Prospective Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before the Senate today for confirmation hearings. Based on Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, the Financial Times described the new administration’s foreign policy approach as “relatively realist” and “non-ideological.” The newest addition to the US imperial lexicon is “smart power,” with “hard” and “soft” power both having become passé. “With smart power,” Clinton remarked, “diplomacy will be at the vanguard of our foreign policy.” While the Financial Times is certainly correct in noting a shift in tone between the often extreme bellicosity of the Bush administration and the more soothing and less “ideological and confrontational line” struck by the incoming Obama administration, one can still detect those familiar strains of idealism dating back to the founding of what George Washington described as a “nascent empire.”

Mrs. Clinton stated the Obama administration will have three diplomatic priorities:

1) “To protect and advance America’s security, interests, and values,” with America being traditionally defined in the Wilsonian sense as American “financiers” and “manufacturer[s],” whose interests must be “safeguarded by the ministers of state.”

2) to “promote economic growth and share prosperity at home and abroad,” traditionally defined as an “open door” for investment from Western multi-national corporations “in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused,” as Wilson put it in 1907, with the unwilling having their door “battered down” if necessary.

3) to “strengthen America’s position of global leadership” after the damaging hard power of the Bush years, utilizing “smart power” and the Brand Obama (TM) imperial face lift promoted by the Obama campaign, which was selected by “hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors” of the National Association of Advertiser’s as the 2008 Ad Age Marketer of the Year. One is reminded of the first forays into modern public relations as Brand Wilson convinced Americans and Europeans of his sincere desire to promote “self determination” and to make the world “safe for democracy,” while doing his damndest to eliminate democracy in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico during his tenure.

As is to be expected in the Age of Terror, Clinton says the Obama administration will be committed to “a comprehensive plan… to work with those in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other violent extremists,” even if “those in Afghanistan and Pakistan” we work with happen to be violent and extremist themselves. The historical record in this case is unambiguous, as the US has a long history of friendly relationships with some of the most violent and extremist thugs the modern world has produced. The term “violent extremist” is special, as being violent and extremist are both necessary but not sufficient conditions to merit its use. A “violent extremist” is someone who is violent, extremist, and does not follow US orders, where a “moderate” state may be violent and extremist but an ally worthy of strengthened relations due to their obedience to the Superpower, in spite of the will of their internal populations. Of course, an official enemy’s violent extremism is presupposed by the fact that they’re an official enemy. The logic is circular; hence no factual support is required. We’re good, by definition. To oppose us is “violent extremism” and justifies collective punishment. With this doctrinal framework established, lively debate can be encouraged without risking state prerogatives.

Mrs. Clinton also explained that one of the Obama administration’s goals is to persuade Iran and Syria “to abandon their dangerous behavior and become constructive regional actors,” with “dangerous behavior” being defined as not following US orders, as evidenced by Clinton’s call to strengthen relations with what the New York Times described as “moderate” regional states like Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian police state in Egypt and the Islamic-fundamentalist tyranny in Saudi Arabia.

In Clinton’s closing remarks, she lamented that “[i]n recent years, as other nations have risen to compete for military, economic, and political influence, some have argued that we have reached the end of the ‘American moment’ in world history. I disagree.” She argued that “America’s success has never been solely a function of our power; it has always been inspired by our values.” You see, the reason we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined is not because a large military gives us power, but because in order to “protect and advance America’s security, interests, and values,” a lot of power is needed.

If you can’t see the blatant difference between these two positions, we have just the device for you.