User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Toward a New Conservative Foreign Policy Consensus

  1. #1
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Toward a New Conservative Foreign Policy Consensus

    The War if Ukraine if nothing else raises interest foreign policy. Toward a New Conservative Foreign Policy Consensus lays out various views and suggests a new conservative one while admitting debate is taking place on the right. New to this I take no stance. Long, I'll try to paraphrase.

    It begins with views from political scientists and international security specialists. Here there are two positions: realism, "which focuses on the relative power of states in the international system," and liberal internationalism, "which stresses the role of cooperation, norms, and international institutions in the international system." And under these fall various categories: primacy, strategic disengagement, selective engagement, and cooperative internationalism. US policy fits none well.

    Historians offer another view, these deriving largely from Walter Russell Mead's Special Providence. They include Jeffersonians, "concerned primarily with liberty at home, have traditionally been suspicious of a large military and large-scale international projects;" Hamiltonians, "tended to support international engagement in order to support not only American power but also prosperity;" Jacksonians, "support a strong military;" and Wilsonians, "moral missionaries, willing to use force in order to spread democracy." Historically, conservatives have debated among Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, until Bush "combined Wilsonianism and Hamiltonianism, a hybrid that goes under the rubric of 'neoconservative.'"

    Trump foreign policy has been seen as "an explicit rejection of neoconservative foreign policy." It's somewhat a "fusion of Hamiltonianism and Jacksonianism. The author argues it has five pillars: healthy nationalism, "not ethnic or racial nationalism but civic nationalism, better described as patriotism;" state-centric view, Trump called "principled realism"--"views international institutions and global governance with great skepticism" where "cooperation depends on reciprocity;" armed diplomacy, where "understood properly, force and diplomacy are two sides of the same coin;" prioritizing economic growth and leveraging the new geopolitics of energy, that "exploited America’s energy potential to take advantage of the new geopolitics of energy;" and defense of liberal principles, in that "It cannot unilaterally spread democracy throughout the world."

    Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, and Gladden Pappin in “Hawks Are Standing in the Way of a New Republican Party,” rebuke those they accuse of pushing 'liberal imperialism.' Theirs is a denunciation of neoconservatives. They would replace “old, broken fusion of pro-business libertarians, religious traditionalists, and foreign-policy hawks” with a new consensus of two pillars: "The first is a 'sound restraint, especially where the United States doesn’t have formal treaty obligations, and a general retrenchment of the Western alliance’s ambitions.' The second is 'domestic industrial prowess and energy independence.'"

    The author says that lacks prudence, which "requires an examination of the means available in light of the ends one seeks. This means answering these questions: what are the U.S. interests at stake? What are the courses of action available? What are the risks associated with the various courses of action? What is the likelihood of success?"

    The first pillar derives from John Quincy Adams who wrote in 1821, “Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

    The second pillar addresses the shortcomings of market fundamentalism to address strategic issues. "But the sort of “industrial policy” that they recommend has a long history of failure, which they fail to acknowledge."

    U.S. foreign policy has oscillated between idealistic Wilsonianism (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden) and muscular Wilsonianism (George W. Bush and neoconservatives). Trump rejected both.

    Ahmari, Deneen, and Pappin idea of "doctrinaire restraint is just as formulaic and lacking in prudence as the options they criticize."

    The author calls his "Prudent American Realism:" "this general approach has in common is the recognition that the internal character of regimes matters and that our foreign policy must reflect the fundamental principles of democratic republicanism. But unlike liberal internationalism, which holds that international law and institutions alone are sufficient to achieve peace, this approach understands that there are certain problems that can be addressed only through the prudent exercise of power.... Second, a new consensus should accept the need for forward defense, forward presence, and freedom of navigation.... Third, this consensus should recognize that the internal character of regimes matters for U.S. foreign policy, a principle that can be found in Thucydides...the security of a state is enhanced when it is surrounded by others that share its principles and interests. ...Fourth, this consensus must accept the classical connection between force and diplomacy. ...Finally, as the authors of the Times column rightly argue, a new conservative foreign policy consensus should not hesitate to use economic power as an instrument of foreign policy."


    The floor is open to any thoughts and ideas on foreign policy.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (04-02-2022)

  3. #2
    Points: 64,730, Level: 62
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,820
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Xl's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    196597
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    27,967
    Points
    64,730
    Level
    62
    Thanks Given
    6,255
    Thanked 19,792x in 11,974 Posts
    Mentioned
    433 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have always been of the opinion that our foreign policy should be focused on defense and nothing else. Other countries aren't our business, with the exception of Canada and Mexico, who border us.

  4. #3
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm an unapologetic Jeffersonian. The real strength of America is derived from liberty at home. The best foreign policy to preserve liberty in America is one of armed neutrality. Washington explained, in detail, how this worked, and why it was a good policy for America. And contrary to the progressives in both parties, that wisdom is timeless. It applies just as much today as it did back then. In fact, now that there are so many more temptations to intervene in foreign affairs, neutrality is as important as ever. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex spends obscene amounts of money on making sure the military is gigantic and its presence extensive. They are always looking for excuses to get involved militarily, and to use the military to satisfy corrupt ends.
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts