Review of "Remaking U.S. Trade Policy: From Protectionism to Globalization," by Nitsan Chorev,

This book could well have been titled "The Myth of American Exceptionalism," but that might have led to a storm of right wing tirades that obscured its illustration of how to make an extended, nuanced comparison between two empires.The introductory chapter sets up the comparative structure, outlines the goals of the book, and clears many thickets of definitional issues.For readers conversant with world-systems analysis the comparative framework will be straightforward and logical.For others it may take some convincing.Briefly, the idea is that in order to compare two empires, in this case Britain and the United States, one must compare similar phases of the hegemonic cycle: ascent (long and short parts), maturity, and decline or competition.Go follows more-or-less standard world-system dates for these phases.The entire book is a detailed execution of this comparison.The goals of the comparison are to add to the growing literature that critiques the idea of American exceptionalism.That is, that the United States differs from all other empires in being more interested in liberty and freedom, the pursuit of which drives the administration of empire and makes it more benign than all other empires.What is different here is the detailed, systematic examination of the claim for exceptionalism via comparisons of similar phases of the hegemonic cycle, with attention to the global context of those phases occurring at different chronological times.Throughout Go also describes the historiography of exceptionalism, and shows that it, too, is parallel between the two empires.The bulk of the introduction is a careful examination of terms like empire, colonialism, power, hegemony, and so forth.Go is very careful and precise to specify how he uses such terms, why they are appropriate for his purposes, and how they differ from other meanings.He does this clearly without sliding into tediumthough that may not be obvious to some readers until well into the discussion.He is consistent in his use of terms, with occasional reminders that he is using these terms in special ways.Go is explicitly aware of the limitations of comparison based on only two cases.Here and there, he alludes to other possible cases to round out his comparisons.Most important, he couches his explanations in ways that facilitate development of a general theory of empires and the kinds of questions that demand further empirical investigation.This summary of the introduction, albeit in a different sequence than Go presents it, is necessary to understand all that follows, and to describe the layers of intellectual work that follow.The first substantive chapter compares the paths to imperial power.Here the nuanced similarities and differences are explored with due attention to the variations within each empire as well as between them.Already we begin to see that strategies of empire building originate far more in structural conditionsespecially the forms and degrees of resistance from colonized peoplesthan in the values of the empire.While most of the pieces of this analysis are familiar, the sum total is a significant contribution to understanding empire formation.A key point, clearly and strongly stated, is that, "… territorial expansion was a fundamentally racialized process" (53).It is intrinsic to empire, not simply a nasty side effect.The second substantive chapter examines strategies and tactics of colonial rule in both empires.It uncovers many more similarities than differences, a major one being the range of variation in both empires with respect to colonial administration.Key differences are that India

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.