Henry Rau argues that the use of force to spread democracy and freedom is a new strand of foreign policy known as conservative internationalism. He argues that the previous two schools, realism and liberal internationalism now have a third school to contend with.
The main data point is Ronald Reagan and his threat of force which brought the authoritarian USSR down to smaller democratic republics and/or authoritarian regimes. Russia has after all returned to authoritarianism under Putin.
It is a bit overly mythically to Reagan, the USSR had been deconstructing itself anyway and the Brezhnev Doctrine was no longer in force; which is the use of force to protect communism from the spread of capitalism and democracy.
The thesis is tenuous, such as claiming Jefferson and Polk expanded freedom by expanding US territory, in Jefferson's case with the Louisiana Purchase. Rau also argues that Jefferson and Polk saw increasing liberty as bringing equality and somehow the Louisiana Purchase fits this. Which is pretty weak.
Rau also argues that war against the Barbary Pirates shows the willingness of force. But Walter Russell Mead argues that this is Hamiltonian foreign policy and related to the doctrine of freedom of the seas (for American shipping) rather than free trade.
The argument is better when it is open about imperialism and force; which will be used to establish democracies which brings us back to neo-conservatism. It is hard not to view this as an exercise to give the invasion of Iraq and neo-conservative thinking a historical basis so it does not seem so radical and thoughtless.
It appears that conservative internationalism is neo-conservatism in the wrappings of power politics and imperialism with the attempted legitimisation via the ghosts of Reagan and Jefferson.
# Phil commented : Was it 'threat of force' which led to the US prevailing over the USSR? I argue not.
I saw something which made me think c1990s. I'm an earlier Tom Clancy fan. One book ('Executive Orders' I think) was dedicated to "Ronald Wilson Reagan - the man who won the war". Now many, those of the left especially, would never give the Gipper credit for anything. That quote made me think.
c1980s, the Cold War was no worse, arguably better than at previous times - the 60s eg. Ronnie had floated the concept of SDI however.
Now the US spends/spent ~4% of GDP on defence. The USSR on the other hand spent 30% of their GDP on defence. It was a poker game, the US effectively said something like "I'll see your $100 billion and triple the bet". The Soviets had no choice but to try and match the technology, and it bankrupted them, and arguably demoralised them as well. They crashed.
So arguably, it was capitalism's efficient economy that saw them off, not threat of force.
Mead argues that the democratic nature of American foreign policy has been superior to the isolated genius' behind continentalist policy (ie Bismarck or Kissinger). Mead writes:
The [democratic policy making] system is stable because it is homeostatic; although interest groups perceive themselves in a constant struggle, the net effect of all those struggles is to keep society constantly seeking the point at which dissatisfaction is minimised.A very succinct description of the liberal republican process.
I sometimes wonder if authors write books specifically for me. Walter Mead's Special Providence is one such book. It discusses American foreign policy under the broad washes of Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Wilsonian and Jacksonian doctrines. It also asks why is American foreign policy blind to its own history, presuming it all started with WWII, when American politics and even the American nation was so reliant on American politicians getting the foreign policy right. (more)
