Foreign Policy Realism

[Ethereal]

I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.

[Adelaide]

I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.

I think that it might be more challenging now economically, as well as diplomatically. For example, oil and gas. Technology. Countries willing to allow what is essentially slave labor for more affordable goods. It sort of forces the United States to trade with countries that are less desirable and removes some of the control. It would be unrealistic to say the US could be autonomous or fill those gaps.

For the record, you can be a solid ally without being the world police that gets into everyone's business. That option exists. I agree about your description of wars, and it sort of bothers me that this notion of "spreading democracy" still exists when the countries involved often revert back to a version of government that is worse than what was previously in place. Let people/nations sort out their own $#@! unless they suddenly become a threat to US interests.

[Peter1469]

The US agreed to be the "world police" at Breton Woods (1944) in exchange for the USD becoming the reserve currency.

[Dr. Who]

I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.

I think there is a difference between remaining politically neutral vs being politically amoral. Remaining the former, rather than the latter is important. Trading with those who are committing genocide is the latter and is a cause for concern. A nation can choose to have moral principles and yet still retain neutrality where neutrality means neither aiding nor abetting or actively intervening in the politics of another nation.

[ripmeister]

If only it were so simple.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Remember the Geopolitcials imperative that guides the United States

1. Control of the Mississippi basin and the port of New Orleans.

2. Control of the seas to allow access to trade or in turn deny that access

3. Ensure no great power arises to dominate the Eastern Hemisphere in the manner the US dominates the Western.

This third point is relevant to this discussion. The German Empire WW1, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union were all threats to do that in the last century. They had to be contained or defeated. The US does not mind that great powers exist in the Eastern Hemisphere it is just they can not dominate. So we are always in away making sure there is competition and in fact chaos.

The China threat is building the same way. This is why we will build alliances and be good with Japan re arming and we will supply Taiwan etc.. It is same old same old.

We are not trying to really make everything "all good" just keeping others off base.

[Chris]

Agree, if I understood correctly, the US should pursue our interests and ours alone and not use foreign policy or trade policy to meddle in other nations and promote what some feel is moral, ethical, democratic, humanitarian, whatever abstraction the elites try to sell today.

[ripmeister]

Agree, if I understood correctly, the US should pursue our interests and ours alone and not use foreign policy or trade policy to meddle in other nations and promote what some feel is moral, ethical, democratic, humanitarian, whatever abstraction the elites try to sell today.

Of course the rub there is what "is in our interest".

[Chris]

Of course the rub there is what "is in our interest".

Just as what is the good of the world would be.

In our interests is best defined as the interests of the people and not the state, such as keeping trade open and free.

[ripmeister]

Just as what is the good of the world would be.

In our interests is best defined as the interests of the people and not the state, such as keeping trade open and free.

I'd agree with you on that one. Is it in our interest to help potentially failed states and the extremism they engender?