The Jungle Grows Back

1. The Liberal World Order is a Fragile Historical Anomaly

The past seven-plus decades of relatively free trade, growing respect for individual rights, and relatively peaceful cooperation among nations—the core elements of the liberal order—have been a great historical aberration.

Anomalous era. The current liberal world order, characterized by peace, democracy, and prosperity since 1945, is not a natural state of affairs but a unique deviation from millennia of human history. Before this period, war, tyranny, and poverty were the norm, with peace and democracy being rare and fleeting. This era has seen unprecedented global GDP growth and billions lifted from poverty.

Defying history. This "relative paradise" stands in stark contrast to the 1500-1945 period, where great powers were almost constantly at war. The peaceful end of the Cold War and the dramatic decline in violent deaths further underscore this anomaly. We often take this stability for granted, failing to recognize its fragility.

Fragile construct. Unlike a natural phenomenon, the liberal order is like a garden, constantly under siege from the "natural forces of history"—the "jungle" of human impulses and geopolitical inertia. It is not an inevitable outcome of progress but a delicate, impermanent creation requiring continuous effort to maintain.

2. Human Progress is a Myth; History is a Cycle of Conflict

This story of human progress is a myth, however.

Progress illusion. The belief in an inevitable, upward march of history towards enlightenment, prosperity, and democracy is a carefully curated myth. This narrative often omits the "dark ages and great leaps backward," such as the Thirty Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, and the genocides of the 20th century.

Jagged historical line. Scientific and technological advancements have not brought lasting improvements in human behavior. History, when viewed comprehensively, is a "jagged line with no discernible slope" when it comes to how humans treat each other. The horrors of the 1930s and 1940s, including world wars and mass atrocities, challenge any notion of steady moral progress.

Liberalism's precariousness. Liberal government itself has not seen steady, inevitable progress. It flickered into existence, was repeatedly crushed by absolutist powers, and nearly extinguished by fascism and communism before World War II. The survival of liberalism was contingent on specific historical outcomes, not an inherent evolutionary pattern.

3. American Power Defied History to Create the Liberal Order

What we liberals call progress has been made possible by the protection afforded liberalism within the geographical and geopolitical space created by American power.

Unique circumstances. The liberal world order was not an inevitable unfolding of universal history but the product of a unique set of post-World War II circumstances. The rise of the United States, with its advantageous geography, vast resources, unprecedented economic and military power, and liberal national ideology, provided the force liberalism had previously lacked.

Act of defiance. The creation of this order was a deliberate "act of defiance against both history and human nature." After 1945, America's unrivaled power allowed Enlightenment principles to be backed by a force they had never before possessed, shaping an international system that favored liberalism, democracy, and capitalism.

Holding it up. The question today is not what threatens the liberal order, but "what can possibly hold it up?" It is an artificial creation, constantly battling the "deeply etched patterns of history" and geopolitical inertia. Its preservation demands a "persistent, unending struggle" against forces that seek to undermine it.

4. The 1930s: A Cautionary Tale of Isolationism and Catastrophe

The questions Americans are posing today are actually much more like those posed in the twenty years after the First World War.

Echoes of the past. Current American skepticism about global involvement mirrors the mood of the 1920s and 1930s, when Americans, weary from World War I, sought a "return to normalcy" and prioritized "America First." They believed threats were distant and that other great powers could manage world problems.

Misguided optimism. Pre-World War I, many believed great-power war was obsolete due to growing prosperity and interconnectedness. This optimism proved tragically wrong, as the deadliest challenge to Western Civilization erupted from its very heart. Americans initially viewed the conflict as distant, only to be drawn in by economic ties and ideological defense.

Catastrophic inaction. The interwar period saw Americans reject responsibility for global problems, leading to a breakdown of order. Despite the rise of Hitler, Japan's aggression, and Mussolini's expansion, Americans remained reluctant to intervene, viewing Europe as hopelessly mired in conflict. This "realist" stance, prioritizing immediate costs over hazy future risks, ultimately led to World War II.

5. Post-War Strategy: Beyond Communism, Towards Global Stability

The new strategy was not directed toward any particular new threat or against any particular country.

Proactive security. After the rude awakening of Pearl Harbor and World War II, Americans fundamentally accepted that their way of life could not be safe in a world dominated by hostile autocratic powers. This led to a new global strategy: extending America's security frontier far from its shores to proactively shape the international environment.

Preventing past catastrophes. The new world order was designed to prevent a return to the economic, political, and strategic conditions that had produced two world wars. It aimed to create an "environment of freedom" – a geographical, political, economic, and ideological space – beyond America's borders, not just to defend its physical security.

Realism in service of liberalism. The architects of this order, like Roosevelt and Acheson, were pessimists about human nature and international relations, having few illusions after four decades of conflict. They believed peace, prosperity, and progress depended on the exercise of American power, not just laws or institutions, but this realism served liberal ideals.

6. American Presence Transformed Former Adversaries into Pillars of Peace

In retrospect, the most significant postwar revolution in international affairs was not the new Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union but the gradual transformation of Germany and Japan from the ambitious, autocratic, military powerhouses they had been to the pacific, democratic, economic powerhouses they eventually became.

Revolutionary transformation. The enduring presence of American troops in Europe and Asia, coupled with Allied policies, fundamentally transformed Germany and Japan. These nations, once sources of global conflict, became pacific, democratic, and economic powerhouses, a shift that was not a natural evolution but a direct consequence of military defeat and imposed "demilitarization and democratization."

Security and prosperity. This transformation denied Germany and Japan a geopolitical and military path to power, providing unprecedented security to their neighbors. Liberated from constant strategic concerns, European and East Asian nations could focus their energies and resources on domestic and economic matters, fueling global growth.

Breaking historical patterns. The introduction of American power into these regions on a permanent basis halted the cycles of conflict that had twice plunged the world into war. This unique arrangement allowed nations within the American security order to compete economically without translating that competition into military or geopolitical rivalry, a radical departure from historical norms.

7. The Liberal Order Fostered Unprecedented Peace and Prosperity

Within the confines of the new order, normal geopolitical competition all but ceased.

Beyond traditional interests. America's new grand strategy transcended traditional national interests, entailing the creation and defense of a liberal international order. This meant shouldering "international responsibility" for protecting not only U.S. interests but also those of others who shared a liberal worldview.

Economic interdependence. A key element of the order was an open international economy, designed to prevent the economic nationalism and competing blocs that had fueled past conflicts. The determined American effort to reconstruct European and Japanese economies fostered vigorous "intercapitalist competition," leading to unprecedented prosperity for all members.

Benign hegemony. Despite American dominance and occasional high-handedness, the liberal order held because other members perceived American hegemony as relatively benign and superior to alternatives. They trusted America not to exploit its power for lasting economic advantage or to divide and rule, fostering a sense of common community and shared values.

8. Wielding Global Power Inevitably Entails Moral Complexity and Costs

Americans liked to believe they were on the side of the good, but power is power and killing is killing, no matter how virtuous the objective.

Loss of innocence. Wielding great power, even for noble causes, meant entering a "moral no-man's-land" where clean hands were impossible. Americans, in taking on international responsibilities, lost what Reinhold Niebuhr called the "innocency of irresponsibility," confronting the tragic reality that even righteous wars involve killing innocents and making dreadful mistakes.

Tragic regional failures. The Vietnam War exemplified the high costs, both material and spiritual, of upholding the liberal order. While a strategic failure in its regional outcome, it stemmed from the containment doctrine and the belief that resisting communist expansion was necessary. The war highlighted the difficulty of fighting for amorphous goals like "stability with the minimum of destruction."

Enduring critiques. Vietnam, like the Iraq War later, produced deep disillusionment and a rejection of America's global role, leading to critiques of:

• Hubristic idealism and quixotic missions.
• American power as malevolent and imperialist.
• Calls for self-restraint, modesty, and acceptance of limits.
  These critiques, echoing those after World War I, often obscured the broader successes of containment.

9. Post-Cold War Complacency Eroded the Liberal Order's Foundations

In retrospect, it is clear the liberal world order began to erode at the very moment of its widely heralded triumph at the end of the Cold War.

Triumph's undoing. The perceived "triumph" of liberalism at the end of the Cold War led to excessive optimism and complacency. Many believed the "new world order" would sustain itself, that geopolitics had ceased, and that American power was anachronistic, expensive, or superfluous.

Return to "normalcy" calls. Even conservative hawks joined calls for a contraction of America's global role, arguing that the Cold War had given foreign policy "an unnatural importance." This mood led to a backlash against the Bush administration's 1992 defense strategy, which called for preserving American primacy, seen as an "appalling assertion of American global hegemony."

Consequences of retrenchment. This shift in American attitudes, prioritizing domestic concerns and minimizing costs, had profound consequences. Concerns about public opinion led to:

• Ending the Gulf War prematurely, leaving Saddam in power.
• Inaction during the Rwandan genocide.
• Failure to decisively act against al Qaeda before 9/11.
  These omissions allowed significant threats to fester, which would not have been ignored during the Cold War.

10. The "Jungle" Returns: Russia and China Revert to Old Ambitions

There are signs all around us today that the jungle is growing back. History is returning. Nations are reverting to old habits and traditions.

Reversion to type. Despite post-Cold War hopes for global convergence, nations are reverting to historical patterns shaped by unchanging geography, shared experiences, and ideological beliefs. Russia, with its economic struggles, has returned to old geopolitical ambitions and insecurities, seeking to restore its influence and challenge the liberal order.

Putin's motivations. Russia's actions, including NATO enlargement, are less about security and more about restoring national pride and historical greatness. Putin's goal is to weaken the liberal order and return international strategic competition to its "normal historical state," which benefits his authoritarian rule and justifies sacrifices.

China's rising assertiveness. China, having thrived within the liberal order, is now departing from Deng Xiaoping's cautious "biding time" policy. As it grows richer and more powerful, Chinese leaders, like Xi Jinping, are pursuing old visions of regional hegemony and global leadership, challenging existing power arrangements and presenting an alternative to the liberal democratic model.

11. Domestic Divisions and Anti-Liberalism Undermine Global Leadership

Lurking behind much of the criticism of American foreign policy on both left and right is dissatisfaction with America itself.

Identity politics. Debates about American foreign policy are often proxies for domestic battles over the nation's meaning and identity. A widespread belief that America's democratic capitalist system is failing at home has contributed to the collapse of support for upholding a liberal international order.

Critiques from left and right. Modern progressives often revile capitalism and view American power as malevolent, rejecting the liberal world order as mere American hegemony. On the right, traditional conservatives, hostile to activist foreign policy, sometimes root their critique in ethnonationalism, seeing immigration as diluting America's cultural heritage and rejecting Enlightenment universalism.

America's "subterranean stream." The U.S. also has its "jungle" of angers, hatreds, and resentments, from historical white supremacism to today's alt-right. While Americans are often tugged back to the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence, these domestic divisions make it harder for the nation to display the generosity and cosmopolitanism needed for enlightened global leadership.

12. The Choice: Tend the Garden or Face a Dangerous, Nuclear-Armed World

The real choice we face is not between the good and the bad but between the bad and the worse.

Unforeseen dangers. We often comfort ourselves that past horrors cannot be repeated, failing to recognize that dangerous individuals and states, currently constrained, could become unmanageable threats if the liberal order weakens. The transition from Deng to Xi, or the potential for a less constrained Putin, challenges assumptions about inevitable modernization.

Authoritarianism's resilience. Authoritarianism, unlike communism, may be a more stable and enduring condition of human existence, appealing to desires for order, strong leadership, and tribal security. It effectively exploits liberalism's failings and insecurities, posing a greater challenge than communism did, especially as it resonates with rising nationalism in the West.

The unavoidable quandary. Sustaining the liberal world order requires consistent American power and influence, including diplomatic, economic, and military measures. This means accepting the inevitable costs, uncertainties, and occasional failures of intervention. The alternative is a return to multipolar power struggles, potentially involving nuclear weapons, a far riskier and more devastating future.

Last updated: January 31, 2026