"The Dialectics of World Order" How does it relate to current events?

Alker and Biersteker in this in this article argue why they feel it is important to focus on a dialectical approach to understanding internaitonal realtions. They believe that traditional approaches ignore many facts which seem trivial, however are not if one is trying to figure out how to "change the course of history." Additonally they argue that taking a dialectic approach is neccessayr because "Being open and humble allows for adaptive development, not reactive stagnation (139) ."
What my question is how much of this "reactive stagnation" can we identify to day. Additionally how much has the US contributed? On page 132 Alker and Biersteker write " It should now be more evident that little serious attention is paid to scholarship from a dialectical tradition in most American teaching of International realtions."
It is a fact that most countries in the world base their foreign policies on the US and what they believe we may or may not do. If this is the case that it would seem that our claim to help and serve other countries when possible is not entirely correct. Because if we are a country run by leaders who learned traditional approaches to international relations it could mean that we have negatively impacted world reltions occuring today.
If we have unintentionally recreated history's mistakes and now people are able to create links between our actions and those mistakes, we lose credibility. This proposes an interesting dillemma we may encounter even if we do adopt a more dialetic approach to international studies, who's going to listen to us?
Countries have turned to the US in many instances in the past. If they feel that the US led them to an even worse position than they had originally been in, they would be less likely to look to the US in the future for assistance or come to our aid in the event we wind up needing assistance.
What are some courses of action the US could take to alleviate such a problem? I suppose we could publically acknowledge any wrong doings that may have occurred, or we could argue that we made the best decisions possible with the information at hand. Either way the adoption of a more Dialectic approach to the study of internaitonal realtions is likely to lead to many interesting debates in the future on foreign policy.