Which of the four schools of American foreign policy are you?

[RandomUser]

Poll question: Which of the four schools of American foreign policy are you?

I'm not sure I agree with all of Walter Russell Reade's categorizations. However, although it may be fuzzy around the edges, I think it does provide a better way to look at American foreign policy forces other than hawk/dove.

http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

Everyone is a mixture, but which of the four schools is dominant in you?

(edited for grammar)

[IrateCitizen]

1. Tied between Wilsonian and Jeffersonian

Wilsonian in the sense that I fully support international institutions, Jeffersonian in the sense that I believe that our primary emphasis must be ensuring Democratic principles here at home, and that task alone is a full-time job.

[Ediacara]

15. me too

[lostnfound]

28. me also

I disagree with Wilsonian to the extent that it is willing to subvert democracy abroad (through coups etc) to achieve the US economic value of capitalism;
and I disagree with Jeffersonian to the extent that it avoids / devalues things like international courts, UN, global-warming treaties, etc.

[LWolf]

36. Me, too.

:kick:

[tom_paine]

2. Wilsonian and Jeffersonian, also

For similar reasons.

[ithacan]

3. Wilsonian equals missionaries

It is scary that this is probably the most common view among Americans, including among progressives and liberals...

Wilsonians believe that both the moral and national interests of the United States are best served by spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world. ... The tens of thousands of missionaries sent abroad from the US in the 19th century, for example, are an exemplar of Wilsonian thinking.

Spreading American values around the world is not really that different from spreading Christianity... In both cases, the missionaries really believe they are sharing something wonderful with the poor benighted heathens in the rest of the world, ignoring social, cultural, and political values in those societies themselves, all of which contain ways of thinking about justice and participatory decision making.

I personally don't like any of these four schools.

[RandomUser]

4. Wilsonian also equals peace corps

These schools are not tied to any political party.

[ithacan]

5. and peace corps is a kind of missionary activity

Now of course some people who join the peace corps realize this and shift to a different way of thinking, just as some missionaries did.

But the Peace Corps is very much a missionary activity: we are going to help these poor people, bestow our beneficence upon them and lift them out of their savagery to American standards...

Is that how you would think about helping a friend who was in need? Probably not.

Yes, this flies in the face of the Wilsonian self image of beneficence and generosity, but that's exactly what is wrong with it in the first place.

[RandomUser]

7. Humanitarian interventions and the UN are also Wilsonian

I don't disagree with you that the peace corp and missionaries and UN humanitarian interventions and supporting the UN are all Wilsonian. I'm just pointing out that these four schools are not inherently good or evil, simply the manifestation of distinct philosophies of how American foreign policy should be conducted.

They don't follow any particular political party, and you will find them interacting to change the balance of power in American foreign policy, causing unlikely alliances between elements of the two parties.

For instance the Jeffersonians are the ones who oppose sending US troops to stop genocides in foreign countries. They're the ones who want to pull out of the UN. But they're also the ones who oppose the Iraq war. You see them in the paleo-conservatives in the republican party, and the anti-war protesters of the Democratic party.

Elements of the Wilsonians pushed hard to get the UN on board and opposed unilateral action because it would hurt the UN. But elements of the Wilsonians are also the ones who approve of using troops to get rid of Saddam and spread the concept of human rights.

[RandomUser]

8. BTW, which school are you?

I'm guessing it's not Wilsonian. :)

[ithacan]

9. I don't like any of them

I think Wilsonianism is especially problematic for the same reason missionaries are, and we are seeing the results right now in the form of the Bush foreign policy.

That is, policies that are cloaked in terms of righteousness, in terms of spreading our way, which basically is rejecting the realities of other societies and imposing our own values. This kind of foreign policy, just like missionary work, is not about the people in iraq or wherever, it's about ourselves.

So while Wilsonianism does appeal to americans because it makes us feel good about ourselves, it is a dangerous way to look at the world.

[RandomUser]

10. Then how do you approach foreign policy?

Do you believe that America's economic power and well-being should be the primary focus of foreign policy? (Hamiltonian)

Do you believe we should stay out of international affairs and tend to home democracy? (Jeffersonian)

Realize that no one is purely one school or another. You will not find yourself identifying totally with any one school. But which is the driving force behind your foreign policy positions?

[Bombtrack]

11. except we actually DO know whats better for them

if you don't think the west needs to wage an IDEOLOGICAL war with the middle east, if by no other way than empowering and standing by moderate leaders, then you're really off your rocker in my opinion.

You're post sounded like you thought that middle eastern society was just as good as the western industrialized world. Well it isn't, and LIBERALS shouldn't pretend it is. It's a region drowning in everthing that is wrong with humanity, largely as a result of the history of both the great eastern and western powers, and there greed and neglect, and liberals should admit the former, not just the latter

[Iverson]

14. disagreement = craziness

That kind of tabloid thinking also gets us into trouble once we aggressively engage a situation that we don't understand, nor feel the need to understand it because, dammit, we're just better than they are.

Cultural arrogance has not served us particularly well, especially lately.

[Bombtrack]

16. enlighten me, how is islamic society so much better than most people think

Why is it that the United States, First world Europe, First world Latin America, Japan, Canada, Australia have so fewer problems when it comes to across-the-board corruption, indocrinating children into vicuous, racist cheuvenists, and exporting suicidal, homicidal, and genocidal maniacs than places like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Lybia, Pakistan, and Egypt, when they are just as good cultures and societies as them?

[IrateCitizen]

17. Because what you're expressing is the "White Man's Burden"

You're right in one respect from your previous post -- we should be supporting moderate voices throughout the Middle East. But we don't do that. We have NEVER done that.

Sure, we had our chance back in the early 1950's in Iran, when Mohammed Mossadeq became President of Iran. But when confronted with the choice between democracy and oil, we helped the the Shah overthrow Mossadeq, cement himself in the seat of power -- and then we helped him while he employed brutal repression on his own people.

The conclusion of that course of action? The Islamic revolution of 1979.

Want to help these people "enlighten" themselves? Deal with them on an equal footing. Stop supporting repression and ignorance (the two biggest contributors to fundamentalism).

But to think of Western civilization -- perhaps the most brutal civilization, overall, to those who were not "Western" -- as their savior, is just the height of arrogance. It's not much different that McKinley's belief that we needed to "civilize" the Filipinos, used to justify the brutal massacres that were carried out on them.

[Bombtrack]

19. "as a result of the history of both the great eastern and western powers..

..and there greed and neglect" did you even read my post? I know the history, you need not explain it to me. But the narrow-minded attitute of many on the left is that US foriegn policy, particularly has not improved steadily over the decades to today, but it has. Even Chomsky admits that.

If you truely, acurately have to compare one other state the US too, because it has been the only other superpower, it's the USSR. And America and the west won because they were the superior force, both in economic ideology and a MORE JUST foriegn policy.

The SOVIETS did as much as they could to NAZIFY the middle east, because Israel decided to ally itself with the west. They deserve more blame than many of the vocal leftists who tend to give your type of argument give.

[lostnfound]

29. source?

Where does Chomsky 'admit that'? I always here him say that the US actions have pretty much remained consistent over the years. As far as I know, he suggests that the thinking of the general public about foreign affairs has improved..people more aware after Vietnam, for example..but not the actions of the government?

[the_boxer_]

41. Thank you Iratecitizen...

I'm glad that ithican, Iverson, and you are here and understand the "influence" the US has had in places like the ME.

A hearty toast to you all!

:toast:

[the_boxer_]

40. Agreed Iverson!!

:yourock:

[Aidoneus]

31. I agree

"liberals" should not shrink from expressing the white supremecist views they hold--and if you've visited the lounge lately, you'd know that hesitation towards openly honestly expressing such views is not a problem around here. I wish more could be as honest in expressing these views as you are now, as it makes things a lot easier in these days of resurgent "Western" fascism.

[the_boxer_]

42. Thank you Aidoneus...

Excellent post again, my friend.

[Aidoneus]

32. Well, the feeling is mutual

I think you're off your rocker for having such aggressive white supremecist views, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree..

[ithacan]

34. white man's burden and all of that

Aidon, this guy's great, he is showing that there's a straight line of continuity between the 19th century racist imperialists and missionaries and their attitude of "White Man's Burden" and lots of people in the US today.

The guy's clueless, but doesn't even know it.

Like so many Americans, thinks he knows what's going on in the world because he watches US media, reads US sources. Wonder if he actually speaks any other language or has spent any time living in any society other than his own... :eyes:

[the_boxer_]

39. I disagree in part...

The ME is in shambles, correct. However, we enable most of these thugocracies (Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia) with our meddling). I'm Wilsonian if the mission is close to altruistic. Even then it benefits us to have stable democratic and independent nations in the ME.

I wouldn't, however, look down upon the ME as some backwards part of the world. There are many independent thinkers flowing out of there. The US, however has stymied their advancement as a society in my opinion.

[eridani]

59. Not really

Plenty of people there share our values. In Iran, people like that were in power in 1953, until 'the West' decided it didn't like secular democrats who vote to control their own resources. The US and Britain in particular have supported every craven dictator in that area as an alternative to secular democracy, so all the very understandable opposition has been pushed in the direction of religious fundamentalism. (And even the latter has been financed heavily by the US, as in Afghanistan in the 80s.)

In short, ME society is exactly what 'the West' has wanted it to be, to the disgust of its inhabitants who actually do share our values. Here is a feminist human rights lawyer, our newest Nobel Peace laureate. However uncomfortable her own society is for her, she wants no part of our 'help.' Exactly what part of PISS OFF!!! WE'D RATHER DO IT OURSELVES!!! is it that you don't understand?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1210-02.htm

"In the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of Sept. 11 and the war on international terrorism as a pretext," she said in a prepared acceptance speech.

"Regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms ... have been justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism."

Wearing no headscarf for the ceremony, the 56-year-old who won the $1.4 million prize for her work for the rights of women and children in Iran, lashed out at what she called breaches of the Geneva conventions at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay military jail.

Ebadi, who has become a symbol of reformist hope in Iran while labeled a political stooge of the West by conservative clerics, also pointed a finger at her own government, urging Tehran to accept that reform is inevitable.

"In fact, it is not so easy to rule over a people who are aware of their rights, using traditional, patriarchal and paternalistic methods," she said.

[the_boxer_]

38. Hmmm...thanks ithacan...

Good post.

:toast:

[RobinA]

48. I Am a Wilsonian

who does not necessarily believe in sending missionaries throughout the world spreading the good word about Democracy. However, I do think that our system, despite its many flaws, is a lot better than many of the tyrant-spawning systems out there. If a tiny group of dissidents in a country existing under totalitarianism wants to avail itself of American assistance, I have no objection to us being ready, willing and able to help out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Wilsonian - in the sense of supporting the UN.

You know, one of those dreaded "one-worlders" the freepers fret about.

[Zuni]

12. In terms of foreign policy I am a Wilsonian

foremost.

[Zuni]

13. lets rate the Presidents sine WWII

FDR---mainly Jeffersonian in the 30s, Wilsonian during the war.
Truman---Mix between Wilsonian and Jacksonian tendencies
Eisenhower---mix between Hamiltonian-Jacksonian tendencies
JFK---Jeffersonain and Jacksonian in roughly equal parts
LBJ---Wilsonian and Jeffersonian, but mainly jeffersonian by INSTINCT, not practice.
Nixon---Hamiltonian
Ford---Hamiltonian. Nixon and Ford strongly under influence of the ultimate hamiltonian, kissinger.
Carter---Wilsonian
Reagan---Jacksonian
George HW Bush---Hamiltonian
Clinton---Wilsonian and hamiltonian
George W---Jacksonian

[IrateCitizen]

18. JFK Jeffersonian? You've got to be kidding!

JFK was probably more Jacksonian and Hamiltonian in equal parts.

[Bombtrack]

20. JFK was a hawk

not a chickenhawk, but he certainly was no isolationist

I think his involvement with the UN in the cuban missle crisis(an involvement that was inherently Wilsonian/Hamiltonian, in which he avoided the Jacksonian(first strike) option, proves he was a mish mash, but certainly NOT a Jeffersonian. Europe loved him too much to be a Jeffersonian

[RandomUser]

21. Interesting list

I agree with much of it, although I might have a quibble or two about a few entries. But that does seem comprehensive.

These four schools are informative in that they explain why some people are Doves in some wars and Hawks in others. The fact that they're guided by a school of thought makes them internally consistent even when they seem to be changing their hawk/dove status.

For instance, it explains why a Hamiltonian would support a war to oust Saddam from Kuwait but would oppose a war to intervene in Rwanda. American foreign policy is shaped by elements of these four schools banding together and splintering on different positions.

[RandomUser]

22. kick for the night crowd

:kick:

[MGKrebs]

23. Hmm. None appeal to me, but it's a new framework for me,

so I hope this stays kicked for a while as I contemplate. Or perhaps I will ruminate instead.

:-)

[RandomUser]

26. It's not so much about appeal, but about how you approach foreign policy

The four schools all aim for the same end state of a prosperous and secure America. But they disagree on how to achieve that end state, and consequently they each approach foreign policy differently. On any issue, you will find two or more of the schools allied against the remainder. The changing alliances influence foreign policy.

[sandnsea]

24. Wilsonian

I think our interests are best secured with active engagement around the world in a peaceful way. Not to mention it's just the decent thing to do.

[incapsulated]

25. All of them

Every one of these "doctrines" are applicable depending on the particular foriegn policy situation.

Although the Wilsonian view may be attractive as an ideal, it can turn into a inpractical delusion when faced with rouge nations that have no interest in "international law", like Germany in the thirties. Given that circumstance, you would want a more "realistic" defensive minded Jacksonian approach. And neither one deals with the realities of a global economy. Both the Hamiltonian and the Jeffersonian views should be taken into consideration when deciding international economic policy. I don't believe in "pure" capitalism or protectionism. There has to be a mixture of both to thrive in a global economy while protecting the economic and human rights of individual states.

[RandomUser]

27. Any DU'ers from outside the US?

I would be interested in what non-US people think of these four schools.

[Aidoneus]

30. None of the above

A pox on the four of those rogues.

[RandomUser]

33. What is your basic approach to foreign policy?

Generally speaking, what do you see as the primary goal of American foreign policy? How do you think it should be used or approached?

[ithacan]

35. here's the problem

it's the problem of Galadriel and the ring. remember the scene where frodo offers her the ring? She's goodness embodied, so if she has the ring it's good, right?

Wrong.

And she is wise enough to know it. She knows that if she has unlimited power it will NOT result in goodness.

That's part of the problem here. The US has too much power. And regardless of the "good intentions" of any American, that power is the problem. We all know about the road to hell...

[IrateCitizen]

43. That analogy is a bit of a stretch, ithacan...

BUT, your point is dead-on. The biggest downfall of the United States is proving to be the same downfall of just about every major empire throughout modern history: ARROGANCE. We are so convinced that we are a paragon of virtue and have the divine right to tell others how things should be done, we are completely blind to how badly we are actually fucking things up.

[the_boxer_]

52. Agreed!

[RandomUser]

46. So you're a Jeffersonian

See? I knew you would fit into one of the schools.

[IrateCitizen]

49. Not exactly, because Jefferson expressed his own arrogance...

... about what America was. For example, Jeffersonians eschew international institutions because they feel that the American experiement is somehow superior to the rest of the world.

Ithacan is expressing a very different view -- that America has it's own very deep faults, and believing otherwise is expressing the fatal flaw of arrogance.

[RandomUser]

50. Whatever his motivations, his approach is Jeffersonian

The schools are about how one generally approaches foreign policy, not just one's motivations. Emphasis on "generally" since no one is 100% one school.

There are people of any school on both sides of the isle holding diametrically opposed motivations, but subscribe to the same school's approach to foreign policy. There are pro-NAFTA Hamiltonians, and there are anti-NAFTA Hamiltonians. The schools are not inherently good or evil or partisan. They say nothing of ones intentions, but of one's dominant method of approaching foreign policy issues.


That's part of the problem here. The US has too much power.

He's alarmed by use of American power in international affairs.

And regardless of the "good intentions" of any American, that power is the problem.

That power is only in the context of potentially being wielded in the international arena. Thus, turning away from international matters renders this power irrelevant.

We all know about the road to hell...

He's concerned about use of American power in international affairs damaging domestic democracy. That this is the road to hell.

And your statement: For example, Jeffersonians eschew international institutions because they feel that the American experiement is somehow superior to the rest of the world.

I would remind you that he has stated been alarmed by America's power, and thus he does believe that America is superior in that respect to the rest of the world in at least this respect.

[ithacan]

54. you have misunderstood and misread what I was saying

I'm not talking only about the use of US power. I am alarmed by the fact that the US actually has that power.

That power is bad for both the world, but if you want to look at it narrowly, also for the US.

As for the road to hell, no, that did not mean I was worred about US power in int'l affairs damaging domestic democracy.

It meant that I see US power used to oppress and suppress people, societies and cultures around the world, even if that power is used in ways that Americans would see as "good," eg Peace Corps. So even with the best of intentions, the US messes things up for others, in part because of the attitudes that are encapsulated in all four of the schools you list.

As for superiority, you are twisting things here. Jefferson and most Americans are seeing the US as superior in terms of values, "the American experiment", etc. That is very different from saying that objectively speaking the US military is by far the most powerful in the world, the US economic ditto.

[RandomUser]

55. Would you say it would be a fair assessment

that you agree with this statement? "Americans should do everything to stay out of international affairs."

[ithacan]

56. that is impossible

The fact of US power and ideology makes this impossible...

I understand that what I think should happen will never happen, that it is not representative of any signficant number of americans, and that although I am an american my views do not fall within the mainstream. That is why I don't agree with the four schools; all of them are based on the assumption of national interest, of nationalism itself.

Maybe it's because when I approach or think about the international arena I cannot think about it just in the narrow terms of what the US should or should not do.

[RandomUser]

57. Whether it you believe it possible is not the point

I understand that what I think should happen will never happen

But if that is what you believe should happen, then that will guide your general approach to foreign policy. No one is saying you have to agree with any of the four schools 100%. But even if you don't agree with aspects of the Jeffersonian school, and believe it to be impossible because you're in the minority, the fact that you believe that approach of staying out of international affairs is what should happen is the factor that defines your foreign policy thinking. It would seem to have a distinctly strong Jeffersonian inclination, even if not 100% matching.

[ithacan]

51. no

as I said I reject all of them, or in Aidoneus's words, "A Pox on all your schools."

IrateCitizen is right. I reject Jeffersonianism in part because of this:
Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different.

This in fact is one of the biggest problems with the US, this arrogance and unwillingness to see others as anything other than a) good, ie clones of us; or b) bad, ie different from us.

All of these "schools" are framed in terms of the US's interests. I think that is wrong.

All of these are incredibly US-centric. I understand that. Because all of these are coming out of a very narrow and provincial US experience that focuses on the US in narrowly nationalistic terms.

I think it is wrong to put the lives and interests of Americans above the lives of nonAmericans, for example. I understand most Americans do not see it this way. But I do believe that if the US is going to use force, and thus kill civilians, it should do so only if it was willing to see its own small children be killed to achieve the same goals, for example.

I have to admit that before I actually experienced things outside of the US I was probably a wilsonian. But my experiences abroad, including relationships with nonAmericans, has led me to see US foreign policy as problematic for all of the reasons spelled out in each of the "schools" listed above.

[RandomUser]

53. This is about American foreign policy

and the views held by Americans. Thus, it would naturally be American-centric by definition.

But you would be remiss in dismissing it all as being ignorant of the context of other cultures. For instance, in the book itself, the discussion of the Hamiltonian ideology originates not on American soil but British soil. The Hamiltonians adopted an early foreign policy strategy similar to that of the Brits with respect to dealing with continental Europe.

And the strategies and external values championed by the various schools have changed over time. What remains constant is that the approach and foreign policy execution inclinations of the various schools continues to be the same. That general approach and preference in manner of foreign policy execution is the defining element of each school.

[Aidoneus]

58. ending it

Took a bit to come up with a response to this, considering different ways to approach the question, a short or long reply, but all things considered, that'll do fine. I can expand on that if needed (and it's not difficult to "expand" on a 2-word answer).

[the_boxer_]

37. Wilsonian and Jeffersonian

[supernova]

44. 80% Wilsonian, 20% Jacksonian

That may seem like a contradiction, but it isn't.

While I believe in the UN and that we must protect and expand it's use, I also believe there are certain times, highly rare, where the battle must be won. Don't start wars, but damn well finish them.

[Turkw]

45. tied between Willsonian and Jacksonian

[WoodrowFan]

47. gee, I wonder

Given my nick and my avatar, I wonder which one I voted for. :P

[JohnKleeb]

60. Combo of Wilson and Jefferson

[maggrwaggr]

61. I'm too darned ignorant of history to answer the question

to be perfectly honest.

y'all're so smart on DU! (not kidding!)