THE FOUR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TRADITIONS TODAY


As soon as I have a significant bloc of free time, I plan on writing a full-length essay utilizing the competing traditions of American Foreign Policy framework developed by Walter Russel Mead in Special Providence to analyze the current policy disputes and their impact on partisan politics. However, because I consider these terms indispensible in understanding issues such as the Dems inability to shake the wimp label (as addressed in particularly unoriginal NY Times Magazine cover article this weekend), I will lay the four traditions out in shorthand for future reference.


Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian tradition is named after Alexander Hamilton's vision of America as a great power of international commerce. The Hamiltonian school is multilateralist in that it believes in the forging of strategic alliances to craft a global order that is conducive to America's national interests. It is realist in that it views America's national interest largely through a material lens (access to national resources, free trade) and advocate pragmatic means at achieving this. The Hamiltonian tradition is the most aligned with international foreign policy traditions and the dominant tradition among the bipartisan foreign policy elite.

Jeffersonian: The Jeffersonian tradition is named after Thomas Jefferson's vision of America as an ideal (yeoman farmers, small government, social equality) democracy. It is isolationist in that it believes that foreign interventions are corrupting (alliances with un-democratic governments) and are impediments to America's domestic goals (through the buildup of a large military etc.). Jeffersonians are idealist in that they believe that America's foreign policy means should be consistent with America's liberal and democratic values. Jeffersonians tend to advocate a minimalist/humble approach to American foreign policy.

Wilsonian. The Wilsonian tradition is named after Woodrow Wilson's vision of America as the global champion for liberty and democracy. Wilsonians are idealist and interventionist in that they believe that the central tenet of American foreign policy should be the promotion of democracy. Wilsonians are the most likely to advocate for interventions based on moralistic, as opposed to traditional national interest, jusitifications.

Jacksonian. The Jacksonian tradition is named after Andrew Jackson's frontier populism, and code of martial honor. Jacksonians are unilateralists who embrace views of American exceptionalism (inclduing notions of America as the true bastion of liberty) and are opposed to any long-term international commitments. Jacksonians are realists to the extent that they do not believe in limiting the use of force (or other policy measures) necessary to promote America's interests.


There are obvious divisions within each group, and certain policy-makers straddle the lines between traditions. In the context of current American foreign policy, two such groups are particularly important.



Neocons The Neocons straddle the Wilsonian and Jacksonian traditions. As Wilsonians, Neocons are committed to promotion of the American ideals of liberty and democracy as the central principle of American foreign policy. As Jacksonians, the Neocons are hostile towards international institutions and multilateral policy solutions, believing that they act to unduly constrain American power in favor of the status-quo



Globalists Globalists straddle the Hamiltonian and Wilsonian traditions. As Hamiltonians, Globalists are committed to the expansion and strenghtening of global security and trade organizations. As Wilsonians, Globalists seek to promote human rights through alliances and international institutions.




The political problem for the Dems, is that Jeffersonians make up a major part of their base, while the far more numerous Jacksonians not only make up a major part of the GOP base, but also predominate among swing voters in the South and parts up the Midwest. Dean, despite all efforts to demonstrate that he is in fact a mainstream Hamiltonian/Globalist Dem, has surged to his front-runner status by playing off Jeffersonian anger at the war in Iraq. The odds of him successfully pivoting in the general election to erase the first impression of him as a Jeffersonian dove (a la McGovern) are slim. Meanwhile, as the NY Times article notes, with the exception of Lieberman (and to some extent Gephardt), the rest of the candidates, Clark included, have drifted towards the path Dean has blazed.


The policy problem for the Dems is more disconcerting, however. In an effort to distance themselves from the hated Neocons without adopting the knee-jerk pacifism of their Jeffersonian grass roots, the Dem foreign policy elite has latched on to the Hamiltonian critique of Bush's Iraq policy: the lack of international consensus, and the absence of a "real" national interest" implicated in the mission. In doing so, the globalist Dems (Albright, Clark, etc.) who fought so bravely for humanitarian intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo are standing shoulder to shoulder with those missions harshest critics and parroting the same lines. The failure to support the uprooting of a genocidal tyrant who did pose at least a medium-term security problem with his WMD aspirations will not only cost the Dems votes by appearing soft in swing states with Jacksonians, it will cost the Dems their Wilsonian heritage, leaving that vision to be rashly pursued by Neocons, or not at all. If that is the final result of the Dems response to Iraq, they will have lost not just an election, but in terms of foreign policy, their soul.