The Ghost at the Feast: America and the Collapse of World Order, 1900-1941

                With the war in Ukraine making a study of American foreign policy topical, I picked up a copy of Robert Kagan’s The Ghost at the Feast after a podcast in my weekly rotation made the recommendation. As we are now two decades into the twenty-first century, and after experiencing a time period many historians refer to as “the American century”, discussing America’s role in the world today is one I find worthwhile, if not also frustrating. Past is prologue as they say, and one cannot fully grasp the concept of the United States as a global superpower without studying early twentieth century American foreign policy. For the casual dad historian, this book helps contextualize much of what we understand about our country today. 

The argument Kagan presents to his readers makes them question America’s role in the world. He argues in convincing fashion that during the first four decades of the twentieth century, a moment where a power that stood for liberal democratic values was desperately needed, the United States' choice to recede front the world stage largely contributed to the global chaos we saw in the form of two world wars. He is clearly attempting to make a statement about America’s purpose in the world today and how our history is a clear answer to whether or not the United States should assume the role as a global force for maintaining order. I cannot say I entirely agree with Kagan’s premise, looking at many Cold War era events as evidence, yet at the same time the events unfolding in Europe today are clear evidence of the correctness of Kagan’s conviction. There exists an idea that America’s strength is projecting our values abroad as a force of maintaining peace and order, even when others criticize those choices as simply molding the world in our image for our own benefit. Kagan’s argument aligns with my previous statement, and the events he covers in each chapter are examined through this lens.

As far as broad strokes history books go, Kagan’s work does a wonderful job of taking a large chunk of time (1900-1941), and making a coherent argument supported by a narrative he weaves together from an array of historical events, like the fallout from the stock market crash and political battles over party identity. This is not a book where the reader will walk away feeling as if they are an expert on any one particular aspect of American history, but one will leave armed with enough anecdotes to defend his premise. For example, I learned how deeply President Wilson feared at the outbreak of World War I that the multiethnic nature of our country, due to historic waves of immigration that were coming to an end, would cause the war to break out in miniature here in the United States. He envisioned first generation Germans, Russians, British, French, and their offspring battling in the streets, and used that fact as a rationale for avoiding entry into the war. I could not help but laugh at the thought, but recognize that the idea would not have seemed so silly at the time. It was small moments like this profile included in the book that made me once again ponder how different of a country we have become in such a short period of time, and that this era truly was a defining moment in our history. 

The title itself is  a reference to Kagan’s argument that the United States’ reluctance and isolationism often weighed on our allies like “a ghost at the feast”, and it is clear he is using history to caution our people from ever slipping into that mindset again. Does he make a compelling argument? Yes. But I cannot help seeing the time period more as a unique moment in our nation's history, than the history that needs to guide American foreign policy in perpetuity. The conflicts we have found ourselves in since have been little like those we faced in the first half of the twentieth century, yet we entered into them expressing the same rationale. They are not examples of American triumphs, but often viewed as cautionary tales. Is the world really better off with us solely leading the charge? Are there ever moments where we are allowed to sit on the sidelines and let others take a shot? I would like to think yes. However, it sure does not feel like we are in one of the moments today, which makes this book all the more powerful.