Superficial

Superficiality is a trait that often plagues our society. It refers to a lack of depth or thoroughness in understanding or dealing with things. People who are superficial tend to focus only on the surface level of matters, ignoring the underlying complexities and details. This can lead to hasty judgments, shallow relationships, and a general inability to truly engage with the world around us. In a world where appearance and quick fixes seem to be valued above all else, it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid superficiality. However, we must strive to look beyond the surface and seek a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world. By doing so, we can develop more meaningful relationships, make more informed decisions, and ultimately lead more fulfilling lives.

This kind of description is extremely one-sided and unfair.

We should view things objectively and comprehensively. Just because someone has a different opinion or perspective does not mean it is "shallow," "revisionist," or "pro-American trash."

In a diverse world, there are various ideas and viewpoints. We should respect the right of others to express their thoughts and engage in rational discussions and exchanges.

Rushing to label and condemn others without understanding their true intentions and backgrounds is a waste of time and energy. It is important to maintain an open mind and a spirit of exploration to better understand different cultures, values, and ideas.

Only in this way can we promote mutual understanding and harmonious coexistence among different countries and peoples.

This is an excellent survey of the diplomatic history of the United States. It provides a comprehensive and detailed account of the nation's diplomatic efforts and achievements over the years.

However, it must be noted that the book goes off the rails in the last two chapters. McDougall's reading of Vietnam is way off, lacking in-depth analysis and objective evaluation. His recommendations in the final chapter are mostly just nuts, lacking practicality and feasibility.

Despite these flaws, the rest of the book is pure gold. It offers valuable insights and perspectives on the complex and ever-changing world of international relations. The author's research and writing skills are evident throughout, making this a must-read for anyone interested in the diplomatic history of the United States.

Overall, while the last two chapters may disappoint, the book as a whole is still a valuable contribution to the field of diplomatic history. It is a thought-provoking and engaging read that will leave readers with a deeper understanding of the United States' role in the world.

If you are a history and politics buff, this is right up your alley.

McDougall meticulously outlines eight foreign policy traditions of the United States. He delves deep into the past, analyzing the evolution and significance of each tradition.

After that, he turns his gaze towards the future, speculating on how these traditions might shape America's foreign policy in the years to come.

It is a truly fascinating read, especially for those who have a penchant for history that challenges popular myths.

Despite the complexity of the subject matter, McDougall manages to keep the book at a relatively short 222 pages. This makes it much easier to get through, without sacrificing depth or substance.

Overall, it is a must-read for anyone interested in American history and foreign policy.

This book offers an eminently readable, deliberately provocative, and yet thought-provoking re-interpretation of many of the classic themes in the US history of foreign policy.

It challenges the traditional views and invites readers to think deeply about the complex and often controversial issues.

The author presents a fresh perspective that forces us to re-evaluate the US' role in international affairs.

This valuable contribution is a must-read for anyone interested in a serious "re-assessment" of the US' place in the world.

It also adds to the seminal debates of the late 1990s, providing new insights and ideas that continue to shape our understanding of international relations today.

Overall, this book is a significant work that makes an important contribution to the field of US foreign policy.

Overall, McDougal appears to take pleasure in presenting bold and sometimes controversial views. For instance, he argues that we should abolish USAID (p.210), or that we must pursue never-ending expansion (although it's not entirely clear if he means economic growth or something else, p.216). However, I believe his main contention - that American foreign policy has been shaped by what Americans perceive as both moral and practical considerations (p.9) - is a valid one. To elaborate on this idea, he defines eight traditions and offers copious evidence to show that a significant number of Americans have concurred that these traditions meet the criteria of being both moral and practical. I also found his point about the confusion in American foreign policy due to the lack of consensus among Americans on what is moral, practical, or both quite interesting. McDougal narrowed the list down to eight guiding principles, but he acknowledges that others have proposed even longer lists. He admits that he is not the first to make this observation, citing Soviet Ambassador Andrei Gromyko among others (p.199). However, introducing old ideas to new audiences is an important task for a historian.

McDougal's overall framework of categorizing these eight traditions into 'new' and 'old' testaments also makes sense to me, to a certain extent. When he refers to the first four traditions as the 'Old Testament' and compares early Americans to Jews, I believe he is alluding to the Jews' lack of interest in proselytizing. Similarly, when he calls the latter four traditions the 'New Testament', I think he is referring to Christianity's missionary zeal. However, I must note that McDougal does not explicitly state that he is referring to the Jewish anti-proselytizing tradition. If I were not Jewish myself, I'm not sure I would have had the necessary context to understand this point. In fact, I'm a bit concerned that I may be reading something into it because of my own background. So, some clarification on this point would have been beneficial.
I also think that McDougal stretches his arguments too far when he delves into domestic policy. For example, he asserts that we built up our welfare state to impress the third world away from communism (p.219), or that cold-war fatigue is responsible for the decline of the nuclear family (p.219), or that our foreign aid expenditures are the reason for the decay of our inner cities (p.210). In reality, our cities crumbled mainly due to the money we spent on building highways and parking lots, rather than because USAID consumed the entire government budget. I won't go into details about the first two points, but they also seem to overemphasize the influence of foreign policy on domestic issues.
Ultimately, this book introduces the reader to numerous concepts that historians have grappled with regarding US foreign policy, and it encourages you to engage in the debate.