Lee P. Ruddin: Review of Hegemony or Empire? The Redefinition of US Power under George W. Bush, edited by Charles–Philippe David and David Grondin (Ashgate Publishing, 2006)

The dust–jacket of this intriguingly titled compact volume sets the tone for an extraordinary collection of essays. Much has been written apropos hegemony and empire, but the redefinition of power under President Bush has until now not been effectively scrutinized—save by Niall Ferguson, who is conspicuous by his near–total absence.

No single hardback can do full justice to American power but Hegemony or Empire? makes a venerable effort. What is more, this pamphlet fills a need: surveying various loci of US hegemony customarily considered beyond the remit. The scholarly voyage navigates previously uncharted waters helping us to understand US hegemony or empire, and indeed which of the two it is. The ten essays critically interpret US power and since each demonstrates the ink of a distinct university associate no one particular credo reigns. The question of ‘continuity or rupture?’ in diplomatic practices post-September 11 remains as hotly-contested as ever. Accordingly, David and Grondin are to be applauded for tackling the debate head-on.

The 250 page anthology grew out of an academic conference in February 2005. The essays are divided into two groups, containing five chapters each: Representations of American Hegemony/Empire (pp.21–114) and Perceptions of American Hegemony (pp.117–217). The latter section, which encompasses regional implications of hegemony in Europe, Asia, West Africa and the North American Periphery is most welcome for the ‘Pentagon’s cartographers have responded’ to 9/11 ‘by redrawing the combatant commands to encompass the entire planet’ (p.46).

Contributing editor, David Grondin sets the pace for an original text highlighting a continuous trend and stressing that the reader ‘cannot see the Bush foreign policy as a historical anomaly’ (p.13). For those interested in chapters of a similar vein Shirley Scott’s Revolution or ‘Business as Usual’ (pp.67–85) is a tour d’horizon assessing James Lindsay and Ivo Daalder’s thesis of Bush the revolutionary with an international legal dimension. Analogous to Scott’s Clinton–Bush comparative analysis, Simon Dalby’s Geopolitics, Grand Strategy and the Bush Doctrine (pp.33–49) underlines how the Bush strategy is not altogether ‘divorced from the prosecution of American power in the Clinton era’ (p.42). Casting US preeminence in the form of ‘imperial hegemony,’ Dalby transports the reader from the Pentagon plans (1994–1999) through The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) arriving at the National Security Strategy of 2002.

Frédérick Gagnon eruditely weighs in on behalf of Congress cataloguing its stance from one of ‘compliance to resistance’ (p.88). The five examples of ‘compliance’ (pp.95–105) trailed by three cases of ‘resistance’ (pp.105–111) proves a beneficial rarity. In the final stages Gagnon posits that, ‘There are good reasons to think that Bush will never enjoy such a freedom of action again’ (p.113). This may be so, for Bush at least—though, only a historical ignoramus would subscribe to Robert C. Byrd’s view pertaining to presidential power more generally. Commentators slam Bush for ostensibly riding roughshod over Congress and resuscitating Nixon’s imperial presidency. Yet, Bush’s Lockean prerogative is only the latest in a long line of presidents, starting with George Washington and of all political stripes, to have pushed his interpretation of the role. This executive–legislative confrontation will endure long after Bush departs in 2009—for the debate is institutional not individual.

Historical genesis aside, what about the future? Will we witness a ‘continuity or rupture?’ To answer this, we turn to André Laiberté and his essay: The Limits to American Hegemony in Asia (pp.161–179). The author is no prophet of doom and predicts that, ‘There is no reason to believe that a transition to a global hegemony under Chinese leadership would represent a catastrophic change in global order’ (p.179).

Reading the conclusion: Revisiting US Hegemony/Empire (pp.219–224) it becomes evident that notwithstanding a categorical ruling on ‘which of the two is it?’ (‘American foreign policy seems to be riddled with contradictions, constantly swinging back and forth between the “imperial temptation” and the “refusal of empire” ’: pp.223–224) we have before us an ample addition.

Hegemony or Empire? (subtitled The Redefinition of US Power under George W. Bush) ably accomplishes what it sets out to do—namely, give the reader a comprehensive and almost personal appreciation of US power today. Even when read forword through finale there is no repetition. This is testament to all associated with the volume for each essay stands on its own. Seldom does an edited text become a tour de force on the scale of Edward Said’s Orientalism or Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History. Even so, let us trust David and Grondin’s volume will join this select academic country club. For among the contributions are some of the most penetrating pieces of work yet published on a subject that is as significant as it is topical. With the administration now entering its final year, this hardback will be required reading for anyone who wishes to express their opinion on the matter or those ‘rushing to fine–tune those power point presentations’ (p.31).