and protecting liberty. In this contest, nationalism plays an ambiguous role. It does not
stand in necessarily mortal conflict with either imperialism or internationalism, and there
are distinct paths by which the nationalist may step into the camp of either. Through
aggressive self-assertion, nationalists may seek domination, or through another path may
find the national interest best served through reciprocity and cooperation. Nationalism is
sufficiently powerful that whichever outlet is found is bound to get a grand boost.
Nationalism thus emerges as a necessary ally for either if they are to gain political
predominance, but the main drama--the more remorseless and unbridgeable conflict--
must center on the competition between empire and union. This is not a new conflict.
American history may be said to begin with it.
Historians and pundits are not used to giving unionist ideas of international
cooperation much credence in the retelling of the American past. Undoubtedly, that habit
has been deepened by the deep recession into which internationalist ideals have fallen in
the United States in recent years. Present standing, however, is not--at least, it ought not
to be--determinative of historical significance. Besides, my purpose in rehabilitating and
emphasizing the idea of union is not to displace nation or empire as explanatory
categories but to insist that “union” deserves a seat at the interpretive table. In keeping
with the spirit of union, I seek no hegemony for this interpretation. I shall not say, like the
adherents of the imperial school, that this unionist interpretation is the image through
which all of American history must necessarily be seen. On the contrary, we unionists
shun all ideas of absolute domination and would be content with mutual recognition and
simple reciprocity--what diplomats call a policy of “live and let live.”
Each of these three images of American identity and purpose has been present, in
one form or another, from the outset of the American experiment in 1776. One may liken
19