I'm not sure these categories are meaningful when applied to actual U.S. foreign policy behavior. The funding of military force is so entrenched, our historical commitments are so broad, and so...
I'm not sure these categories are meaningful when applied to actual U.S. foreign policy behavior. The funding of military force is so entrenched, our historical commitments are so broad, and so much "foreign policy" is actually conducted by or on behalf of international corporations and finance, that it's hard to make a coherent case for any administration's particular position on the spectrum.
Any nation's foreign policy is an amalgamation of ideology, lobbying, bureaucratic influence, academic influence, and personal biases. The existence of multiple influence on the foreign policy...
Any nation's foreign policy is an amalgamation of ideology, lobbying, bureaucratic influence, academic influence, and personal biases. The existence of multiple influence on the foreign policy decision making process, however, doesn't make taking a deeper look at any one source of influence less useful. While politicians do often act in ways contrary to their foreign policy promises they made on the campaign trail, I think these categories are useful because they are 1) the framework for a politician's approach to foreign policy and 2) what the leaders of other countries see when they look to the US' internal politics.
I think it's more a measure of individual leader's temperamental inclinations than actual national foreign policy activity. Temperament is a valid yardstick for autocracies. Yet even autocrats'...
I think it's more a measure of individual leader's temperamental inclinations than actual national foreign policy activity. Temperament is a valid yardstick for autocracies. Yet even autocrats' temperamental inclinations change over time as mortal insecurities kick in.
Confusing leader temperament and action in countries with diffused power leads to dangerous miscalculations, like Putin's assumption that Western Europe was too fractious, money-driven, and passively anti-interventionist to care about the Ukraine invasion.
Foreign policy is likely to feature prominently at the Republican presidential primary debates. At the debate in August, a question on whether the candidates would support continued U.S. assistance to Ukraine produced a firestorm. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who had previously suggested that Russia’s war in Ukraine was not a “vital” national interest, appeared skeptical, calling on Europe to do more instead. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy was more direct in opposing such aid, calling it “disastrous” for the United States to be “protecting against an invasion across somebody else’s border.” Former Vice President Mike Pence and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, on the other hand, expressed strong support for assisting Ukraine, effectively standing behind President Joe Biden’s efforts to counter Russian aggression while imploring the United States to do even more.
On the other side of the aisle, some Democrats have been wary of Biden’s policy on Ukraine, as evidenced by a letter (that was later retracted) sent to the president by progressive Democrats, calling for a diplomatic end to the conflict and potential sanctions relief for Russia.
In today’s polarized political atmosphere, such cross-cutting views may appear confounding. On most domestic policy issues, whether political leaders have an R or a D next to their name is often a pretty good guide to their take on any particular issue. But when it comes to foreign policy, the normal rules of politics do not apply. Instead, of much greater relevance is where a political leader falls on the foreign-policy ideology spectrum.
I'm not sure these categories are meaningful when applied to actual U.S. foreign policy behavior. The funding of military force is so entrenched, our historical commitments are so broad, and so much "foreign policy" is actually conducted by or on behalf of international corporations and finance, that it's hard to make a coherent case for any administration's particular position on the spectrum.
Any nation's foreign policy is an amalgamation of ideology, lobbying, bureaucratic influence, academic influence, and personal biases. The existence of multiple influence on the foreign policy decision making process, however, doesn't make taking a deeper look at any one source of influence less useful. While politicians do often act in ways contrary to their foreign policy promises they made on the campaign trail, I think these categories are useful because they are 1) the framework for a politician's approach to foreign policy and 2) what the leaders of other countries see when they look to the US' internal politics.
I think it's more a measure of individual leader's temperamental inclinations than actual national foreign policy activity. Temperament is a valid yardstick for autocracies. Yet even autocrats' temperamental inclinations change over time as mortal insecurities kick in.
Confusing leader temperament and action in countries with diffused power leads to dangerous miscalculations, like Putin's assumption that Western Europe was too fractious, money-driven, and passively anti-interventionist to care about the Ukraine invasion.
Archive