US Foreign Policy Midterm

Mead discusses four traditions in US foreign policy, Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian. We will select one of these four foreign policy traditions at random. For this question you will have to describe what that tradition is and examples of people, groups and/or foreign policy actions that are good examples of that activity. The examples may come from. pre-Cold War, Cold War or post-Cold War periods. The people involved may be inside or outside government. Please use examples from Mead’s article and from history we have studied in class or textbook examples

Hamiltonians 

• Pursuit of commercial interests and open markets 

• Hegemonic stability: a single strong state that enforces global rules and institutions 

• Values the “special relationship” with Britain

• Prefers building relationships with others to criticizing their domestic politics

• T. Roosevelt  

Wilsonians 

• Puruses the spread of democratic values with missionary zeal 

• Democratic peace: democracies do not fight each other 

• Favors international organizations 

• Averse to imperialism and balance-of-power politics

• Biden and Franklind D Rosevelt

Jeffersonians

• The U.S. has enough to do promoting liberty, welfare and independence at hone 

• Dislikes imposing our values on other countries and prefers to be “the great exemplar” 

• Wary of a strong elite, foreign entanglements or war 

• “Count the cost”

• Obama and Kennan

Jacksonians

• Focuses on defending the US from threats to physical security 

• Proud of American honor, courage, self-reliance and firepower

• Wary of international organizations; prefers unilateralism 

• Populist appeal

• Reagan and Trump

Idealists: the pursuit of principles and peace

realists: the pursuit of power and prosperity

extraverts: US interests are best served promoting global interests

introverts: The US should prioritize its interests over foreign interests

Barack Obama (44)

• A Jeffersonian outlook. He started his presidency with the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq. He draws down the troops in Iraq over time, but introduces more into Afghanistan

• Focuses on soft power and diplomacy 

• Supports DACA on immigration, even though there are several deportations

• Signs the Paris Climate Agreement

Donald Trump (45 & 47)

• In his first presidency, he criticizes NATO and questions our funding for it. Withdrew from the Paris Climate agreement. He removes the US from WHO. Questions Ukranian aid, but continued it.   

• Recognizes Israel’s capital in Jerusalem. Implemented the Abraham accords

• Renegotiates NAFTA to become USMCA. Withdrew from TPP. A trade war in both terms 

• Begins the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Bombed Syria and ordered the assasination of an Iranian general and the leader of ISIS

• A Jacksonian view overall with “America First,” with some military intervention

• Mass deportations and the closure of the southern border are part of a hard line on immigration

Joe Biden (46)

• Some Jeffersonian and Wilsonian attributes. Biden tried to re-engage the U.S. with international organizations such as the WHO and the Paris Climate agreement

• Reaffirms alliances to counter China, strengthening relations with Australia, NZ, Japan, and Philippines. 

• Kept protectionist tariffs on Chinpa. Promotes government investment in technology and clean energy

• Condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, supporting Ukraine with aid and weapons. 

• Removes remaining troops from Afghanistan

• His Middle East initiatives overshadowed by the war in Gaza 

Theodore Roosevelt

• Belief in a strong, active, and centralized federal government that could regulate big business, promote national interests, and undertake great national projects

• Progressive Era policies such as railroad regulation, his support of infrastructure like the Panama Canal and his advocacy for a strong executive to to manage national affairs

• Expanded the Navy and use of “Great White Fleet” —hegemonic stability

What are the four P’s and what do they mean? What are examples of trade-offs or dissensus in the four P’s? In these cases, why did policymakers favor one or more P’s over others?

The four P’s are the four core goals that go into defining the U.S. National Interest. The 4Ps are not strict categories in which this policy goes in one box and that one in another. The national interest almost always combines two or more of the 4 Ps. The 4 Ps are Peace, Prosperity, Power and Principles. Although sometimes all four core goals are complementary and can be satisfied through the same policy, more often they pose trade-offs and tensions, and sometimes major dissenus.

Power is the core requirement for self-defense and the preservation of national independence and territory. It is also essential for deterring aggression and influencing other states. Peace is the absence of conflict that allows for safety and stability. It is utilized to stress diplomacy in the classic sense of “the formalized system of procedures or the process by which sovereign states conduct their official relations.” Prosperity refers to the foreign policies that give high priority to the national interest defined principally in economic terms. The fourth core goal involves the values, ideals, and beliefs that the United States has claimed to stand for in the world, emphasizing roots in Democratic Idealism.

Complementarity would be the 4Ps working together to achieve a stable international order, where economic prosperity fosters peace and promotes principles of democracy. The Marshall Plan would be an example of this. An example of a trade off was with China in 1989 with Power and Prosperity vs. Principles. Hundreds of Chinese Students staged a pro-democracy sit in at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The Communist government ordered for the student to leave. George H.W. Bush and his administration only imposed limited economic sanctions based on power as the administration still considered the the US-Soviet rivalry to the be central issues. Clinton also refused to revoke China’s MFN status based on prosperity. They claimed they weren’t abandoning principles but many in th US still debated the matter.

An example of dissensus was the Iraq War in 2003. The Bush administration claimed it was in American national interest. Power was more than sufficient to win the war and peace would be strengthened in the area. Prosperity would not be hurt as the budgetary estimates for the war shows that the US would have to bear minimal costs. Opposition though claimed that the power of the US was being overestimated and that there would be billions or even trillions of dollars added to the federal budget deficit. Overall, American principles were being undermined more than reinforced.

Consider the list of “great debates” the textbook lists concerning foreign policy strategy and foreign policy politics in chapter four. Pick two or three of these debates. Which of those debates are most relevant to today and why? How have those same debates played a role in the history of American foreign policy?

Two of the “great debates” are isolationist vs interventionist strategies in US foreign policy and whether or not our foreign policy strategies align with American Democratic ideals. These debates remain relevant today as current policymakers grapple with the balance between prioritizing national security and supporting global democratic movements. While I believe both debates are relevant in today’s current geopolitical climate, isolationist vs interventionist strategies are most relevant to today as tensions rise with authoritarian regimes and debates on military engagement continue. Within the US, I believe most American citizens have a general opinion on whether Presidential administrations should be intervening in foreign affairs or isolation, allowing for a focus on domestic affairs. I believe the debate of whether foreign policy strategies align with American Democratic ideals is still relevant today, but to the average American citizen, I think it is easier for them to identify with a particular party’s values due to polarization than to be able to align with the broader principles of American Democratic ideals.

The textbook notes that the United States was never fully isolationist as the Founding Fathers knew from the beginning that the nation needed a foreign policy. In his farewell address, Washington warned against entangling alliances, emphasizing the importance of neutrality. Presidents, concerning foreign trade, tried to develop commercial relations without political relationships. President Wilson was more inclined toward internationalism with an emphasis on principles but even when WWI broke out he tried to stay out. In between WWI and WWII Congress did not budge from a strong isolationist positionand the debate about interventionism intensified during WWII with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

American exceptionalism: hold that the United States has a uniqueness and special virtue that ground its foreign policy in Principles much more than the policies of other countries, can be traced back throughout American history. Manifest destiny-expansionism-Wilson fighting in WWI was to make the world safe for democracy. FDR’s four freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from fear, freedom from want. Questions of consistency, of contradictions, and of cover stories. Mexican War- the US claimed to be liberating Texas but it was seen differently by Mexico

What was the strategy of containment? Pick two or three periods of containment policy, discuss how containment was applied in this period, and why these periods are significant to US foreign policy.

• A policy of preventing and resisting the expansion of Soviet communism after WWII

• Mr. X’s (Keenan’s) “long telegram”

  • Soviet drive for imperialism

  • Threats to Western Europe and Japan

  • The need for US resistance 

Origins of containment 

• Kennan’s containment becomes policy

• Truman Doctrine (1947): US support for resistance to subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressure 

• Marshall Plan: grants for Western European reconstruction

• NATO Treaty (1949): US defense of Western Europe

Korea and NSC-68

• Growing worries 

  • Berlin siege (1948)

  • Soviet atomic weaponry (1949)

  • Communists take China in 1949

• In April 1950, The National Security Council produces a review of defense policy in paper number 68 (NSC-68)

  • Communist ideology promotes offensive intentions 

  • Preventing expansion requires “perimeter defense” not just defense of industrial powers 

  • The US public must prepare for a military buildup 

• North Korea invades South Korea in June 1950

These periods of containment were significant because they shaped U.S. foreign policy by establishing a framework for addressing the threat of communism through military, economic, and diplomatic means.

What was the “Cold War consensus” in the early days of the Cold War and what features made up the consensus? How did the war in Vietnam break this consensus? Was the consensus ever repaired?

Consensus was marked by three fundamental components: presidential dominance over Congress, a vast expansion of the executive-branch. foreign and defense policy bureaucracy, and a fervent anticommunism sentiment pervading public opinion.

• Presidents generally receiveed bipartisan support from a more passive Congress

• State, Defense, and CIA were expanded and/or institutionalized, organized through a National Security Council (NSC)

• Media and public opinion generally favored internationalism over isolation. Interest groups largely stayed out of security policy

What have been the main challenges for US foreign policy in the post-Cold War period? What, if any, are the main themes in US foreign policy actions during this period?