Book Reviews : American Empire: The Political Ethics of Twentieth-Century Conquest. By JOHN M. SWOMLEY, JR. (London: and New York: Macmillan, 1970. Pp. 250. $6.95 cloth, $1.95 paper.)
Author | D.S. Clemens |
DOI | 10.1177/106591297102400435 |
Published date | 01 December 1971 |
Date | 01 December 1971 |
842
American
Common
Market) .
As
an
interesting
departure
from
the
rest
of
Central
America,
Costa
Rica
possesses
an
elaborate
array
of
diversified
governing
agencies
and
informal
political
groupings;
this
is
especially
surprising
when
considering
the
country’s
limited
resources
and
compact,
racially
homogeneous
population.
According
to
Denton,
however,
this
pluralistic
political
system,
currently
dominat-
ed
by
the
well-organized
Liberación
(PLN)
party
of
President
jos6
Figueres,
actually
breeds
an
immobility
of
policy
in
meeting
the
problems
of
political
non-
participation,
social
inequality,
and
economic
stagnation
for
the
nation’s
lower
classes.
Denton
could
easily
make
his
fine
book
more
readable
in
the
next
edition
by
reducing
his
use
of
the
passive
voice.
On
the
other
hand,
his
is
the
only
one
of
the
three
country
monographs
here
reviewed
which
even
bears
mention
of
the
political
importance
of
the
courts
and
judicial
remedies
against
governmental
abuse.
Fullerton
Junior
College
(
California
)
CARL
E.
SCHWARZ
American
Empire:
The
Political
Ethics
of
Twentieth-Century
Conquest.
By
JOHN
M.
SWOMLEY,
JR.
(London:
and
New
York:
Macmillan,
1970.
Pp.
250.
$6.95
cloth, $1.95
paper.)
In
an
interesting
and
provocative
book,
Swomley
covers
a
diverse
range
of
topics
from
World
War
II
to
the
present,
using
case
studies
of
American
power
abroad
to
explore
the
nexus
between
ethics
and
politics.
Unfortunately,
he
fails
to
relate
his
thesis
to
the
randomly
selected
case
studies.
The
thesis
itself
emerges
after
the
reader
is
led
through
a
labyrinth
in
several
opening
chapters
rejecting
&dquo;realism&dquo;
in
world
politics
and
extolling
the
virtue
of
ethics
as
it
should
relate
to
foreign
policy.
In
particular,
the
ethic
advanced
is
that
of
the
Judaeo-Christian
tradition,
which
the
author
believes
should
shape
politics
and
determine
an
over-
due
restructuring
of
society.
He
rejects
the
&dquo;realist&dquo;
who
currently
shapes
policy
(it
is
curious
that
the
master
of
realpolitik,
Bismarck,
would
fit
few
of
his
criteria) .
The
&dquo;realist&dquo;
manip-
ulates
policy
by
ethical
rhetoric,
which
deceives
the
people
in
order
to
promote
the
interests
of
the
small
but
powerful
few
in
the
military-industrial
complex.
In
contrast,
the
ill-defined
and
inadequately
portrayed
idealist
is
posited
as
the
salvational
alternative.
In
his
conclusion,
the
idealist
solution
is
presented:
&dquo;the
primary
aims
of
United
States
foreign
policy
ought
to
be
prevention
of
war,
the
promotion
of
world-wide
economic
health,
and
the
development
of
a
genuine
world
community.&dquo;
These
aims
seem
rather
meager
for
the
pervasive
evils
he
uncovers
in
American
society,
and
it is
difficult
to
believe
the
simplistic
solution
can
fit
the
malaise.
This
perhaps
results
from
the
vacillations
of
the
author
among
the
postures
of
the
liberal,
radical,
and
idealist
and
his
failure
to
differentiate
among
them.
After
a
complete
condemnation
of
American
society
(not
undeservedly),
the
author
asserts
his
faith
that
the
society is
worth
saving.
After
condemning
&dquo;balance
of
To continue reading
Request your trial