A primer on foreign policy

There are essentially three ”schools” of foreign policy in America, the realists, the isolationists and the liberal internationalists. Of course there are an infinite number of shadings between and within these positions, but in their purest forms these are the three main foreign policy positions in our nation today.

Realists see the world as a jumble of nations and groups each pursuing their own self-interests, each with their own differing agendas and cultural world views. Realists see the task of American foreign policy to be the advancement of American self-interest in this global competition by whatever pragmatic means are effective, even if it occasionally means working with or supporting unsavory regimes. Although this sounds heartless and Machiavellian, realists would argue that unrealistic idealism endangers our nation.

To see how foreign policy realists think, read the recent book American and the World by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, or Henry Kissinger’s Does America Need a Foreign Policy: Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century or Kissinger’s seminal 1994 book Diplomacy. Han’s Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1974) is also a good introduction to this view.

Isolationists, sometimes called Jacksonians because they espouse principles enunciated by Andrew Jackson, believe that American should tend to its own business and not involve itself more than the minimum necessary with the affairs of other nations. George Washington’s admonition for the new United States to avoid “entangling alliances” fits this view. Isolationists are not in favor of American intervention abroad for any reason – humanitarian or political -- and pure isolationist tend to believe in protectionist trade policies – keeping jobs at home. Isolationists also tend to be suspicious of global institutions like the UN, and of any arrangement that involves America giving up any national sovereignty. The “America First” movement at the start of World War II was an expression of relatively pure isolationism, and many of the subsequent pacifist and anti-war movements are essentially isolationist in their outlook.

There probably aren’t too many pure isolationists, but there is a strong isolationist vein running through the American electorate, which showed itself in America’s reluctance to enter World War I, and then World War II until we ourselves were attacked, and has reappeared loudly every time America has contemplated a serious international intervention, from Korea to Iraq.

I have never found a book that gives a good argument for a pure isolationist foreign policy in today’s world, but some insight into the position can be gained from The Isolationist Impulse: Its Twentieth Century Reaction, by Selig Adler.

Liberal internationalists, sometimes called “Wilsonians” because they follow principles enunciated by Woodrow Wilson, believe that America has a moral obligation to actively spread liberal ideas, including democracy, to other nations around the globe. There are significant shadings between those at one end content to just lecture and scold non-liberal governments, and even perhaps impose sanctions, and those at the other end prepared to intervene militarily to overthrow non-liberal governments and forcibly replace them with democracies, but all feel obligated to evangelize for American liberal values. Liberal internationalists tend to place faith in the establishment of global institutions like the UN to promote liberal democracy and keep the peace, and tend often to be highly critical of cooperation with ”unsavory regimes”.

To see how current liberal internationalists think, read the recent book Heads in the Sand: How Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up Democrats by Matt Yglesias, or The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again, by Peter Beinart. Also important would be Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s 1949 book The Vital Center. The historical roots of liberal internationalism can be found, among other places, in the works of Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills.

At one time isolationism was a dominant feature of conservative Republicans, while liberal internationalism was associated primarily with liberal Democrats. However, in recent years these division have blurred beyond recognition, so that in fact the neoconservative Republican Bush administration has adopted the most extreme form of liberal internationalism as a fervent obligation, while some Democrats have argued fiercely for what is almost an isolationist view. These days all three schools can be found within both political parties, and among both liberals and conservatives, and in fact many people espouse a combination of two or even all three of these views simultaneously.

There are valid arguments for all three foreign policy schools. Back when I was a teacher (in another life), at this point students would demand to know which view was “right”, and were always frustrated when I told them that all were right, and all were wrong. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and each might be appropriate in one situation and not another. But I personally lean toward the realist view.

George Washington’s isolationist admonition was probably appropriate for a newly-formed, still weak and largely self-sufficient nation protected by oceans from Europe, but it hardly fits today’s world where America depends upon resources and markets around the globe and can be struck by long-range missiles from thousands of miles away.

Liberal internationalism, it seems to me, is in general based on a narrow and parochial view of the world that assumes that everyone wants (a) peace and (b) democracy. There is nothing in my reading of world history or cross-cultural studies that supports those beliefs. In fact, it seems to me that history teaches that people are far more interested in (a) power, (b) stability, and (c) status, even dominance, for their own tribe, clan, ethnic group, nationality and/or religion. In this respect I think well-off American political elites, living in safe, isolated upper-class communities, are far more naive about human nature than the urban poor who witness the Hobbsian world of gang wars, crime, unequal distribution of wealth and urban violence every day, a world much more like the violent chaos of Africa or the Middle East these days.

Realist policies cannot be perfect because the world is an extremely complex place, and it is not always obvious what course will best advance our cause, or what unintended consequences will emerge. But on balance, it seems to me that the realist approach, not blinded or constrained by religious, political or philosophical ideologies, is more adaptable, quicker to recognize errors and correct them, quicker to adopt promising new ideas, and better grounded in real human nature.

That does not mean that realists have no interest at all in spreading liberal ideas. On the contrary, the wider our liberal democratic views are spread and the rule of law accepted, the safer America becomes, and so spreading liberal ideas where possible is a valid part of realist diplomacy, but for pragmatic reasons, not ideological or moral reasons.