuals. More than desire for material gain or fear or love, they are driven by a craving for dignity and respect, by the need to be recognized as valid and just a valuable as the next person or country." Rather than forcibly imposing our lifestyle on reluctant populations, we would be far more productive in providing a model worthy of admiration, "a city on a hill"--especially since most of the world's peoples greatly admire Americans themselves while they regard our government's policies with increasing suspicion.
Prestowitz's treatise is enhanced by a riveting journalistic style, an impressive array of evidence, and a lucid synthesis of a variety of foreign policy issues. I don't always agree with his views or his conclusions. For example, while I support his argument that we should greatly lessen our military presence in the Persian Gulf, I don't buy his assertion that shrinking our dependence on Arab oil would cut off funding for terrorism. (Although a reduction in oil imports would offer many other benefits, the implication that boycott or impoverishment would reduce terrorism seems questionable.) Yet, even when one disagrees, the book is still informative and challenging, and I found his overarching thesis to be irrefutable: America cannot survive this century on its own, and we cannot continue to act as if we can.
Marand
5つ星のうち4.0
Interesting and pretty balanced view
2012年7月19日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
I have had this book on my shelves for some while and finally got round to reading it recently. I did wonder whether it would be worthwhile given that international events have moved on since the book was written in the latter part of 2002. Whilst it is in one sense outdated, what is there remains valid, in fact probably more valid in the wake of the Iraq war.
The interesting thing is that Prestowitz is an American conservative. His Conservative credentials are impeccable - a Republican, a former diplomat and trade negotiator, counsellor in the Reagan administration, born-again Christian. He is concerned that non-Americans increasingly see the US as a rogue nation in the sense of being uncontrollable and accountable to no-one. His concerns are not just in the political & military sphere, but also environmental issues and globalisation. The aim is to "try to explain to baffled and hurt Americans why the world seems to be turning against them and also to show foreigners how they frequently misinterpret America's good intentions." He despairs of the widening gulf between America and its friends "as we Americans listen but do not hear, and look but don't see, the concerns and perspectives of other countries and at the same time also fail to recognize how some of our behaviour flouts our own values."
Prestowitz runs through all of the major issues and explains the US thinking/decision-making: Israel, Middle East, free trade and globalisation, US inconsistency in its dealings with different countries or even the same countries at different times (most notably Iraq & Afghanistan). He also shows the dangers of alienating China. It takes in the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, US farm subsidies and the impact on trade negotiations. As the author comments about the US request to Japan to 'voluntarily' limit exports of cars and TVs to US, "This was a cynical and hypocritical way of continuing to profess the virtue of free trade while enjoying the forbidden fruit of protectionism".
Prestowitz is particularly good in the field of environmental measures. He sees the US failure to adopt fuel efficient vehicles and impose stringent emissions controls as damaging to its relations with the rest of the world whilst at the same time exposing itself to the need to import oil from the politically unstable Middle East. The upshot is that if the US did adopt a more restrictive approach then it wouldn't be a net oil importer and would have greater security. He does cut the US some slack in not ratifying Kyoto on the basis that the treaty would not achieve the necessary signatures for ratification (in fact the protocol did meet the signature requirements, largely because of comments made by Bush, and the US was left in the role of environmental enemy).
It has to be said, that whilst this is a more balanced approach than some books on this subject, there is more explanation for Americans as to why the rest of the world might be wary than there is showing non-Americans why US action might be legitimate on a wider footing than pure US self-interest. An international survey conducted in 2002 indicates the extent of the problem - 75% of Americans think the US considers other countries when formulating foreign policy whereas majorities in the rest of the world thinks the opposite. The survey showed the mistrust of the US showed the steepest increase in countries which had previously viewed the US very positively (including UK, Canada, Japan). One unnamed British ambassador is quoted as saying that "America always preaches the rule of law, but in the end it always places itself above the law".
The book is certainly good at setting out what has happened and how this has affected attitudes towards America, albeit the story needs now to be updated to reflect the huge damage done as a result of Iraq. I think the author is less good at putting forward solutions. He does set out an agenda for change on a conservative basis. Some of this just seemed pie in the sky - in essence he is calling for greater US humility including an acceptance that not everyone wants to be like an American. At times also he seemed to have more faith in the European Union as a power block than is the case. Somewhat strangely he seemed to think that the Euro is the universal currency in Europe and that there is a realistic prospect for a common foreign policy. I can't believe he thought there was a common currency throughout all of the EU so perhaps he was over-egging the pudding to emphasise a point for Americans.
Overall, despite being a little outdated, the book is worth reading, in particular as it reflects opinion coming from the American right and is a balanced analysis in a field where this isn't always in evidence.
The interesting thing is that Prestowitz is an American conservative. His Conservative credentials are impeccable - a Republican, a former diplomat and trade negotiator, counsellor in the Reagan administration, born-again Christian. He is concerned that non-Americans increasingly see the US as a rogue nation in the sense of being uncontrollable and accountable to no-one. His concerns are not just in the political & military sphere, but also environmental issues and globalisation. The aim is to "try to explain to baffled and hurt Americans why the world seems to be turning against them and also to show foreigners how they frequently misinterpret America's good intentions." He despairs of the widening gulf between America and its friends "as we Americans listen but do not hear, and look but don't see, the concerns and perspectives of other countries and at the same time also fail to recognize how some of our behaviour flouts our own values."
Prestowitz runs through all of the major issues and explains the US thinking/decision-making: Israel, Middle East, free trade and globalisation, US inconsistency in its dealings with different countries or even the same countries at different times (most notably Iraq & Afghanistan). He also shows the dangers of alienating China. It takes in the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, US farm subsidies and the impact on trade negotiations. As the author comments about the US request to Japan to 'voluntarily' limit exports of cars and TVs to US, "This was a cynical and hypocritical way of continuing to profess the virtue of free trade while enjoying the forbidden fruit of protectionism".
Prestowitz is particularly good in the field of environmental measures. He sees the US failure to adopt fuel efficient vehicles and impose stringent emissions controls as damaging to its relations with the rest of the world whilst at the same time exposing itself to the need to import oil from the politically unstable Middle East. The upshot is that if the US did adopt a more restrictive approach then it wouldn't be a net oil importer and would have greater security. He does cut the US some slack in not ratifying Kyoto on the basis that the treaty would not achieve the necessary signatures for ratification (in fact the protocol did meet the signature requirements, largely because of comments made by Bush, and the US was left in the role of environmental enemy).
It has to be said, that whilst this is a more balanced approach than some books on this subject, there is more explanation for Americans as to why the rest of the world might be wary than there is showing non-Americans why US action might be legitimate on a wider footing than pure US self-interest. An international survey conducted in 2002 indicates the extent of the problem - 75% of Americans think the US considers other countries when formulating foreign policy whereas majorities in the rest of the world thinks the opposite. The survey showed the mistrust of the US showed the steepest increase in countries which had previously viewed the US very positively (including UK, Canada, Japan). One unnamed British ambassador is quoted as saying that "America always preaches the rule of law, but in the end it always places itself above the law".
The book is certainly good at setting out what has happened and how this has affected attitudes towards America, albeit the story needs now to be updated to reflect the huge damage done as a result of Iraq. I think the author is less good at putting forward solutions. He does set out an agenda for change on a conservative basis. Some of this just seemed pie in the sky - in essence he is calling for greater US humility including an acceptance that not everyone wants to be like an American. At times also he seemed to have more faith in the European Union as a power block than is the case. Somewhat strangely he seemed to think that the Euro is the universal currency in Europe and that there is a realistic prospect for a common foreign policy. I can't believe he thought there was a common currency throughout all of the EU so perhaps he was over-egging the pudding to emphasise a point for Americans.
Overall, despite being a little outdated, the book is worth reading, in particular as it reflects opinion coming from the American right and is a balanced analysis in a field where this isn't always in evidence.
Amazon Customer
5つ星のうち5.0
Five Stars
2017年6月7日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Good book.
Thomas J. Brucia
5つ星のうち5.0
A Christmas book for friends who ask: "Why do they hate us?"
2003年11月17日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
This book is not for those who believe America SHOULD be the world's biggest bully, or those who think that 'winning' means America pushing others around to satisfy our desires. These people (we all know a few of them!) will not appreciate the fact that the author attacks America's smug, self-satisfied vision of itself. Prestowitz documents a history of arrogance, duplicity, hypocrisy, bullying, vacillation, whim, and other behaviors that used to be considered faults or flaws. (Despite his "conservative" credentials he may or may not get away with `criticizing America,' as he does in this volume. In a country studded with "I support President Bush and our troops" lawn signs it seems doubtful that most conservatives will accept his `defection' from O'Reilly/Coulter/Limbaugh orthodoxy.)
Prestowitz sees America as `something special.' He refers to America as a `shining city upon a hill', implying that America has more to offer the world than hamburger stands and superhighways. One of Prestowitz's more controversial theses is that the United States should be guided in its foreign policy by some form or another of ethics and by respect for foreign nations and for individual foreigners.
On the first page, Prestowitz states: "What troubles me, and has inspired my title, is that increasingly large numbers of people abroad...are beginning to see us ... as, in the words of Webster's dictionary, `no longer... belonging, not controllable or answerable, and with an unpredictable disposition.'" [Actually, the full definition of "rogue" appears in the head note: "No longer obedient, belonging or accepted, not controllable or answerable; deviant, having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition."]
As others have noted, most of this depressing book consists of documentation of America's "rogue" behavior. (For those unfamiliar with American history and who want to understand how the American dream has left the track, this book is fascinating.) Prestwick analyzes the issues of foreign policy arrogance, stupidity, and bureaucratic incompetence quite adequately.
However -- I thought it ironic that the author (who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, a Calvinist denomination based on acceptance of predestination) seems unable or unwilling to admit that he is simply a spectator: a chronicler of an evolving epic tragedy. He seems to think something can be done to change the foreign policy the Federal Government -- and the special interests it serves -- is following.
In the last chapter, "City On A Hill", (in predictably American fashion), Prestwick asks the inevitable (and predictable) question: "What then is to be done?" (The option "nothing" is not offered - very American that!).
Prestwick posts a long laundry list of "we shoulds". This is the weakest part of the book, since it is obvious that almost none of them will be adopted. This is not because they are bad ideas (most in fact are quite sensible) -- but because neither those in power nor the special interests they represent will benefit from implementing them.
Still this is a well-written and interesting indictment.
Prestowitz sees America as `something special.' He refers to America as a `shining city upon a hill', implying that America has more to offer the world than hamburger stands and superhighways. One of Prestowitz's more controversial theses is that the United States should be guided in its foreign policy by some form or another of ethics and by respect for foreign nations and for individual foreigners.
On the first page, Prestowitz states: "What troubles me, and has inspired my title, is that increasingly large numbers of people abroad...are beginning to see us ... as, in the words of Webster's dictionary, `no longer... belonging, not controllable or answerable, and with an unpredictable disposition.'" [Actually, the full definition of "rogue" appears in the head note: "No longer obedient, belonging or accepted, not controllable or answerable; deviant, having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition."]
As others have noted, most of this depressing book consists of documentation of America's "rogue" behavior. (For those unfamiliar with American history and who want to understand how the American dream has left the track, this book is fascinating.) Prestwick analyzes the issues of foreign policy arrogance, stupidity, and bureaucratic incompetence quite adequately.
However -- I thought it ironic that the author (who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, a Calvinist denomination based on acceptance of predestination) seems unable or unwilling to admit that he is simply a spectator: a chronicler of an evolving epic tragedy. He seems to think something can be done to change the foreign policy the Federal Government -- and the special interests it serves -- is following.
In the last chapter, "City On A Hill", (in predictably American fashion), Prestwick asks the inevitable (and predictable) question: "What then is to be done?" (The option "nothing" is not offered - very American that!).
Prestwick posts a long laundry list of "we shoulds". This is the weakest part of the book, since it is obvious that almost none of them will be adopted. This is not because they are bad ideas (most in fact are quite sensible) -- but because neither those in power nor the special interests they represent will benefit from implementing them.
Still this is a well-written and interesting indictment.