This slender volume by four prominent foreign policy analysts offers a provocative and informative analysis of the impact of Woodrow Wilson's global vision on American foreign policy over the past century and its potential implications for the twenty-first century. The book of four essays has an ambitious set of goals: assessing the character and logic of the Bush foreign policy, identifying Wilson's vision, evaluating the evolution of liberal internationalism, and discerning the current relevance of the Wilsonian tradition.

G. John Ikenberry's introduction provides the rationale for the volume, offers his analysis of Wilson's impact over the past century, and sets the stage for the subsequent chapters. The volume stems from the Bush administration's avowed policy of promoting democracy and eliminating tyranny, ideas that have unmistakable echoes of Wilson's “one-world” vision. Hence, Ikenberry explores Wilson's “grand liberal vision of world order,” discusses how each component was believed to have a pacific effect on the global community, and assesses its impact on American policy. Although Wilson was unsuccessful in realizing his vision, FDR and Truman continued it by creating a truncated liberal order of Western democracies, with the United States as its hegemonic leader, and even expanded it by calling for the protection of individual human rights. After the Cold War, Wilson's vision seemed more fully realized as democracies expanded, markets flourished, and global institutions grew. Yet, on Ikenberry's telling, the pressures of globalization and new security threats created challenges for liberal internationalism. In the subsequent chapters, the other authors explore Wilson's ideas as well, although they reach differing assessments of his impact.

Thomas J. Knock focuses on the evolution of Wilson's vision during his administration, cataloguing the domestic challenges he faced and lamenting how Wilsonianism evolved from the Cold War to the present. Although Knock acknowledges that Wilson used force to try to bring about political change (e.g., in Mexico), he claims that this experience soured him on the utility of “unilateral military action on the part of the United States” (p. 31). This experience, too, bolstered Wilson's view on the need for an international organization to resolve disputes among and between nations, the view Knock sees as Wilson's key legacy. Knock is skeptical about Wilson's impact on America's Cold War policy, characterizing such “[g]lobalism” as “a mutant form of Wilson's internationalism,” and one for which Wilson “almost certainly would have denied paternity” (p. 47). And despite the reemergence of some of Wilson's ideas after the Cold War, national interest politics continued to dominate. In this sense, Knock argues that the United States has not fully learned the lessons of Wilson's multilateral approach for addressing pressing global issues—and the time to do so is running out.

Tony Smith sees Wilson's legacy much differently. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, Smith asserts, was “a Wilsonian undertaking” (p. 53), premised on the notion that the emergence of democratic governments would serve American security interests. Unlike Knock's (and later Slaughter's) emphasis on multilateralism, Smith argues that the core component of Wilson's vision is his call “for the spread of liberal democratic government” (p. 57). Indeed, Smith questions whether multilateralism could be at the core of Wilsonianism, since, for Wilson, effective international organizations “presupposed that their members be predominately democratic” (p. 60). Multilateralism also serves as “a code word for American hegemony” (p. 63), and there is clear danger in that. Wilsonianism and liberal internationalism, moreover, evolved into a liberal progressive imperialism, epitomized by American actions in Iraq. Yet, the roots for Iraq were less directly driven by the Bush neoconservatives, as it is often argued, and more by the neoliberals of the post–Cold War era. The latter group promoted the “democratic peace theory,” questioned the need for “sequencing” in the creation of democratic states, and redefined the meaning of sovereignty through the “responsibility to protect” doctrine. By doing so, they set the stage for the neoconservatives to actualize the Bush Doctrine. In short, Smith's analysis suggests that Wilsonianism is hardly a panacea for future American foreign policy.

Anne-Marie Slaughter's essay reaches a sharply different conclusion than Smith's. The new president, Slaughter writes, “will face a genuinely Wilsonian moment” (p. 91), and we must “find ways to work together to achieve Wilson's vision” (p. 117). To make her case, she directly challenges several of Smith's arguments and outlines a new direction for American policy. She argues that Wilson's aim was “to make the world safe for democracy,” not to democratize the world per se; rather, he sought the use of “common counsel” from the international community to address global issues. Hence, his commitment to multilateralism remains his core legacy, not a subterfuge for American leadership or hegemony. Slaughter also disputes Smith's contention that neoliberalism was a precursor to neoconservatism and the Bush Doctrine. Although Slaughter acknowledges that the “responsibility to protect” doctrine and the democratic peace theory “came together in a vision … that was indeed Wilsonian,” it was not one of “forcible spread of liberal democracy” or “a universal embrace of the United States” (p. 108). Her prescription for the United States is to actualize Wilson's principles by embracing “team leadership,” reaffirming a commitment to democratic institutions, and adopting a changed view of international institutions and treaty obligations. To the extent that force would be employed under the responsibility to protect doctrine, it must incorporate an assessment of its effect on the “social and economic microfoundations of a society” (p. 115), as well as its reliance on Wilson's “common counsel.”

Despite the insights contained in these fine essays, the volume does not resolve the meaning of Wilson's vision or his impact. Indeed, it raises a number of interesting questions, much as its authors undoubtedly intended. For that reason alone, this volume should serve as an important resource for foreign policy students and analysts. On a pedagogical level, it effectively outlines the components of Wilson's vision, reveals how his views changed during his presidency, and illustrates how those components support several strands of arguments. Yet, it also creates several puzzles that need unraveling. The first regards the question of the very meaning of Wilson's vision. Here, the authors strongly disagree both about the centrality of “democracy promotion” and “multilateralism” and the very meaning of these ideas. The second is the tension in Wilsonian thought between promoting democratic accountability within states and seeking collective security across states. The third is the question of how Wilsonianism would deal with international terrorism, since the authors make only passing references to 9/11 and its impact. The final intellectual challenge of the book relates to the provocative normative prescriptions contained in its chapters. Smith's contention about the convergence between neoliberals and neoconservatives, and the potential for liberal progressive imperialism, should spark lively discussion on one side of the political spectrum, while Slaughter's forceful endorsement of a new multilateralism, especially in light of her current position as director of policy planning at the Department of State, should spark debate on the other side.

On a theoretical level, the essays offer one important idea-centered interpretation of American foreign policy over the past century, but they also beg the question of whether other explanations may be equally compelling. The careful reader, for example, will note the differing views of Ikenberry and Knock over the impact of Wilsonianism on Cold War policies. Are there other theoretical explanations for American policy in that period and beyond? The same holds true for the ultimate policy consequences of liberal internationalism that Smith asserts and that Slaughter questions. In this sense, this volume's underlying theoretical explanation of American foreign policy needs to be juxtaposed against alternative explanations to weigh Wilson's impact more fully.