CSS/PMS US History: From Manifest Destiny to Liberal Interventionism — The Evolution of Exceptionalism

Introduction: Why This Moment Still Matters

On this Wednesday, 13 May 2026, the global order stands at a precipice. The 'Liberal International Order,' a construct largely forged by the United States in the aftermath of 1945, is facing unprecedented challenges from revisionist powers and internal polarization. For the CSS/PMS aspirant, understanding the current friction in US-Pakistan relations or the broader Middle East requires more than a cursory glance at current affairs; it demands a deep-dive into the DNA of American foreign policy. The concept of 'American Exceptionalism'—the belief that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations and has a unique mission to transform the world—is not a modern invention. It is a living force that traces its lineage from the Puritan 'City upon a Hill' to the drone strikes of the 21st century.

This article argues that the transition from 19th-century domestic expansion (Manifest Destiny) to 20th-century global hegemony (Liberal Interventionism) was not a departure from American values, but their logical fulfillment. By analyzing the structural drivers of US policy, we can see how the 'moral rhetoric' of spreading democracy often serves as a strategic lubricant for the expansion of American influence. For Pakistan, a nation often caught in the crosscurrents of US strategic interests, this historical understanding is essential for crafting a foreign policy that balances 'civil-military coordination' with the pursuit of national sovereignty.

Historical Background: Deep Roots

The ideological foundations of American foreign policy were laid long before the term 'Manifest Destiny' was coined in 1845. As Bernard Bailyn masterfully demonstrates in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), the American colonists were deeply influenced by a radical Whig ideology that viewed political power as inherently aggressive and corrupting. This led to a unique American synthesis: a profound distrust of centralized power at home, coupled with a messianic belief that the American experiment was a 'model for all mankind.'

Bailyn argues that the Revolution was not merely a tax dispute, but a transformative ideological event. The founders believed they were creating a 'Novus Ordo Seclorum' (A New Order of the Ages). This sense of destiny was initially inward-looking—the 'City upon a Hill' was meant to be an example, not an interventionist force. However, as the young republic grew, the need for security and economic expansion began to reshape this ideology. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine was the first major step toward regional hegemony, asserting that the Western Hemisphere was closed to European colonization. While framed as a defense of liberty, it effectively established the Americas as a US sphere of influence.

The Central Events: A Detailed Narrative

The 19th century was defined by the domestic drive for territorial expansion, encapsulated in the phrase 'Manifest Destiny.' Coined by journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, it asserted that it was the "manifest destiny" of the United States to "overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." This was not merely a demographic reality but a moral imperative. However, as Howard Zinn points out in A People's History of the United States (1980), this expansion was often a violent process of dispossession and conquest.

The Mexican-American War (1846-1848) serves as the quintessential example of Manifest Destiny in action. While President James K. Polk framed the war as a response to Mexican aggression, Zinn argues it was a calculated land grab to secure California and the Southwest. The resulting Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) saw Mexico cede 55% of its territory to the US. This expansion, however, exacerbated the internal contradictions of the American experiment—specifically the issue of slavery in the new territories—leading directly to the American Civil War.

Shelby Foote, in his monumental three-volume work The Civil War: A Narrative (1958-1974), illustrates how the war was the ultimate test of American unity. The Union's victory in 1865 did more than end slavery; it consolidated the power of the federal government and paved the way for the US to emerge as an industrial titan. By the 1890s, the 'frontier' was declared closed, and American eyes turned toward the sea. The Spanish-American War of 1898 marked the transition from continental expansion to global imperialism. By acquiring the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, the US became a colonial power, justifying its actions through the 'White Man's Burden' and the need to 'civilize' and 'Christianize' (despite the Philippines being largely Catholic).

The Historiographical Debate: What Do Historians Disagree About?

The interpretation of American foreign policy is a battleground between 'Traditionalist' and 'Revisionist' historians. Traditionalists, often influenced by the 'Consensus School' of the 1950s, argue that American expansion was a defensive and reluctant response to external threats. Richard Hofstadter, in The American Political Tradition (1948), provides a nuanced view, suggesting that while Americans share a common capitalist and expansionist consensus, this consensus is often driven by a 'paranoid style'—a fear of external conspiracies against American liberty.

In contrast, Revisionist historians like Howard Zinn argue that American foreign policy has always been an instrument of elite interests. In A People's History of the United States (1980), Zinn contends that the rhetoric of 'democracy' and 'freedom' is a mask for the expansion of markets and the suppression of domestic dissent. For Zinn, the Mexican-American War was not about 'destiny' but about the 'premeditated' theft of land for the benefit of slaveholders and speculators.

A third perspective is offered by John Mearsheimer in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001). As a 'Realist,' Mearsheimer argues that American behavior is not driven by ideology or domestic elites, but by the structural requirements of the international system. He posits that the US, like all great powers, is an 'offensive realist' actor that seeks to maximize its share of world power to ensure its survival. From this view, Manifest Destiny and Liberal Interventionism are simply different names for the same strategic goal: regional and then global hegemony.

Significance and Legacy: Why It Matters for Pakistan and the Muslim World

The evolution of American Exceptionalism has profound implications for Pakistan and the broader Muslim world. The transition to 'Liberal Interventionism' during the Cold War saw the US engage in a series of interventions—from the 1953 coup in Iran to the decade-long war in Afghanistan—often justified as efforts to protect 'freedom' or 'stability.' For Pakistan, the US has been a 'transactional ally,' where strategic cooperation (such as during the Soviet-Afghan War or the War on Terror) was often prioritized over the long-term development of democratic institutions.

The 'structural constraint' in this relationship lies in the misalignment between US global strategic goals and Pakistan's regional security concerns. When the US pursues 'Liberal Interventionism,' it often creates second-order effects—such as regional instability or the rise of non-state actors—that Pakistan must then manage. Furthermore, the use of moral rhetoric by the US can create a 'legitimacy gap' when its actions (such as support for authoritarian regimes or the use of extrajudicial strikes) contradict its stated values.

Conclusion: The Lessons History Forces Us to Learn

The evolution of American foreign policy from Manifest Destiny to Liberal Interventionism reveals a nation that is both deeply idealistic and ruthlessly pragmatic. For the CSS/PMS aspirant, the lesson is clear: foreign policy is rarely about morality alone; it is about the intersection of ideology, interest, and power. As the world shifts toward a multipolar order, Pakistan must adapt its own 'American Exceptionalism'—not by mimicking US expansionism, but by developing a robust, institutionally-driven foreign policy that can withstand external pressures.

To address the 'institutional gaps' in Pakistan's foreign policy formulation, the following reforms are suggested:

1. Legislative Oversight: Rule 20 of the Rules of Business (1973) should be amended to require mandatory parliamentary briefings on major foreign policy shifts, ensuring broader political consensus and reducing 'institutional friction.'
2. Strategic Research: The Foreign Service Academy should be integrated with a dedicated 'Geopolitical Risk Unit' that uses data-driven modeling (similar to the US State Department's INR) to anticipate shifts in US policy before they manifest as crises.
3. Economic Diplomacy: Pakistan's missions abroad lack specific 'Investment KPIs.' Adopting the 'Enterprise Singapore' model would transform embassies from purely diplomatic outposts into economic engines, reducing dependence on transactional security aid.