Where do you Stand?

On American foreign policy, using Walter Russell Mead's typology

[Note: this post was supposed to go up on 9/21. I inadvertently sent it out on 9/17 and then unpublished it, rescheduling it for the intended date.]

Answer two questions. For each question, say which position you agree with more.

1. Do you prefer (idealism) America in its foreign policy should try to do the right thing morally; or (realism) The world is a tough place, and America cannot afford the luxury of trying for moral purity?

2. Do you prefer (activism) America has to actively engage in the world; or (humility) America should try to keep a low profile?

There are four combinations of answers: idealism/activism, realism/activism, idealism/humility, and realism/humility.

Consider Ukraine. Idealism/activism says to back Ukraine on principle, because Putin is evil. Realism/activism says to back Ukraine to weaken Russia and bolster Western Europe. Idealism/humility says not to back Ukraine because it’s our fault Russia invaded in the first place (or so this type of person alleges). Realism/humility says not to back Ukraine because it’s none of our business.

For this typology, I owe a debt to Walter Russell Mead’s book, Special Providence. Mead in turn owes a debt to David Hackett-Fischer’s Albion’s Seed.

What I call idealism/activism is what Mead calls Wilsonian. What I call realism/activism is what he calls Hamiltonian. What I call idealism/humility he calls Jeffersonian. And what I call realism/humility he calls Jacksonian.

I would put President Obama in the idealism/activism camp. I would put President Trump in the realism/humility camp, at least in terms of foreign policy rhetoric (humility is certainly not his personality characteristic). Actually, I think that the poster child for realism/humility was Pat Buchanan. By Buchanan’s standards, Mr. Trump was way too sympathetic to Israel.

The poster child for realism/activism might be Jeanne Kirkpatrick, another figure from the late 20th century. Or we could go back even further to Richard Nixon. Nixon’s opponent in 1972, George McGovern, can serve as the exemplar of idealism/humility (“Come home, America”).

Mead sees American foreign policy historically as a fortuitous blend of all four tendencies. We need some idealism and some realism. Activism is prudent sometimes, and humility is prudent sometimes.

I myself lean strongly toward realism rather than idealism. But concerning activism/humility, I can make a case for either side. I think that the world is a better place with the United States as a hegemon. On the other hand, I have the libertarian’s wariness of government’s clumsiness when intervening in domestic affairs, and that wariness is even stronger when it comes to intervention abroad. In the instance of Ukraine, I see our foreign policy elites as on the activist side, and I find myself on the humility side.