Foreign Policy Idea to Fall

¶ … Foreign Policy Idea to Fall in Love With

Robert Wright's 2006 article -- in summary -- does a thorough job of taking the George W. Bush foreign policies to task. By invading Iraq, Bush squandered the chance for the U.S. To gain respect in the world, Wright asserts, and Wright goes into great detail to justify his theory. But meantime, "realism" means basically what can be done in the world, and "idealism" is what is dreamed of and hoped for in the best of all possible worlds.

Wright explains that "progressive realism" has a "nice ring," and he begins with a coy remark, that if Democrats adopted his idea of "progressive realism" they might win a presidential election. Well, Mr. Wright, they did. Meanwhile, progressive realism to Wright is a "belief in progress" that can happen due to the expansion of free markets. Along with free markets comes economic liberty, he explains, and then political liberty will logically follow, his theory goes. In other words, when the United States is "in the same boat" with other nations as far as our economics are concerned, and our environmental approach and our security presence, it amounts to what Wright calls progressive realism. If other countries are having economic success due to the opening up of their markets, then the United States also flourishes, according to Wright.

The reason he titles this paper the way he does, is that progressives -- or liberals, another way of saying progressives -- argued vehemently prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq that the U.S. should let the United Nations inspectors do their work first. He is advocating the same thing in this paper. The Iraq experience suggests to Wright that "repeated reliance" on the policy of invading a country rather than allowing inspectors to do their work "could grow wearying."

In his arguments for more constraint on American military actions abroad, he is really continuing his defining of "progressive realism." In fact every point he makes in this essay relates back to progressive realism. Idealism and realism are important ingredients in the stew that he is stirring; for example, he writes that America's national interest is served "by constraints on America's behavior when they constrain other nations as well." When and if the U.S. cuts back on the use of fossil fuels to reduce global warming, other nations may well follow our example.

To wit, when we allow the United Nations to conduct searches for potential weapons of mass destruction in our own country, or in countries we have disputes with, other nations may follow and allow inspectors into their country as well. It is idealistic to believe that other nations will do the right thing if only we do the right thing first, but there's no rule that says foreign policy can't have idealism. America was founded on the principals of idealism -- "In order to form a more perfect union" -- and on the other hand America was founded on realism too. If we don't cut the cord with England, we will forever be beholding to tyrants.

Wright understands that the U.S. can never say we won't invade another country. However, the U.S. must not ignore the Security Council "and international opinion" by invading countries when there is no "imminent threat" against us or throwing away "a golden post-9/11 opportunity to strengthen the United Nations' power as a weapons inspector."