What do you think?
Rate this book
The Arrogance of Power
“The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has suddenly become the most celebrated public critic of the nation’s foreign politics. . . . His new book, The Arrogance of Power , is remarkable because it . . . transforms mere criticism into bitter condemnation. It portends, or perhaps already speaks, the alienation of a great many thoughtful citizens from their government. . . . From disagreement with the national policy, the Senator has escalated to an indictment of the national character. Where once he blamed ignorance, he now finds also arrogance. And he offers psychological as well as political judgment and testimony to make the point.
“Nor is [Senator Fulbright] merely quarreling with Lyndon Johnson’s conduct of affairs. He objects to the whole postwar habit of intervention. . . . We have set out to police the world and to rescue mankind, he argues, neglecting our duty to put our own house in order and dissipating the chance to inspire others by our example. . . . The Senator has much else to say, of course. His book is a very specific protest against the war in Vietnam and a plea that we get out, even if it hurts. It is an angry cry against all war. It is an articulate statement of the duty to dissent. . . .
“True to himself, Mr. Fulbright conveys his outrage in calm, often elegant prose. He entertains even as he alarms. . . . It is an invaluable antidote to the official rhetoric of government.” – Max Frankel, The New York Times Book Review
“Nor is [Senator Fulbright] merely quarreling with Lyndon Johnson’s conduct of affairs. He objects to the whole postwar habit of intervention. . . . We have set out to police the world and to rescue mankind, he argues, neglecting our duty to put our own house in order and dissipating the chance to inspire others by our example. . . . The Senator has much else to say, of course. His book is a very specific protest against the war in Vietnam and a plea that we get out, even if it hurts. It is an angry cry against all war. It is an articulate statement of the duty to dissent. . . .
“True to himself, Mr. Fulbright conveys his outrage in calm, often elegant prose. He entertains even as he alarms. . . . It is an invaluable antidote to the official rhetoric of government.” – Max Frankel, The New York Times Book Review
284 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
50 people are currently reading
504 people want to read
About the author
J. William Fulbright
34 books6 followersJames William Fulbright was a United States Senator representing Arkansas from 1945 to 1975.
Fulbright was a a staunch multilateralist who supported the creation of the United Nations, and the longest serving chairman in the history of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was also a segregationist who signed the Southern Manifesto. Fulbright opposed McCarthyism and the House Un-American Activities Committee and later became known for his opposition to American involvement in the Vietnam War. His efforts to establish an international exchange program eventually resulted in the creation of a fellowship program which bears his name, the Fulbright Program.
Fulbright was a a staunch multilateralist who supported the creation of the United Nations, and the longest serving chairman in the history of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was also a segregationist who signed the Southern Manifesto. Fulbright opposed McCarthyism and the House Un-American Activities Committee and later became known for his opposition to American involvement in the Vietnam War. His efforts to establish an international exchange program eventually resulted in the creation of a fellowship program which bears his name, the Fulbright Program.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
September 7, 2016
A book concerning America’s tendency to display its power in arrogant ways, written as the military involvement in Vietnam began to take on rapid and seemingly unlimited growth. It was purchased and first read by me in June 1981 in an attempt to intellectualize my disgust with the surge in American arrogance that brought Reagan to the Oval Office. And reread now as American assholism in one of its purest manifestations is displayed by the candidacy and loyal supporters of a presidential candidate whose rallies send the same shivers down my spine as do those films of rallies in Germany and Italy leading up to World War II.
The Vietnam War was a major topic of this book, viewed by Fulbright as an unwise waste of blood and treasure, and typical of American puritanical anti-communist obsession which led to violations of international law and national moral principles. Ever mindful of the possibility of worldwide nuclear destruction, Fulbright suggested means by which a safer world could be obtained through building bridges with the Soviet Union and China, though viewing the conflict in Indochina as almost precluding any such efforts. I’m sure they would deny it, but I wonder if Fulbright’s suggestions weren’t on the minds of Nixon and Kissinger when arrangements were made for Nixon’s visit to China, and the negotiations concluded for their “Peace with Honor” in Vietnam.
Reading this book again made me wonder what Fulbright would have to say about the international situation today. Back in 1966 Americans felt threatened by states espousing a certain ideology, but whose talk was more threatening than their actions. Today Americans feel more threatened by groups of religious zealots who apparently strive to spark a worldwide religious war, with some Americans arrogantly voicing their eagerness for such a battle. I’ll be keeping this book in mind as I seek my own humanist answers to today’s challenges.
The Vietnam War was a major topic of this book, viewed by Fulbright as an unwise waste of blood and treasure, and typical of American puritanical anti-communist obsession which led to violations of international law and national moral principles. Ever mindful of the possibility of worldwide nuclear destruction, Fulbright suggested means by which a safer world could be obtained through building bridges with the Soviet Union and China, though viewing the conflict in Indochina as almost precluding any such efforts. I’m sure they would deny it, but I wonder if Fulbright’s suggestions weren’t on the minds of Nixon and Kissinger when arrangements were made for Nixon’s visit to China, and the negotiations concluded for their “Peace with Honor” in Vietnam.
Reading this book again made me wonder what Fulbright would have to say about the international situation today. Back in 1966 Americans felt threatened by states espousing a certain ideology, but whose talk was more threatening than their actions. Today Americans feel more threatened by groups of religious zealots who apparently strive to spark a worldwide religious war, with some Americans arrogantly voicing their eagerness for such a battle. I’ll be keeping this book in mind as I seek my own humanist answers to today’s challenges.
January 27, 2008
This was a great book for anyone traveling to Europe and having to deal in cross-cultural interactions with people from a different background other than one's own.
I have used this book often in papers that I have written here in Klagenfurt and I appreciate the insight the book gives to international politics, cooperation and planning (these topics somehow seem to come up often in conversation here in Austria...especially when I don't even want it to...often the person on the other end brings it up...and usually because I am "American"). I have to laugh at some of the things that occur here.
I have used this book often in papers that I have written here in Klagenfurt and I appreciate the insight the book gives to international politics, cooperation and planning (these topics somehow seem to come up often in conversation here in Austria...especially when I don't even want it to...often the person on the other end brings it up...and usually because I am "American"). I have to laugh at some of the things that occur here.
December 26, 2012
This book, first published in 1966, was referred to me by my friend Dave Pritchard, a South African and Englishman, as an objective view of American foreign policies as seen from abroad. This of course is quite a stretch if you consider that it was written by a "traitorous" Democratic senator at a time when a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress were fervently pursuing the Vietnam War.
The book was written, I believe, out of Fullbright's basic belief that the Vietnam War was severely damaging to the US (not that he really cared about the Vietnamese) both as a foreign debacle and as a domestic poison. There are clear lessons that we can draw to the current Afghani War, but I would urge the reader not to be too blind to the differences in the conflicts. After all, in Vietnam, we had one major enemy who was well organized and focused on a central nationalistic ideal. Additionally, Fulbright borders on being an isolationist, something that is probably not supportable now during full globalization, or even during the 1960's.
Fulbright had several key points for me, and I'll sketch them briefly:
* Just because you are one of the biggest and the most powerful nations, you don't have a responsibility to run everyone else's business to their benefit.
* You seldom can understand what another nation needs or wants, since your own subtext distorts your ability to see the other nation's perspective, or predict that nation's actions.
* Historically, all empires get embroiled in foreign adventures to the point of destroying their domestic economic base, which provides your international power.
* We hang on to stupid positions and stay embroiled in losing conflicts because we are afraid of being embarrassed in front of other nations. By the time we are in this position, we are normally already embarrassed but too self centered to see it.
* For all our vaunted demonizing of the Red Chinese because of their strident words and bellicose statements, we appeared much more demonic through our strident military actions. They provided guns and money. We provided guns, money, and a huge occupying force.
* Dissent is healthy. A nation can have a consensus if the vast majority recognize the same basic goals and principles, but should still have a healthy dialogue or dissent on how to get there.
* Congress has failed to discharge is foreign affairs responsibilities (it is a rubber stamp). It has ceded power to the Executive Branch (and in my opinion, will seldom if ever get that power back).
* America had a conservative, nonviolent (sic), democratic revolution. No one else has much chance of pulling this one off again.
* We fundamentally mistook nationalism as a driving force for many other nations because it carried a label of communism, and this blinded us. We therefore acted often against our own best interests.
* Foreign aid should be based on our principles and our honest charity, rather than based on a ruthless effort to manipulate other countries internal policies (something we have seldom done in 200 years of foreign aid).
The tone of the book is reasonable, as if it were written by Sir Thomas More, and more than a bit pendantic. I believe that Fulbright, the center of a storm of controversy, believed his views reasonable and wanted to portray himself as a reasonable man. With this understandable context, the man is not an intriguing writer. The organization, scholarly footnoting, logic, and conclusions are all you would want, it just all tastes like Campbell's Tomato Soup.
If you want historical context, this book is okay - check it out of the library rather than buy it. On the other hand, buy all of Zbigniew Brzezinski's books, even if you never remember how to spell his name.
The book was written, I believe, out of Fullbright's basic belief that the Vietnam War was severely damaging to the US (not that he really cared about the Vietnamese) both as a foreign debacle and as a domestic poison. There are clear lessons that we can draw to the current Afghani War, but I would urge the reader not to be too blind to the differences in the conflicts. After all, in Vietnam, we had one major enemy who was well organized and focused on a central nationalistic ideal. Additionally, Fulbright borders on being an isolationist, something that is probably not supportable now during full globalization, or even during the 1960's.
Fulbright had several key points for me, and I'll sketch them briefly:
* Just because you are one of the biggest and the most powerful nations, you don't have a responsibility to run everyone else's business to their benefit.
* You seldom can understand what another nation needs or wants, since your own subtext distorts your ability to see the other nation's perspective, or predict that nation's actions.
* Historically, all empires get embroiled in foreign adventures to the point of destroying their domestic economic base, which provides your international power.
* We hang on to stupid positions and stay embroiled in losing conflicts because we are afraid of being embarrassed in front of other nations. By the time we are in this position, we are normally already embarrassed but too self centered to see it.
* For all our vaunted demonizing of the Red Chinese because of their strident words and bellicose statements, we appeared much more demonic through our strident military actions. They provided guns and money. We provided guns, money, and a huge occupying force.
* Dissent is healthy. A nation can have a consensus if the vast majority recognize the same basic goals and principles, but should still have a healthy dialogue or dissent on how to get there.
* Congress has failed to discharge is foreign affairs responsibilities (it is a rubber stamp). It has ceded power to the Executive Branch (and in my opinion, will seldom if ever get that power back).
* America had a conservative, nonviolent (sic), democratic revolution. No one else has much chance of pulling this one off again.
* We fundamentally mistook nationalism as a driving force for many other nations because it carried a label of communism, and this blinded us. We therefore acted often against our own best interests.
* Foreign aid should be based on our principles and our honest charity, rather than based on a ruthless effort to manipulate other countries internal policies (something we have seldom done in 200 years of foreign aid).
The tone of the book is reasonable, as if it were written by Sir Thomas More, and more than a bit pendantic. I believe that Fulbright, the center of a storm of controversy, believed his views reasonable and wanted to portray himself as a reasonable man. With this understandable context, the man is not an intriguing writer. The organization, scholarly footnoting, logic, and conclusions are all you would want, it just all tastes like Campbell's Tomato Soup.
If you want historical context, this book is okay - check it out of the library rather than buy it. On the other hand, buy all of Zbigniew Brzezinski's books, even if you never remember how to spell his name.
May 17, 2017
A phenomenal read, but phenomenally sad that so much of it applies to our geopolitical situation today, five decades and eight presidents later. If the current resident of the White House could digest more than a paragraph without reading his own name, I'd actually encourage people to send copies of this to his attention. Instead, just maybe consider it as a stocking stuffer for the newly--or potentially--politically awakened.
February 8, 2017
Senator Fulbright was very prescient on the effects of the Vietnam War on America. Both externally with foes and ally's and on the country as a whole. He was dead on with his predictions of the disaster the war proved to be.
Want to read
June 13, 2023This book was mentioned by jeffrey Sachs on the he RFK Jr. podcast
June 14, 2022
Fulbright demonstrates the wit and nuance he’s legendary for, in a form that doesn’t necessarily maintain peak interest but certainly inspires it.
While the book represents a crucial diversion from the omnipresent American foreign policy cult, its insistence on the “nevertheless greatness” of the American nation comes out as a kindergarten teacher attempting to keep a particularly difficult child from throwing a tantrum while being told their behaviour was wrong.
While the book represents a crucial diversion from the omnipresent American foreign policy cult, its insistence on the “nevertheless greatness” of the American nation comes out as a kindergarten teacher attempting to keep a particularly difficult child from throwing a tantrum while being told their behaviour was wrong.
July 23, 2025
A great read, especially coming from someone who participated in the program that bears his name. Some of the language is a bit dated, but the concept of “dissenting” when your country does something that’s against your conscience is as applicable as when my country descended into Vietnam in his time as it is now, ending with a question of two Americas (one of Lincoln and another of Teddy Roosevelt) and where that leads us to today.
December 25, 2020
Extremely insightfull book. It is astonishing how applicable this book, written in the sixties, is to the modern age. Make sure you read it carefully to make sure you get all the context correctly. It makes you question, did Fullbright expect that Puritanism would be the dominant side in 2020 of the Two Americas?
May 2, 2025
The Arrogance of Power is a very thoughtful book. The author has detailed the mistakes The USA has made and outlined the future course it should take. This is to make sure that the country goes forward after the debacle in Vietnam. All mistakes made in Vietnam should never be repeated.
April 10, 2025
This guy was a senator and it's his critical analysis of American Politics.
I don't know what else to say.
I don't know what else to say.
February 18, 2022
Raw, sincere, incisive. Fulbright gives concise and packed introductions to the Latin American, Vietnamese, and Chinese revolutions and backgrounds. He makes the strongest cases on the arrogance of power, the hypocrisy and cage of arrogance and self-importance. He makes sincere and impactful arguments for dissent as the highest manifestation of patriotism.
Written in 1966, this classic is as relevant today. Arrogance has remained, self-importance has remained, international relations have only gotten more complex, and we are ever more afraid to step out of line.
"The most valuable public servant, like the true Patriot, is one who gives a higher loyalty to his country's ideals than to its current policy and who is therefore willing to criticize as well as comply."
Re-read. Mostly the same takeaways, except 1. Because clearer for me there is a naviety in him about space race, about changing up international aid, etc. He believes what's said on paper, and believes change is very possible. 2. The call for a focus on domestic policy rings louder this time. Domestic policy is easily swept aside under times of crisis, when crisis is the new normal, there is even more dire need to bring domestic policy back to centre stage.
Written in 1966, this classic is as relevant today. Arrogance has remained, self-importance has remained, international relations have only gotten more complex, and we are ever more afraid to step out of line.
"The most valuable public servant, like the true Patriot, is one who gives a higher loyalty to his country's ideals than to its current policy and who is therefore willing to criticize as well as comply."
Re-read. Mostly the same takeaways, except 1. Because clearer for me there is a naviety in him about space race, about changing up international aid, etc. He believes what's said on paper, and believes change is very possible. 2. The call for a focus on domestic policy rings louder this time. Domestic policy is easily swept aside under times of crisis, when crisis is the new normal, there is even more dire need to bring domestic policy back to centre stage.
December 21, 2019
Almost 50 years before Andrew Bacevich warned of the dangerous implications of America’s self-appointed exceptionalism, and Amy Chua in World on Fire warned of the horrendous implications of “exporting democracy,” Fulbright nailed it in Arrogance of Power. Published as the Vietnam war was reaching its zenith, Fulbright saw the writing on the wall, the erosion of American foreign policy as a force for good in the world. Like Cassandra, never to be believed, his warnings were prescient then as now. This book is not dated. It addresses our errors in the exercise of foreign policy and international economic policy, errors committed then and still committed today. It should be mandatory reading for every politician and social studies teacher in America. We should be doing so much better, and Fulbright shows the way.
Worth mentioning that Fulbright was bucking the militaristic Democratic Party establishment that was intent on waging the Vietnam war. That militarism remains in today’s Democratic Party, was plain to see in the Party’s 2016 nominee, and is as pernicious then as it is now. As 2020 begins there are candidates who will not fall prey to that element of Democratic thinking, and I wish them well.
Worth mentioning that Fulbright was bucking the militaristic Democratic Party establishment that was intent on waging the Vietnam war. That militarism remains in today’s Democratic Party, was plain to see in the Party’s 2016 nominee, and is as pernicious then as it is now. As 2020 begins there are candidates who will not fall prey to that element of Democratic thinking, and I wish them well.
February 21, 2017
This book was terribly disappointing for me when I read it. I was a huge fan of Fulbright at the time and bragged about him a lot to friends from other states. I expected him to add something a lot more profound.
I realize now that this was simply another one of those shallow, perhaps ghost-written, little books that politicians dump on the market when their names are hot simply to pick up a little extra cash.
The sad part is that they don't disgrace themselves in our eyes when they do it.
I realize now that this was simply another one of those shallow, perhaps ghost-written, little books that politicians dump on the market when their names are hot simply to pick up a little extra cash.
The sad part is that they don't disgrace themselves in our eyes when they do it.
June 8, 2013
A book from the time of Vietnam war.
That war, country Germany, Soviet Union are all history, but unfortunately the US foreign policy is still disgraceful still could be described by the book title. US have another and another war here and there, wherever pretend they are the policeman if not god of the world. In the meantime, the inner problem inside US is still there, a country without good health insurance and proper regulation on gun uses.
Being a Taiwanese, I'm also feel sad that Taiwan's relation with China is still lacks clear prospect.
That war, country Germany, Soviet Union are all history, but unfortunately the US foreign policy is still disgraceful still could be described by the book title. US have another and another war here and there, wherever pretend they are the policeman if not god of the world. In the meantime, the inner problem inside US is still there, a country without good health insurance and proper regulation on gun uses.
Being a Taiwanese, I'm also feel sad that Taiwan's relation with China is still lacks clear prospect.
February 1, 2009
Sen. Fulbright acknowledges the truism that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and gives this a deep examination. He exhorts Americans to look at our own potential for unleashing destruction upon others. Many of his observations about the behavior of the U.S. military presence in Vietnam can be applied to the U.S. military in Iraq today.
consider-reading
December 10, 2011Considering reading this or Fulbright: The Dissenter by Haynes Johnson
Have mixed feelings. How can something seems like it will so resonate with my political beliefs be written by a Segregationist?
May still give it a go - and hopefully discover the answer to that.
Have mixed feelings. How can something seems like it will so resonate with my political beliefs be written by a Segregationist?
May still give it a go - and hopefully discover the answer to that.
Read
July 15, 2007it is so relevant to todays political and military posturing, it's frightening. He was ahead of himself but I am afraid we have learned little from world or US history
December 29, 2007
It would be too simple to say President Nixon had demons. There are two sides to Nixon, neither is very nice. I'm glad I was not Pat.
May 20, 2008
Despite being written during the Vietnam war, this book is still relevant to all we are facing today.
December 19, 2008
Still, disturbingly apropos.
June 27, 2015
This should be required reading for every American. It's as much relevant today as it was in 1966.
April 8, 2016
This book is one of those rare cultural artifacts that actually makes one proud to be an Arkansan.
February 18, 2008
non fiction
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews