A World Safe for Democracy

1. Liberal Internationalism: A Pragmatic Project for Democracy's Safety

The essential element and guiding impulse of this tradition is the cooperative organization and reform of international order so as to protect and facilitate the security, welfare, and progress of liberal democracy—in short, to make the world safe for democracy.

Protecting democracy. Liberal internationalism is fundamentally a pragmatic, not utopian, endeavor aimed at safeguarding liberal democracies in a world often hostile to their existence. It seeks to create an international environment where these fragile political systems can thrive, rather than aggressively spreading democracy worldwide. This defensive posture acknowledges the inherent vulnerabilities of open societies.

Historical context. This tradition emerged from the Enlightenment and the democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, evolving through two centuries of global upheaval. Its core conviction is that liberal democracies cannot be secure or prosperous in isolation; they must actively cooperate to manage shared challenges and protect their way of life. This collective action is a response to existential dangers arising from modernization and interdependence.

Beyond idealism. Unlike common perceptions, liberal internationalism is not merely an idealistic quest for a better world. Instead, it is a practical, reform-oriented approach to confronting tyranny, brutality, and intolerance. It recognizes that progress is possible but not inevitable, and that the modern world continuously generates both opportunities for human welfare and risks of civilizational catastrophe.

2. Modernity's Dual Nature Drives Liberal Order Building

Modernity has a split personality: the modern world is continuously creating capacities for great advances in human welfare but also for monumental disaster and civilizational catastrophe.

Unleashing forces. Liberal internationalism is primarily concerned with how states cope with the problems of modernity, defined as the profound, worldwide transformations driven by science, technology, and industrialism. This ongoing process makes societies increasingly complex and interdependent, presenting a double-edged sword of progress and peril.

Opportunities and dangers. The upside of modernity includes technological advancement, economic growth, rising living standards, and the revelation of shared interests. However, its dark side manifests as economic depression, total war, totalitarianism, reactionary backlashes, and sudden vulnerabilities. Liberal internationalism is a continuous response to both these benefits and dangers.

Constant adaptation. At critical junctures like 1918, 1945, 1991, and today, liberal internationalists have been compelled to re-evaluate their understanding of modernity and adjust their goals. This constant need for adaptation underscores that the liberal international project is never "finished," as new challenges and opportunities are always emerging from the relentless march of modernization.

3. The Core Elements of Liberal International Order

Liberal internationalism is a cluster of ideas about how to build world order—starting with the liberal democracies—to realize the gains from modernity and guard against its dangers.

Foundational principles. The liberal international order is characterized by a set of core ideas that guide cooperation among sovereign states, particularly liberal democracies. These principles aim to create a stable and prosperous international space.

Key elements include:

• International openness: Promoting trade and exchange as sources of mutual gain and peace, underpinned by principles like non-discrimination.
• Multilateralism and rules-based relations: Establishing international rules and institutions to guide state conduct, facilitate cooperation, and lend legitimacy to the order.
• Democratic solidarity and cooperative security: Fostering alliances and affiliations among liberal democracies based on shared values and interests to enhance collective security.
• Progressive social purposes: Aspiring to move societies and the international order towards advancements in welfare, security, and social justice, recognizing that the order is not static but constantly evolving.

A constructed outcome. Unlike realist views of order as an emergent property of power distribution, liberal internationalists see order as a deliberate construction shaped by organizational structures and agreements. This normative approach believes that an order governed by rules and institutions makes the world safer and more humane for liberal democracy.

4. Wilsonianism: Crystallizing Ideals, Facing Early Limits

Wilson’s vision of postwar order is often seen as bold and original—the first stirring of the liberal international imagination.

Post-WWI catalyst. World War I shattered the illusion of undirected progressive advance, forcing Woodrow Wilson and his contemporaries to propose explicit and comprehensive reforms for international order. Wilson's Fourteen Points articulated a vision of "open covenants of peace," freedom of the seas, elimination of economic barriers, and a League of Nations to guarantee political independence and territorial integrity.

Synthesizing existing ideas. While often perceived as revolutionary, Wilson's contribution was less intellectual originality and more political crystallization. He synthesized ideas that had been debated for decades within 19th-century internationalist movements, including:

• Free trade and open commerce
• International law and arbitration mechanisms
• A permanent international organization (League of Nations)
• The power of democratic public opinion

Paradox of vision. Wilsonian internationalism was both ambitious and limited. It embodied a sweeping plan for global order but largely accommodated European empire and racial hierarchies, believing that the League of Nations would gradually correct these flaws through its socializing and evolutionary logic. His faith in the "progress of democracy" allowed him to overlook immediate injustices, assuming they would be rectified over time.

5. Rooseveltianism: Adapting Liberalism to Existential Crises

From the late 1930s to the late 1940s, a grand shift occurred in liberal internationalist ideas: they acquired the marks of New Deal liberalism and emerging Cold War notions of national security.

Rethinking modernity. The Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and World War II forced Franklin D. Roosevelt and his contemporaries to fundamentally rethink liberal internationalism. They recognized that modernity could empower illiberal states, posing existential threats to liberal democracy, rather than simply pushing the world towards it. This led to a more "globalist" and "realist" approach.

Expanded scope and purpose. The new liberal internationalism became more expansive, incorporating New Deal concepts of economic and social security alongside national security. The goal was not just to prevent war, but to actively stabilize and protect liberal democracies by building a more multifaceted international order. This meant:

• Promoting universal rights and freedoms (Four Freedoms, Atlantic Charter).
• Mitigating vulnerabilities from economic and security interdependence.
• Establishing permanent multilateral governance institutions (UN, Bretton Woods).

From public opinion to power. Unlike Wilson's reliance on public opinion, Rooseveltian internationalists understood that a stable order required formidable alignments of power. The liberal order needed to be a "container" for liberal democracies, deeply embedded in a cooperative great-power order led by the United States, ensuring its survival and prosperity in a dangerous world.

6. Liberal Hegemony: The Post-WWII American-Led Order

This order has acquired various labels—Pax Americana, the Free World, Pax Democratica, the Philadelphian system, the Western order, American liberal hegemony.

A unique construction. Emerging from WWII as the dominant power, the United States, alongside its allies, built the most far-reaching international order ever attempted. This "liberal hegemonic order" was not a single, unified vision but a complex amalgam of ideas and projects, combining liberal internationalism with realist principles of power and containment.

Dual projects. The order was shaped by two interconnected endeavors:

• Strengthening liberal democracies: Reorganizing relations among advanced industrial states through binding security ties, managed open markets ("embedded liberalism"), social protections, and multilateral cooperation.
• Containing Soviet power: Building political partnerships and alliances (NATO, US-Japan alliance) to counter the Soviet Union, which reinforced cohesion among capitalist democracies.

Strategic bargains. At its core, this order rested on strategic bargains where the US provided security and market access, while allies offered support and accepted American leadership. This hierarchical yet rules-based system fostered cooperation, legitimacy, and a sense of "democratic solidarity," allowing Western nations to pursue diverse political and economic agendas within a stable framework.

7. Liberalism's Complex Entanglement with Empire

Liberal internationalism has been on both sides of the world-historical experience of empire, used to defend as well as to oppose empire.

Historical complicity. For centuries, liberal internationalism was deeply entangled with European empire. Early liberal thinkers often reconciled their principles with imperial rule through developmental views of history, seeing empire as a means to "civilize" less-developed societies. This "dualistic nature of order" allowed liberals to champion both sovereign equality among "civilized" states and imperial domination over "backward" peoples.

Forces of separation. However, several forces gradually pushed liberal internationalism away from empire:

• Geopolitical interests: The US, as a rising global power, saw its long-term interests in breaking down imperial blocs to ensure open markets and influence.
• Evolving norms: Universalist principles like self-determination and sovereign equality, though initially instrumental, gained traction and were appropriated by anti-colonial movements.
• Institutional platforms: The League of Nations and later the United Nations, despite their initial imperial accommodations, became platforms for activists and non-Western states to challenge colonial rule.

Post-imperial vision. By the end of WWII, liberal internationalism firmly grounded its project in the Westphalian state system, offering a vision of a post-imperial world of sovereign states linked by multilateral cooperation. The "American century" paradoxically became the century of the global spread of the nation-state, as US power inadvertently helped dismantle formal empires.

8. The Post-Cold War Crisis of Liberal Globalization

The globalization of the liberal order was more fraught than many liberal internationalists appreciated at the time.

Triumph and unraveling. The end of the Cold War marked a "liberal moment" where the US-led Western order expanded globally, seemingly vindicating liberal democracy and free markets. However, this globalization inadvertently planted the seeds of its current crisis. The old Cold War bargains and institutions, designed for a homogeneous Western bloc, were strained by the influx of diverse states.

Twin crises. The expansion led to:

• Crisis of governance and authority: The political foundations of the liberal order eroded as new states with diverse ideologies entered, making old power-sharing arrangements obsolete. The US, no longer facing a peer competitor, became less constrained, leading to questions about its commitment to multilateralism.
• Crisis of social purpose: The "security community" aspect of the liberal order, which had reconciled economic openness with social protections ("embedded liberalism"), weakened. Neoliberal policies and global market integration led to rising economic insecurity and inequality in Western democracies, eroding domestic support for the liberal order.

China and Russia's role. Hopes that China and Russia would become "responsible stakeholders" were dashed. China's rapid rise, while benefiting from the liberal order, has led it to challenge existing rules and seek a post-Western order. Russia's illiberal turn and regional ambitions further highlight the limits of integrating non-liberal powers without fundamental regime change.

9. Durability and Fragmentation of the Liberal Order

While the Cold War–era liberal order took the form of a relatively coherent, if loosely organized, political community, the expanded post–Cold War liberal order is fragmented into various international realms.

Resilience amidst strain. Despite its current crises, the liberal international order exhibits significant durability. Its integrative tendencies allow states of various types to join, offering benefits like security protection, market access, and technical assistance. The order's hierarchical authority, while US-led, also features shared decision-making in forums like the G-7 and G-20, allowing for evolving leadership.

Widespread benefits. The order's open trade and investment system has distributed economic gains widely, fostering growth and advancement even for states that challenge its liberal values. It also accommodates diverse models of capitalism and economic development, making it less prescriptive than often assumed.

Fragmented but persistent. The post-Cold War liberal order has become less a cohesive "club" and more a "public utility" – a fragmented system of semi-independent institutions and cooperative relations. This fragmentation, while weakening its coherence, also reduces incentives for outright opposition, as states can selectively engage with parts of the order that serve their interests.

Westphalian bedrock. Many institutions within the liberal order are fundamentally Westphalian, designed to solve common problems for all sovereign states regardless of regime type (e.g., arms control, environmental regulation). This provides a lasting foundation for cooperation, even with illiberal states, and underpins the order's long-term resilience against the relentless challenges of interdependence.

10. Reimagining Liberal Internationalism for the 21st Century

To make liberal democracies safe, reasoned experimentation will also need to have an internationalist outlook.

Pragmatism over grandiosity. Liberal internationalism must shed its post-Cold War grandiosity and return to a more pragmatic, reform-oriented approach focused on making liberal democracies safe. It must learn from past failures, particularly the erosion of "embedded liberalism" and the breakdown of domestic social contracts.

Rebuilding foundations. The path forward involves:

• Reconnecting with progressive nationalism: Aligning international order with the economic and social well-being of citizens within liberal democracies.
• Managing interdependence: Cooperatively shaping the terms of global openness to balance efficiency with social protection, rather than simply championing unchecked globalization.
• Strengthening "egg cartons": Building robust international institutions and relationships that protect liberal democracies from external threats and internal vulnerabilities, allowing them to manage their inherent tensions (liberty vs. equality, sovereignty vs. interdependence).

Dual approach. Liberal internationalists must pursue both "club-like" (exclusive) cooperation among like-minded democracies to advance shared values and "open" (universal) Westphalian internationalism to address global challenges like climate change and pandemics. This mixed strategy acknowledges that while liberal democracies have unique interests, many modern threats require broad, inclusive cooperation.

Mastering modernity. The ultimate defense of liberal internationalism is its capacity to cope with modernity's unending challenges. It offers a framework for continuous, pragmatic experimentation and institutional innovation to ensure the survival and flourishing of democracy and the planet itself.