To Lead the Free World: American Nationalism and the Cultural Roots of the Cold War

by John Fousek

In this cultural history of the origins of the Cold War, John Fousek argues boldly that American nationalism provided the ideological glue for the broad public consensus that supported U.S. foreign policy in the Cold War era. From the late 1940s through the late 1980s, the United States waged cold war against the Soviet Union not primarily in the name of capitalism or Western civilization — neither of which would have united the American people behind the cause — but in the name of America.

Through close readings of sources that range from presidential speeches and popular magazines to labor union debates and the African American press, Fousek shows how traditional nationalist ideas about national greatness, providential mission, and manifest destiny influenced postwar public culture and shaped U.S. foreign policy discourse during the crucial period from the end of World War II to the beginning of the Korean War. Ultimately, he says, in the atmosphere created by apparently unceasing international crises, Americans rallied around the flag, eventually coming to equate national loyalty with global anticommunism and an interventionist foreign policy.

Genres: History, American History

272 pages, Paperback

First published March 27, 2000

Reviews

[Simon Purdue · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fousek’s To Lead the Free World is an exploration of the factors that led to the creation of the ‘Cold War Consensus’ in the post-war United States. Fousek analysis cultural sources, examining the ways in which the consensus was constructed both from the top-down and from the bottom-up, arguing that the consensus was ultimately a cultural phenomenon informed as much by magazines and popular culture as it was by foreign policy elites. While Fousek does acknowledge that he Truman administration was responsible for the huge expansion of the American myth that legitimized the nation’s global interventionism, he notes that this was only possible as a result of the wider cultural milieu. Citing Clifford Geertz’s suggestion that times of crisis bring ideological thinking to the fore, Fousek argues that people use ideology to make sense of frightening developments while states use it to consolidate power during tumultuous times. In an era of seemingly unending international crises, the American people and American politicians rallied around the flag, creating a new culture of American nationalist globalism. In a global context of crisis, America came to be seen as a beacon of stability. It needed to protect itself, and furthermore it was seen to have a duty to bring stability to the world. This nationalist globalism sought to impose the perceived ideas of American universalism on the world (as hypocritical as that was). The idea that the American universalist democratic model was right and infallible was used as justification for cultural and geographic expansion throughout the twentieth century. Communism was framed as the antithesis of freedom and democracy and as such it was seen as the duty of the US to battle it at all costs. Furthermore this context of crisis was used to fundamentally change or even go against old American values. The peace-time draft, the large standing army and the interventionist state went against the anti-tyrannical visions of pre-war America, but they were almost unanimously accepted. This shows the power of crisis culture in changing mindsets.
Effectively since Pearl Harbor America began to define itself in contrast to a series of ‘others’. Fascism, communism and fundamentalist Islam have been at various stages the ‘bogey-men’ that have allowed the culture of ‘Great American Values’ to manifest itself and grow exponentially. By structuring the nation’s identity against these others America has been able to justify its own expansionism, imperialism and cultural superiority. ‘The American Dream’ and ‘the American Way of Life’ were used in direct contrast to these ‘others’ in order to foster a sense of righteousness among the American people, a righteousness which allowed for the creation of the title, ‘leader of the free world’. Furthermore the concept of a global attack on these values was used to justify the creation of a permanent military-industrial complex and a militarized, aggressive economy. Finally Fousek also explores the ways in which organizations which existed outside of this national discourse, for example the NAACP and UAW, soon began to embrace it as a means of gaining more influence at the top level and advancing their own agendas. The NAACP began toeing the dominant, anti-communist line in order to make their message more palatable to the American people and political system, thus further strengthening the American myth of righteous international interventionism.

[Seth · Rating 3 out of 5]

The introduction was great, the rest felt like a dissertation paper. He drew some interesting conclusions, but by page 80 it was feeling like papers I read (and wrote) in college.