Ideology and American Foreign Policy
This
election year has brought foreign policy to the forefront of public
attention. Many criticized the views of both candidates on world
issues. Some said that Barack Obama was too idealistic and naïve
in his approach when he said he would have presidential talks with
controversial world figures. Others criticized John McCain when he
spoke against hasty withdrawals from Iraq. How much of a role do each
candidate’s ideologies play into their foreign policy
decisions? What roles do ideologies play traditionally in American
politics? American Liberalism has traditionally been more
world-oriented, with emphasis on individual rights, while American
Conservatism has been more nationalistic in its viewpoint, with
emphasis on traditional social values. But this is an overly
simplified analysis of American politics. Individual viewpoints for a
whole populace do not fall on a simple, one-dimensional line from
left-to-right. There are too many variables and nuances involved. It
doesn’t work this way on an individual scale either. According
to Cognitive Scientist George Lakoff:
The left-to-right scale that political pundits love is an inaccurate
metaphor – and a dangerous one… [It] posits a political
“mainstream,” a population with a unified political
worldview, which does not exist now nor has it ever. (Lakoff
45)
This
metaphor, Lakoff argues, “Creates a metaphorical ‘center’
with about a third of the voters located between the two ‘extremes’
– even though their views vary every which way and don’t
constitute a signal mode of thought at all” (Lakoff 46). In
essence, the people dip into both ideological pots, and our leaders
do as well in their processes of policy implementation. Different
actions are based on different modes of thought, either progressive
(liberal) or conservative, and one either legitimizes actions with
one or uses it as a guideline for their actions.
In
our country, American Liberalism has just risen to the position of
dominance in our nation with the election of Barack Obama as our next
President and with the election of a Democrat dominated congress.
American Liberalism aims for the preservation and extension of human,
social, and civil rights and combines social progressivism of the New
Deal Era with Ordoliberalism of modern Germany (Political
Ideologies in the United States). The latter places emphasis
on the government’s duty in creating and maintaining “a
proper legal environment for the economy and maintain[ing] a healthy
level of competition through measures that adhere to market
principles” (Ordoliberalism). Liberalism
places an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, not only to our
own nation but to the entire world. President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt identified four particular freedoms in his speech to
congress on January 6, 1941: (1) the freedom of speech, (2) the
freedom of religion, (3) freedom from want, and (4) freedom from fear
or tyranny (Roosevelt). Roosevelt took us to war in Europe to
preserve these rights among Europeans under the rule of Nazi Germany
and Fascist Italy. A decade before, Woodrow Wilson went to war in
Europe for similar reasons. Wilson pushed for a population’s
right of self-determination, or their right “to change [their
government] in any respect at any time” (Wilson).
Self-Determination was a right granted to Americans through the
United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and
Liberals have traditionally spread that right to the rest of the
world.
American
Conservatives have a different approach. American Conservatism is
described as a combination of economic “lazziez-faire”
liberalism and social conservatism. Conservatives like to keep
government from regulating the economy, and maintain traditional
social values, customs and practices (Political
Ideologies in the United States). With Ronald Reagan and a
rejection of the social liberal and moral relativism movement in the
1960s, the Neo-conservative has risen. The neo-conservatives push for
free-markets, limited welfare, and traditional cultural values. In
international affairs, neoconservatives are categorized as being more
interventionist in defense of national interests (Neoconservatism).
Recent administrations, the Reagan and both Bush White Houses, have
been classified as neoconservative ones, and many criticize them for
taking the nation to war over oil or other national interests.
Conservative’s value a “respect for history, for
experience, and for the stubborn, unpredictable variability of human
beings,” but overall “conservatives worry about growth in
the size and powers of government” (Kirkpatrick).
Conservatives feel that government, in the words of Ronald Reagan, is
the problem and not the solution. Government should stay out of the
free market, and let Capitalism run its course. This includes
reducing government regulation of business and industries and a
reduction of welfare to needy citizens. All this is in relation to
the conservative’s view of the nation. To a conservative, the
nation should only go to war if it benefits our nation and not for
the rights and liberties of citizens of other nations. Conflicts like
that, to a conservative and realist, would seem unnecessary with no
bearing to the nation’s interests and would lead to large-scale
wars. Conservatives would be quick to point out that the U.S. entered
the major conflicts of the 20th Century under the
leadership of Democratic Presidents. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin
Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson have each taken us to war
in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam (Kirkpatrick).
What
roles do these ideologies play in the decisions of our executives?
Mass ideologies have two roles in the Gramscian perspective. The
first is to legitimize the actions of foreign-policy-makers as they
conduct the nation’s business, and the second would be to act
as a guide for the policies to be taken (Augelli 58).
The Liberal Ideologies of propagation of democracy and
self-determination were used in the second Iraq War to legitimize
President George W. Bush’s decision to invade and depose Saddam
Hussein. The same liberal ideologies were used as guides in Woodrow
Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt’s decisions to enter the wars of
their times. President Lyndon Johnson took us to war in Vietnam in
the defense of American national interest in the containment of
communism and Soviet influence, and he used conservative and liberal
ideologies to legitimize and plan it.
The
second Iraq War was not initiated under liberal ideology though.
Liberalism was used to legitimize the invasion after the fact. In
President George W. Bush’s proposals to invade Saddam Hussein’s
country, he cited the traditional Conservative requirement for
intervention: national interest. Bush wanted to invade Iraq to
preserve the national interest of national security. It was said that
Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and
state-sponsoring terrorists. In the post-9/11 environment the nation
was in, it was easy for the populace to approve of any action taken
in the name of national security. It was not until after the
invasion, and no evidence of either weapons of mass destruction of
cooperation with terrorists were found, that public policy began to
emphasize the Liberal reasons for intervention. Suddenly, we went to
war for the “Liberation” of Iraq from their oppressive
regime, to spread democracy in the wake of the tyrannical rule of
Saddam Hussein, and to give the Iraqi people back their civil rights
and liberties. Conservatism was the ideology used to guide Bush’s
policies, while Liberalism was used to legitimize them. Now, I’m
not saying that President Bush used the Liberal ideologies to cover
for his actions after the fact (though it is a possibility), but it
is hard to dismiss the sudden change in ideology. In the execution of
the Iraqi Policy, both American Liberalism and American Conservatism
were used.
President
Bush is leaving office in the coming January to make way for
President-elect Barack Obama. His rather low level of diplomatic
experience has many questioning what type of foreign policies he will
conduct; and what type of ideologies he will procure his decisions
from. Because of the lack of experience from which to glean
information from, one is forced to predict Obama’s method from
speeches and quotes from the campaign. Often, conservative talk radio
hosts accused Obama of being the most liberal senator to hold a seat.
The campaign did support this claim, to a certain degree. Many of
Obama’s proposed solutions were liberal in their approach,
though their motivations were conservative.
Some
of the biggest foreign affairs problems that Obama will have to face
are the growing crises in the Middle East: the Israeli/Palestinian
Conflict, the War on Terror and the growing Iranian threat. In the
former, Obama’s stance has been very liberal, often with him
ruffling feathers by promoting the preservation of Palestinian
rights. This is not to say that Obama is anti-Israel, in fact he has
said, “The idea of a Jewish state is a fundamentally just
idea,” and that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct”
(qtd. in Oren 37). Conservative feathers are ruffled when he calls
for a contiguous Palestinian state “free of Israeli roadblocks
and joined by West Bank-to-Gaza routes,” and furthered when he
meets with the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas (Oren 37). In
Israel and Palestine, Obama appears to be searching for a peaceful
and mutual agreement that both parties can live with, with the intent
to create stability in the region.
During
the campaign, Obama made clear his stance on Iraq and the War on
Terror, using it as the central wedge between himself and his
republican rival, John McCain. Obama renounces the use of pre-emptive
attacks like that in Iraq, preferring to treat acts of terrorism as
criminal acts and prosecuted after the fact by the criminal justice
system (Oren 39). This can be characterized as a rather conservative
approach; in how it is limiting the government’s police power
abroad. Iraq, Obama feels, was a “dangerous diversion”
from the war on terror, and is part of the reason why he wishes to
phase the troops out of Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan and
other terrorist plagued nations (Oren 40-41). His support of the
Supreme Court’s decision on June 12, 2008 was a liberal stance.
The ruling allowed terrorist suspects to petition civilian courts for
an appeal. Obama called the decision: “an important step toward
reestablishing our credibility as a nation” and rejecting a
false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus”
(qtd. in Oren 40).
Obama’s
ideas toward Iran have shaken up the old guard as well. He makes a
bold claim when he says he will sit down with Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He justifies this with the claim that it “will
be necessary to galvanize international support for more forceful
action against Iran, should it become necessary” (Oren 41).
Obama said at an AIPAC conference, “The danger from Iran is
grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat”
(qtd. in Oren 41). He opposes the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran
that would “undercut America’s non-proliferation efforts
worldwide” (Oren 41). It is in that spirit that Obama has taken
the conservative pledge to use “all elements of American
power”, military or not, to stop Iran from going nuclear (Oren
41).
President
Bush is not the only case of Presidents double dipping into both
ideological wells. Wilson did it in World War I, citing national
interest (Conservative) and the defense of civil liberties (Liberal)
for sending American Troops to Europe. Roosevelt cited national
security (Conservative) and a fight against fascism (Liberal) as his
reasons for entering World War II. Truman used the national interest
of containing communism (conservatism) and protecting the rights of
the democratic South Korean people (Liberal) for his intervention in
the Korean War, and Lyndon Johnson cited the same reasons as Truman
when he led us into Vietnam. It appears that Barack Obama will make
use of both ideologies as well. No one individual, not even a
President, falls neatly into one category of Liberal or Conservative.
Both are used to legitimize and guide the actions that are taken.
Liberalism is more universal and pushes for the defense of individual
rights and freedoms around the world, while Conservatism is more
concerned with the nation and its interests, with the preservation of
traditional social values. Everyone uses trains of thought from both
extremes. True, one may identify with one more than the other, but no
one is exclusive to one side. Both sides have their strengths,
deficits, and roles in American Foreign Policy.
Works
Cited
Augelli,
E. and C. Murphy. Ideology and Foreign Policy. 1998. 4
November 2008.
<http://www.colorado.edu/religiousstudies/chernus/4820-
coldwarculture/readings/ideologyandamericanforeignpolicy.pdf>.
Kirkpatrick,
Jeane J. "Defining a Conservative Foreign Policy." 25
August 1993. Heritage.org. 4 November
2008
<http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/hl458.cfm>.
Lakoff,
George. The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century
Politics With an 18th-
Century Brain. New York: Viking, 2008.
Neoconservatism.
4 November 2008 <httP://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neoconservatism>.
Ordoliberalism.
4 November 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ordoliberalism>.
Oren,
Michael. "The U.S.-Israel Partnership: Forks in the Road."
The Journal of International Security
Affairs (2008): 35-43.
Political
Ideologies in the United States. 4 November 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/political_ideologies_in_the_united_states>.
Roosevelt,
Franklin. "The Four Freedoms." 6 January 1941. libertynet.
4 November 2008
<http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/fdr.html>.
Wilson,
Woodrow. "Woodrow Wilson's: Appeal for Support of the League of
Nations." mtholyoke.edu. 4
November 2008 <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww40.htm>.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comment below.