Debaters weigh end of ‘American Century’

Following President-elect Barack Obama’s winning campaign, based partly on concepts of changing America’s global focus, many Boston University students showed that they think U.S. involvement in the rest of the world should decline.

The College of Communication hosted its 26th Great Debate in the Tsai Performance Center on Wednesday, as more than 100 attendees came to find out, ‘Is this American Century ending?’

‘The American Century was a time that [Time and Life Magazine publisher] Henry Luce argued that America needed to abandon isolationism . . . involve itself into the affairs of nations already at war . . . adopt a long-term approach to international leadership,’ debate moderator Bob Zelnick, a BU journalism professor, said.

‘ Affirmative debaters Robert Litwak, the Woodrow Wilson Center International Security Studies director, Andrew Bacevich, a BU international relations professor, and journalism graduate student Sarah Thomas, argued that the United States should undergo a reevaluation of its priorities and shift away from foreign interference.

‘We’re not in decline. It’s only that other countries are on the rise,’ Litwak said. ‘The U.S. needs to get back to basics and reevaluate our role in the world . . . We’ve become the greatest threat to global stability and are no longer a victim,’ Litwak said.

The ‘American Century’ is ending, because Americans are ‘living in the myth’ of American exceptionalism, Bacevich said.

The United States military over-extended its military forces after it invaded Iraq in 2003, the West Point graduate said, making policing the world an impossible proposition. But Bacevich added that America would not necessarily suffer if it diverted more of its resources to domestic issues.

‘Fixing America needs to take precedence over fixing the world,’ he said.

Georgetown University government and international affairs professor Robert Lieber, John Hopkins University international law and diplomacy director professor Ruth Wedgwood and BU broadcast journalism major Andrew Jones argued for the negative side, which held that the United States still dominates world affairs.

‘The United States is still a stable global force and continues to be among the top ranked in global economy, education, technology and demography,’ Lieber said. ‘There is nothing new about the U.S. facing problems at home and abroad. There are no other peer competitors to the U.S., and most countries lean with us instead of against us.’

Leiber and his team cited the successes of government spending to support their argument that the American Century is still alive.

‘We’re only spending 4 percent of our GDP over the past three years on military, which is low in comparison to previous decades,’ Lieber said.

Wedgwood argued for continuing U.S. involvement in global affairs.

‘We’re the only global power policing North Asia and the Middle East,’ Wedgewood said. ‘We’re the only one keeping Europe protected from Russia. We have the responsibility to protect, and now we need someone who is willing and able to protect.’

At the end of the evening, Zelnick asked audience members to divide down the middle of the room based on which side they supported. About three-quarters of the audience sided with the affirmative debaters.

Though the audience slanted heavily toward the affirmative, students said both sides presented convincing arguments.

‘I thought that the affirmative side had a lot of pessimism and lack of faith in America,’ COM junior Ashlie Anctil said.

Anctil, who is also in the College of Arts and Sciences, said she supported the negative argument.

‘The times are still what they are, and times have the potential to change,’ she said.