What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century
Today, even as America asserts itself globally, it lacks a grand strategy to replace "containment of communism." In this short, sharp book, Gary Hart outlines a new grand strategy, one directing America's powers to the achievement of its large purposes. Central to this strategy is the power of American ideals, what Hart calls "the fourth power." Constitutional liberties, representative government, press freedom--these and other democratic principles, attractive to peoples worldwide, constitute a resource that may prove as important to national security and the national interest in this dangerous new century as traditional military, economic and political might.
A bracing vision of an America responsive to a full spectrum of global challenges, The Fourth Power calls for a deeper understanding both of the threats we face and the profound strengths at our disposal to fight them.
A bracing vision of an America responsive to a full spectrum of global challenges, The Fourth Power calls for a deeper understanding both of the threats we face and the profound strengths at our disposal to fight them.
200 pages, Paperback
First published July 4, 2004
23 people want to read
About the author
Gary Hart
36 books25 followersThere is more than one author with this name
Gary Hart represented the state of Colorado in the U.S. Senate from 1975 until 1987. He is the Wirth Chair professor at the University of Colorado, chairs both the Council for a Livable World and the American Security Project, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and he was cochair of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century. The commission performed the most comprehensive review of national security since 1947, predicted the terrorist attacks on America, and proposed a sweeping overhaul of U.S. national security structures and policies for the post-Cold War century and the age of terrorism. Senator Hart is the author of 17 books, including The Courage of Our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats, The Shield and the Cloak: Security in the Commons, and God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics.
Read his blog on Huffington Post:
Gary Hart represented the state of Colorado in the U.S. Senate from 1975 until 1987. He is the Wirth Chair professor at the University of Colorado, chairs both the Council for a Livable World and the American Security Project, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and he was cochair of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century. The commission performed the most comprehensive review of national security since 1947, predicted the terrorist attacks on America, and proposed a sweeping overhaul of U.S. national security structures and policies for the post-Cold War century and the age of terrorism. Senator Hart is the author of 17 books, including The Courage of Our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats, The Shield and the Cloak: Security in the Commons, and God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics.
Read his blog on Huffington Post:
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 18, 2010
http://archive.boulderweekly.com/0708...
This review originally appeared in the BOULDER WEEKLY
Looking Forward
Gary Hart, the Paul Revere of terrorism, offers a proactive plan for America in his new book
- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Vince Darcangelo
On Sept. 6, 2001, Gary Hart, co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, walked into the office of Condoleeza Rice and offered a dire warning–that terrorist attacks within the United States were imminent. Based on the findings of his commission, he had been saying as much for months and had recommended the formation of an office of homeland security, but his warnings went unheeded. Hart, a former senator and presidential candidate from Colorado, has since been considered by many to be the Paul Revere of terrorism.
Hart is now a foreign policy and national security advisor for presidential hopeful John Kerry. He has authored a new book, The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century, that lays out a strategy for America that relies on the strength of our principles, not just our military, economic and political might. Hart is embarking on a summer book tour, and he is appearing at the Boulder Book Store on July 12. Before hitting the road in support of The Fourth Power, Hart sat down with the Boulder Weekly to discuss his new book, the presidential campaign and the state of the union.
Vince Darcangelo: What was the impetus to writing The Fourth Power?
Gary Hart: The United States had a strategy for close to half a century after World War II of containment of communism. The threat of communist expansion ended in 1991, and thereafter there was nothing to fill in that vacuum as a strategy for the United States in the world or a position for America in the world. That partly got filled by the war on terrorism after 9/11, but that is not in and of itself a sufficient grand strategy for the world’s dominant superpower. So the book is meant to suggest a way of approaching that and some ideas for what that strategy might be. A national grand strategy is really the application, as the book says, of the nation’s powers to the achievement of its large purposes. What I do is suggest three large purposes: one of achieving security, one of expanding opportunity and a third of promoting liberal democracy. Our traditional powers, or that of any other nation historically, are our economic powers, our political powers and our military powers. And in all three we far exceed any other nation in the world. Therefore I outline how each of those powers might be used to achieve those three large purposes. Then I suggest that we possess a fourth power: our principles, largely outlined in our Constitution and our political structures and history. And that power has a particular appeal to nations of the world much more than our military power. Only by the wise use of our principles in pursuing our other objectives can we achieve those objectives in the 21st century.
VD: Would you say that since 9/11 we’ve been investing in this fourth power or depleting this fourth power?
GH: I think any time we use expediency, as we did in the Cold War–that is to say violate our powers to achieve some purpose–we weaken ourselves. Pre-emptively invading a nation, such as Iraq, weakens us in the world and sets us back in achieving those large powers. Any time we covertly overthrow a government or seek to assassinate a foreign leader or behave in an unconstitutional way, in violation of our own principles, we make ourselves weaker rather than stronger.
VD: Would you say that in addition to weakening ourselves through an invasion, such as in Iraq, we also increase the solidarity of the nations that are against us?
GH: Quite often. I think we have made the world less safe for us and for democracy by that invasion. We have certainly rallied much of the Arab world against us, and the Islamic world, and we’ve alienated ourselves from our traditional allies in Europe and Asia. In that respect we have weakened ourselves, not demonstrated strength.
VD: You worked with the Hart-Rudman commission.
GH: That commission was officially called the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century. We had 14 members. Sen. Rudman and I were the co-chairs. Our mandate required us to report to the next president, who turned out to be George W. Bush, no later than February 2001 on a new comprehensive national security policy for America. And that’s what we did. In the process of that, we forecast terrorist attacks and urged specific steps the new administration should take to counter-prevent those attacks and respond to them if they occurred.
VD: Could you talk about the days and weeks preceding 9/11, in which you gave a big presentation in Canada and met with Condi Rice a week before the attacks?
GH: By the summer of 2001, our commission was finished with its work. But I and others on the commission continued to try to warn people that attacks would occur and were going to occur sooner rather than later. I gave a series of speeches around the country, including here in Colorado, that got very little press attention. But for the specific speech I gave up in Montreal to the International Air Transportation Association, the headlines were: "Hart predicts terrorist attacks in America." That day I went down to see the national security advisor [Rice] and urged her and the administration to move more quickly on making the country secure from those attacks. That was Sept. 6, 2001, five days before the attacks. That wasn’t just a one-off speech. There were a lot of them. It was just very hard to get press and public attention at that point.
VD: Do you talk about this in The Fourth Power? Or are you looking more at promoting your grand strategy as opposed to looking at past failures?
GH: It’s meant to look forward, that’s why it says the 21st century. It’s not a book about the past… It’s very much forward looking. I do refer a lot to a number of places, to the work of the commission, which has still not been thoroughly explored. But much of that had to do with how to prepare for the 21st century, how to use America’s powers in a positive sense. I incorporate a lot of that into the book. It’s meant to suggest ways where America shouldn’t be taken by surprise in the future.
VD: Looking at the Cold War, communism, the war on terror, there’s been this sense of defining America in contrast, looking at not what we offer in value but looking at something other, an enemy, some adversary we have to be unified against. Do you think that has hurt our definition of America or the American culture by getting into that mindset?
GH: Very much so. I think that it’s certainly easier to unite the country against something. For 45 or more years we were against communism. Now we’re against terrorism. It’s just always easier for a nation this size to unite people against a common enemy than toward a common good. People tend to go their own way when things are going well. That’s why we tend to have Pearl Harbors and 9/11s, because we refuse to think ahead and pull together to prevent bad things from happening. We pull together fine after they’ve happened. But it’s awfully hard to get people focused on a threat before it occurs. That’s a big shortcoming of our country. So that’s part of why I urge readers of the book and others to think about where the country ought to be headed in some systematic way and begin to develop positive policies for how to achieve that and prevent future threats.
VD: When you speak of a grand strategy, would you say America has been absent of one?
GH: I argue the war on terrorism is not a grand strategy.
VD: Why is that?
GH: Because we have so much else to do and so much else to offer the world in a positive sense. That’s why I stress economic opportunity and liberal democracy. That’s what we have to offer the world. But until we have a strategy to do that, we’re not going to do that. Just to talk about it isn’t enough. When we declared our strategy to be the containing of communism, we then organized the country to achieve that strategy.
VD: You’re serving as John Kerry’s foreign policy/national security advisor.
GH: I’m one of several.
VD: If Kerry is elected, will you continue on with Kerry as a member of his administration?
GH: I have no idea. You can’t plan on those things. That’s up to him to decide.
VD: Is that something you’d be open to if he approached you with that?
GH: I am a public servant by nature and would love to find a way to serve the country. I’ve always said that. It doesn’t necessarily mean elected office, but there are a variety of ways to do that. We’ll wait and see. It’s far too early to be talking about that.
VD: Two questions. What can you offer to John Kerry? And what can John Kerry offer to America and the world?
GH: What I have to offer is in the book and other books and speeches that I’ve presented. I’ll continue to try to put new ideas and fresh ideas out into the public dialogue. Sen. Kerry speaks for himself every day in terms of what he offers and what kind of leadership he provides. I certainly think we need a new president, a new direction for the country. I think increasingly, a majority of Americans agree.
VD: What role do you think a film like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11–with the overwhelming response it’s received–can have toward that end?
GH: I don’t know. If it activates young people, who haven’t been voting in nearly the numbers they should, it could have a rather profound effect. But people can’t just go see the movie. They have to do something about it. Young voters have to vote. There was a cry 25, 30 years ago about young people wanting to vote. They got the vote, and then they didn’t use it.
VD: There were times in the ’80s and early ’90s when it seemed pretty hopeless, that the GOP was entrenched in the White House and it didn’t seem like it was going to change anytime soon. Then in ’92, all of the sudden it changed over. Would you say right now it feels like ’88 or ’92?
GH: I think there will be a change. I think Sen. Kerry will be elected. It remains to be seen how the Congress will go. The country’s pretty evenly divided. I think we’ve proved that over the past couple of elections. The American people haven’t really come down in favor of one party over another or one philosophy over another. The Republican Party is in the White House and both houses of Congress, but by very narrow margins. It’s clear the country is pretty sharply divided. Whether it will take a major earthshaking event–economic, foreign policy, whatever–to break that division, I don’t know. Part of it is difference over cultural values, and the nation remains pretty sharply divided on some of those.
VD: How far do you want to go with The Fourth Power?
GH: I don’t think you put a lot of effort into a work like this–and I’ve thought about it for 10 or 15 years–without pursuing it. It’s more than just a book. These are ideas that I believe really strongly in and will continue to speak out on and write about… I think there is a sense that the country’s adrift, and when anyone with any kind of experience or degree of thoughtfulness offers a set of ideas I think there’s a hunger for that. So hopefully it will get some attention.
VD: A quote of yours that I really like and think is rather profound is, "If you violate your own principles to achieve an objective, you should question the objective." This was in response to a question about the war in Iraq. How would John Kerry being in office differ?
GH: I’ve known him for 30 years, and I know him to be a man of principle. I don’t think he would launch a war without telling the American people the absolute truth about the reasons for doing so. I don’t think that was the case here. That was a violation of principle. The people in the administration had a scheme in mind to position the United States in the Middle East and dictate terms to the Middle East, but that was not disclosed to the American people. That’s a classic illustration of violating our own principles of openness and integrity of our leaders with the people. I do not believe John Kerry would do that.
VD: Anything else that you’d like to say?
GH: I would just hope that your readers would understand the vacuum in which the United States is now operating and to put our present situation into historical context, that for the first half of the 20th century we defeated fascism and the second half of the 20th century we defeated communism. We are now trying to defeat terrorism, but we have a lot of other things on our agenda, more positive things: for example, to prevent terrorism from arising and creating a new and better world rather than just invading nations. That’s what this book sets out to do.
This review originally appeared in the BOULDER WEEKLY
Looking Forward
Gary Hart, the Paul Revere of terrorism, offers a proactive plan for America in his new book
- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Vince Darcangelo
On Sept. 6, 2001, Gary Hart, co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, walked into the office of Condoleeza Rice and offered a dire warning–that terrorist attacks within the United States were imminent. Based on the findings of his commission, he had been saying as much for months and had recommended the formation of an office of homeland security, but his warnings went unheeded. Hart, a former senator and presidential candidate from Colorado, has since been considered by many to be the Paul Revere of terrorism.
Hart is now a foreign policy and national security advisor for presidential hopeful John Kerry. He has authored a new book, The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century, that lays out a strategy for America that relies on the strength of our principles, not just our military, economic and political might. Hart is embarking on a summer book tour, and he is appearing at the Boulder Book Store on July 12. Before hitting the road in support of The Fourth Power, Hart sat down with the Boulder Weekly to discuss his new book, the presidential campaign and the state of the union.
Vince Darcangelo: What was the impetus to writing The Fourth Power?
Gary Hart: The United States had a strategy for close to half a century after World War II of containment of communism. The threat of communist expansion ended in 1991, and thereafter there was nothing to fill in that vacuum as a strategy for the United States in the world or a position for America in the world. That partly got filled by the war on terrorism after 9/11, but that is not in and of itself a sufficient grand strategy for the world’s dominant superpower. So the book is meant to suggest a way of approaching that and some ideas for what that strategy might be. A national grand strategy is really the application, as the book says, of the nation’s powers to the achievement of its large purposes. What I do is suggest three large purposes: one of achieving security, one of expanding opportunity and a third of promoting liberal democracy. Our traditional powers, or that of any other nation historically, are our economic powers, our political powers and our military powers. And in all three we far exceed any other nation in the world. Therefore I outline how each of those powers might be used to achieve those three large purposes. Then I suggest that we possess a fourth power: our principles, largely outlined in our Constitution and our political structures and history. And that power has a particular appeal to nations of the world much more than our military power. Only by the wise use of our principles in pursuing our other objectives can we achieve those objectives in the 21st century.
VD: Would you say that since 9/11 we’ve been investing in this fourth power or depleting this fourth power?
GH: I think any time we use expediency, as we did in the Cold War–that is to say violate our powers to achieve some purpose–we weaken ourselves. Pre-emptively invading a nation, such as Iraq, weakens us in the world and sets us back in achieving those large powers. Any time we covertly overthrow a government or seek to assassinate a foreign leader or behave in an unconstitutional way, in violation of our own principles, we make ourselves weaker rather than stronger.
VD: Would you say that in addition to weakening ourselves through an invasion, such as in Iraq, we also increase the solidarity of the nations that are against us?
GH: Quite often. I think we have made the world less safe for us and for democracy by that invasion. We have certainly rallied much of the Arab world against us, and the Islamic world, and we’ve alienated ourselves from our traditional allies in Europe and Asia. In that respect we have weakened ourselves, not demonstrated strength.
VD: You worked with the Hart-Rudman commission.
GH: That commission was officially called the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century. We had 14 members. Sen. Rudman and I were the co-chairs. Our mandate required us to report to the next president, who turned out to be George W. Bush, no later than February 2001 on a new comprehensive national security policy for America. And that’s what we did. In the process of that, we forecast terrorist attacks and urged specific steps the new administration should take to counter-prevent those attacks and respond to them if they occurred.
VD: Could you talk about the days and weeks preceding 9/11, in which you gave a big presentation in Canada and met with Condi Rice a week before the attacks?
GH: By the summer of 2001, our commission was finished with its work. But I and others on the commission continued to try to warn people that attacks would occur and were going to occur sooner rather than later. I gave a series of speeches around the country, including here in Colorado, that got very little press attention. But for the specific speech I gave up in Montreal to the International Air Transportation Association, the headlines were: "Hart predicts terrorist attacks in America." That day I went down to see the national security advisor [Rice] and urged her and the administration to move more quickly on making the country secure from those attacks. That was Sept. 6, 2001, five days before the attacks. That wasn’t just a one-off speech. There were a lot of them. It was just very hard to get press and public attention at that point.
VD: Do you talk about this in The Fourth Power? Or are you looking more at promoting your grand strategy as opposed to looking at past failures?
GH: It’s meant to look forward, that’s why it says the 21st century. It’s not a book about the past… It’s very much forward looking. I do refer a lot to a number of places, to the work of the commission, which has still not been thoroughly explored. But much of that had to do with how to prepare for the 21st century, how to use America’s powers in a positive sense. I incorporate a lot of that into the book. It’s meant to suggest ways where America shouldn’t be taken by surprise in the future.
VD: Looking at the Cold War, communism, the war on terror, there’s been this sense of defining America in contrast, looking at not what we offer in value but looking at something other, an enemy, some adversary we have to be unified against. Do you think that has hurt our definition of America or the American culture by getting into that mindset?
GH: Very much so. I think that it’s certainly easier to unite the country against something. For 45 or more years we were against communism. Now we’re against terrorism. It’s just always easier for a nation this size to unite people against a common enemy than toward a common good. People tend to go their own way when things are going well. That’s why we tend to have Pearl Harbors and 9/11s, because we refuse to think ahead and pull together to prevent bad things from happening. We pull together fine after they’ve happened. But it’s awfully hard to get people focused on a threat before it occurs. That’s a big shortcoming of our country. So that’s part of why I urge readers of the book and others to think about where the country ought to be headed in some systematic way and begin to develop positive policies for how to achieve that and prevent future threats.
VD: When you speak of a grand strategy, would you say America has been absent of one?
GH: I argue the war on terrorism is not a grand strategy.
VD: Why is that?
GH: Because we have so much else to do and so much else to offer the world in a positive sense. That’s why I stress economic opportunity and liberal democracy. That’s what we have to offer the world. But until we have a strategy to do that, we’re not going to do that. Just to talk about it isn’t enough. When we declared our strategy to be the containing of communism, we then organized the country to achieve that strategy.
VD: You’re serving as John Kerry’s foreign policy/national security advisor.
GH: I’m one of several.
VD: If Kerry is elected, will you continue on with Kerry as a member of his administration?
GH: I have no idea. You can’t plan on those things. That’s up to him to decide.
VD: Is that something you’d be open to if he approached you with that?
GH: I am a public servant by nature and would love to find a way to serve the country. I’ve always said that. It doesn’t necessarily mean elected office, but there are a variety of ways to do that. We’ll wait and see. It’s far too early to be talking about that.
VD: Two questions. What can you offer to John Kerry? And what can John Kerry offer to America and the world?
GH: What I have to offer is in the book and other books and speeches that I’ve presented. I’ll continue to try to put new ideas and fresh ideas out into the public dialogue. Sen. Kerry speaks for himself every day in terms of what he offers and what kind of leadership he provides. I certainly think we need a new president, a new direction for the country. I think increasingly, a majority of Americans agree.
VD: What role do you think a film like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11–with the overwhelming response it’s received–can have toward that end?
GH: I don’t know. If it activates young people, who haven’t been voting in nearly the numbers they should, it could have a rather profound effect. But people can’t just go see the movie. They have to do something about it. Young voters have to vote. There was a cry 25, 30 years ago about young people wanting to vote. They got the vote, and then they didn’t use it.
VD: There were times in the ’80s and early ’90s when it seemed pretty hopeless, that the GOP was entrenched in the White House and it didn’t seem like it was going to change anytime soon. Then in ’92, all of the sudden it changed over. Would you say right now it feels like ’88 or ’92?
GH: I think there will be a change. I think Sen. Kerry will be elected. It remains to be seen how the Congress will go. The country’s pretty evenly divided. I think we’ve proved that over the past couple of elections. The American people haven’t really come down in favor of one party over another or one philosophy over another. The Republican Party is in the White House and both houses of Congress, but by very narrow margins. It’s clear the country is pretty sharply divided. Whether it will take a major earthshaking event–economic, foreign policy, whatever–to break that division, I don’t know. Part of it is difference over cultural values, and the nation remains pretty sharply divided on some of those.
VD: How far do you want to go with The Fourth Power?
GH: I don’t think you put a lot of effort into a work like this–and I’ve thought about it for 10 or 15 years–without pursuing it. It’s more than just a book. These are ideas that I believe really strongly in and will continue to speak out on and write about… I think there is a sense that the country’s adrift, and when anyone with any kind of experience or degree of thoughtfulness offers a set of ideas I think there’s a hunger for that. So hopefully it will get some attention.
VD: A quote of yours that I really like and think is rather profound is, "If you violate your own principles to achieve an objective, you should question the objective." This was in response to a question about the war in Iraq. How would John Kerry being in office differ?
GH: I’ve known him for 30 years, and I know him to be a man of principle. I don’t think he would launch a war without telling the American people the absolute truth about the reasons for doing so. I don’t think that was the case here. That was a violation of principle. The people in the administration had a scheme in mind to position the United States in the Middle East and dictate terms to the Middle East, but that was not disclosed to the American people. That’s a classic illustration of violating our own principles of openness and integrity of our leaders with the people. I do not believe John Kerry would do that.
VD: Anything else that you’d like to say?
GH: I would just hope that your readers would understand the vacuum in which the United States is now operating and to put our present situation into historical context, that for the first half of the 20th century we defeated fascism and the second half of the 20th century we defeated communism. We are now trying to defeat terrorism, but we have a lot of other things on our agenda, more positive things: for example, to prevent terrorism from arising and creating a new and better world rather than just invading nations. That’s what this book sets out to do.
September 9, 2022
Pretty good book. Exceeded expectations.
December 25, 2007
Yet another personalized examination of how the US can use its power for the good of the world in the 21st Century from a US Senator with possible Presidential ambitions (the point of the book is probably to show that Hart has a "vision for America"). Ultimately unconvincing.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews