Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
The political scene in America has undergone some startling changes since Democrats captured both the Presidency and Congress in 2008. The economic crisis and the subsequent policy response brought the Tea Party into existence, and the unofficial Tea Party movement seems to be transforming the Republican Party.
The recent Republican presidential candidate debate in New Hampshire manifested the striking effect that the Tea Party movement has had on the GOP. In a nutshell, the terms of the debate have shifted to the right. On the domestic scene, Paul Ryan's plan to deal with our crippling budget problem is dominating the argument. The Democratic Party and progressive Republicans are now on the defensive; Ryan and his allies are setting the agenda.
We are also witnessing the beginning of a conversation about the purposes of American foreign policy that is similar to the reorientation in the GOP on domestic policy. The progressive perspective on foreign policy has dominated both parties since 1900. Republicans have essentially embraced the Wilsonian program of promoting democracy abroad through transnational institutions or "coalitions of the willing" in order to bring about a permanent state of peace between nations.
Our Founders thought that our foreign policy should be geared toward securing American rights while respecting the rights of other peoples. All adult human beings are by nature equally free of non-consensual political rule. This means that legitimate government requires the consent of the governed, so the Founders rejected the idea that we could engage in what has come to be called "nation building." It is unjust to rule another people without their consent, even if it is done under the color of ruling them for their own benefit (i.e. eventual freedom).
I believe Michele Bachmann started the reconsideration of our foreign policy goals when she denounced President Obama's support of the NATO mission in Libya. Bachmann wants our military involvement in foreign lands to be limited to matters of national security. She opposes our involvement in the U.N. endorsed and NATO led military operation in Libya because it has nothing to do with our national security and we do not possess adequate knowledge about the character of the rebel movement.
Bachmann is essentially restating the position of John Quincy Adams when he argued against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Adams believed, rightly I think, that constitutionalism at home requires the rejection of imperialism abroad.
Mitt Romney's statements on foreign policy essentially reiterate the Bush position. John McCain is complaining about the "isolationism" that was on display during the New Hampshire debate. We will have to see what comes of the primaries. I have a feeling that insofar as foreign policy concerns matter to Republican voters, they will be more sympathetic to the Tea Party view and less interested in continuing down the path of attempting to transform other nations into democracies.
It will be very interesting to see if the Tea Party element in the GOP can articulate a fully developed foreign policy position that returns us to our original principles. Bachmann has begun the conversation, we will have to see how it develops.
I am very interested to see what contributors and members of Ricochet think about the direction American foreign policy should take. I think we should return to the social contract principles of the Founding (in domestic policy too). But I look forward to hearing what others think about the possibility and/or desirability of a return to our Founding principles in foreign affairs.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
Libya was undertaken basically for the benefit of allies -- Great Britain and France. Libya is in their back yard and they have large economic interests there, particularly oil, but also construction projects. Our national defense interest there is one of backing up allies who are backing us up in Afghanistan. These are exactly the kinds of entangling alliances George Washington warned us against.
So my question to you is: Do you see us untangling ourselves from our entangling alliances? And should we? Will this wind up fracturing the GOP with McCain, the Weekly Standard crowd, and Fox News going its own way?
Jan '11
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
I agree with the general argument that a little bit of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that if we can catch foreign situations before they develop into problems, it makes a lot of sense.
Unfortunately, our recent experience is that while it may be true in principle ... in practice we suck at it.
Case in point - Pakistan. Is our presence helping things? Pakistan is a compartmentalized state. They funnel all of our attention, money, and resources to the compartment that keeps the status quo. It never changes the portion of the Pakistani government that helps the enemy we're there to fight. We're like hamsters on a wheel. If we put more resources into it, the wheel goes faster, but the cage never moves.
Jul '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
We had a rather extensive conversation about this back in December.
Mar '11
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
The "it's their back yard, let them handle it" thing never lasts. We went into Yugoslavia, after all. If there was a textbook example of something Europeans should have handled themselves, that was it. We always get sucked into it, though.
Jul '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
As Obama's leveling policies have the effect of reducing us from superpower to just another nation under the sun, no matter or worse than any other, it is logical that we cut back on our global cop duties except insofar as they can be performed within multilateral arrangements, preferably led by someone else. The vainglorious French seem willing to assume that role. If our partners are unwilling to pull their share of the load, we should feel under no obligation to take up the slack. As we withdraw to a more modest role, there should be an easing of the spasms of anti-Americanism that have been a feature of the postwar age. I'm good with people hating the Chinese for a change.
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
Great questions. I don't think the US will simply pull out of NATO etc. I do think it is possible (and desirable) to view our existing alliances in light of the earlier principles. In other words, we should understand our treaty commitments in light of our obligation to secure the rights of Americans while respecting the rights of non-Americans.
I don't think the GOP will fracture on the foreign policy question alone. I will try to say more about the possibility of a split in a longer post.
Hang On: Libya was undertaken basically for the benefit of allies -- Great Britain and France. Libya is in their back yard and they have large economic interests there, particularly oil, but also construction projects. Our national defense interest there is one of backing up allies who are backing us up in Afghanistan. These are exactly the kinds of entangling alliances George Washington warned us against.
So my question to you is: Do you see us untangling ourselves from our entangling alliances? And should we? Will this wind up fracturing the GOP with McCain, the Weekly Standard crowd, and Fox News going its own way? · Jun 20 at 7:15am
Jul '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
I think the big shift in public opinion about military adventurism had come on the Right. The anti-War left is more quiescent these days, out of deference to President Obama, but their views haven't fundamentally changed.
On the Right, there was always a feeling that however inept government might be in all other arenas, Republican governments put on a really good war.
The disaster in Iraq and the endless quagmire in Afghanistan have demonstrated that the United States government isn't much good at war, either.
Conservatives have always been committed to supporting our troops once they're deployed. But now that we see, for ten long years, so much sacrifice for so little benefit to national security, we're increasingly inclined to think that the best way to honor our troops is to bring them home.
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
An interesting post. But, I find it difficult for conservatives to embrace American Exceptionalism without also accepting the moral burden that comes with such power. There is a fine case to be made that neoconservatism (a foreign policy view I largely hold) has led us slightly beyond our means (in a strategic sense, not financial - we still are spending historical % levels of GDP on military spending), but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't necessarily buy the argument that the Founding Fathers were so contained in their expectations for American foreign policy. We practiced (correctly) disproportionate response in the Barbary Wars, which also illustrated the wide range of foreign policy powers the President was given in the original understanding of the Constitution. Furthermore, post WW2, we have a newfound moral burden - one that stems from the core belief in natural rights that the Founders held dear- with our superpower status, that can be fulfilled both constitutionally and to our own benefit.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 5:48pmApr '11
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
I think a lot of conservatives are OK with sending troops for a limited engagement but are tired of spending huge money for nearly a decade in Afghanistan and seeing little to show for it. Many also wonder why we are still spending money to defend wealthy countries like Germany, when the Soviet Union is history. It's not across-the-board isolationism, it's about prioritizing limited resources.
May '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
American has a moral burden to live up to those values that make it exceptional, and the process of doing so has largely been domestic. There is no moral burden to make the rest of the world exceptional also.
May '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
Well, I'd very much like this also, unfortunately it isn't going to happen unless US power takes a hard fall. The idea that the US as a superpower mandates that it have an activist foreign policy (whether to spread its wealth, regulate the world, force democracy, or maintain the world balance of power) has inculcated every level of the foreign policy apparatus from academia, through the bureaucracies, up to the policy-making levels. Good luck finding anyone who's going to break through this wall.
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
I wonder, John, whether it is accurate to describe the Republican hawks as foreign-policy progressives. Nation-building, which we did in Germany and Japan after World War II, can be a legitimate act of long-term self-defense. We did something similar in Greece in the 1940s and the 1950s. I think, for example, that our effort in Iraq can be defended in these terms. But if they had no oil, I would be making no such argument.
Where do you stand on Iran? None of our business? Or a threat that needs to be dealt with now before it is too late?
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
The idea isn't as much to make the rest of the world exceptional, but rather that our exceptionalism exists because we are mindful, as a nation, of the condition of peoples beyond our borders. Our commitment to foreign aid, wars without territorial gain, policies like the Marshall Plan, etc. define our exceptionalism. With our power and general moral code, comes the responsibility to protect human dignity/natural rights on a larger stage. Granted, we are bound by realities, but the desire and commitment can exist in degrees.
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I think that governing without consent can be legitimate when it is a matter of securing our rights. The offending nation is deprived of their rights as they are still dangerous.
Providing aid (as in Greece after WWII) can be prudent and just if it helps to secure our rights/way of life. I think government without consent is a different issue though.
Iran needs to be watched carefully. (The main threat now seems to be to our forces in the Middle East.) If they threaten to harm us and possess the means to do so, then we have every right to take action. I would not however endorse a long-term occupation or /nation-building. I think it is at the least imprudent and at worst unjust.
The Republican Hawks seem to me to be close to TR and Wilson, while the Democrats vacillate between the older Progressive vision and the post-1968 self-loathing of the New Left.
Bush-43's Second Inaugural is a great example of Progressive rhetoric (in both domestic and foreign policy).
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
Fellow editor Mollie Hemingway alerted me to Ross Douthat's column in the NYT today in which he considers a similar question to the one you pose in this post. He points to two titans of the Tea Party, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, and explores how nearly diametrically opposed the foreign policy views of these two Senators are.
I think Paul's position is more consistent with the character of the Tea Party, but only because he emphasizes our dire fiscal position. How hypocritical it would be for the Tea Party to cry about the "debt menace," and then to engage in nation building activities that further compound the problem.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 8:43pmRe: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
We might be taking that hard fall right now with the growing economic and budget crises!
Kofola
Well, I'd very much like this also, unfortunately it isn't going to happen unless US power takes a hard fall. The idea that the US as a superpower mandates that it have an activist foreign policy (whether to spread its wealth, regulate the world, force democracy, or maintain the world balance of power) has inculcated every level of the foreign policy apparatus from academia, through the bureaucracies, up to the policy-making levels. Good luck finding anyone who's going to break through this wall. · Jun 20 at 11:10am
Jul '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
The Hill is just out with a poll showing that 72% of respondents think we're involved in too many foreign conflicts. The numbers on Afghanistan are devastating.
Jul '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
Harry Graver, Intern
The idea isn't as much to make the rest of the world exceptional, but rather that our exceptionalism exists because we are mindful, as a nation, of the condition of peoples beyond our borders. Our commitment to foreign aid, wars without territorial gain, policies like the Marshall Plan, etc. define our exceptionalism. With our power and general moral code, comes the responsibility to protect human dignity/natural rights on a larger stage. Granted, we are bound by realities, but the desire and commitment can exist in degrees. · Jun 20 at 11:41am
War and oppression are as old as mankind. The United States wasn't born to fix all the world's ills.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 8:52pmRe: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
This poll is the flip-side of the shift away from the Bush Doctrine manifested by most of the candidates at the New Hampshire Debate. Ron Paul joked that the difference between now and four years ago was that his fellow candidates agree with him! That is an overstatement, but there is a big dollop of truth in it.
May '10
Re: Reconsidering American Foreign Policy
John Grant, Guest Contributor: We might be taking that hard fall right now with the growing economic and budget crises!
Jun 20 at 11:46am
Unfortunately, all too true. Even so, if the Russian and French serve as any kind of example, old habits in US foreign policy may still die hard.