American Foreign Policy Theories it Has Been

American Foreign Policy Theories

It has been said that all politics are local, meaning that whatever the issue, an individual always views it from the perspective of their own personal life. And since their personal life exists in a local environment, a person's view of a political issue is always clouded by local circumstances. Roarke and Boyer, in International Politics on the World Stage assert that a nation's international policy can often be guided by their internal circumstances. In other words, a nation's foreign policy is often the result of domestic politics. This type of thinking has often been associated with what has been termed "realism," a theory that asserts international politics is shaped by conflicts between different nations caused by their domestic political circumstances. A newer type of realism, called "neorealism," actively attempts to shape world politics according a nation's internal needs, and has been enacted in many nations. On the other hand is what is termed "idealism," which as a theory states that nations can avoid conflict and cooperate with each other by circumventing internal political pressures. And its modern counterpart, "neoidealism," actively attempts to create international organizations in an effort to alleviate international conflicts through the creation of outside groups that can impose international standards. This paper will discuss three books that investigate the theoretical basis for American foreign policy during and after the Cold War, as well as the current American foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

One book that discusses the foreign policy of the United States of America with a view towards the type of international political theory used by different presidential administrations is James McCormack's American Foreign Policy and Process. This book identifies the theoretical types of foreign policy used by the different presidents during the Cold War and is aimed at an academic audience. This book describes the types of theories used, as well as their effectiveness in real world situations. For the most part, "realism," has been the main theory used by administrations, however, there have been attempts to replace it with a more "idealistic" theory of political relations, most prominently by Jimmy Carter. The author provides several in depth descriptions of many actual international events, including Vietnam, the Cold War and the Iranian Hostage Crisis, as examples of the effects of using different theoretical approaches to international politics. By the end of the book the author identifies the two main groups which promote the different views of international politics: the elites and the masses. The elites; academics, Democratic politicians, the media, and other liberals, who maintain an "idealistic," or "neoidealistic" view of international politics, while the masses of Americans believe that a more pragmatic view of international politics, one that puts the U.S.' interests ahead of other considerations, is better. While not taking sides in this issue, the author does provide good evidence, excellent examples, and the arguments on both sides for their positions.

A second book that discusses the American foreign policy in the post-Cold War world, is James Scott's After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World, and like James McCormack, this book is aimed at the academic audience. Scott discusses how the end of the Cold War brought about a change in the way Americans view international relations, and that while America for the most part remained a "realist" foreign policy, the freedom from the threat of annihilation by the Soviet Union allowed more "idealistic" policies to emerge. However, even as American foreign policy became more "idealistic" over time, it maintained an underlying "realism" which believes that the "American way' is a model that all others would do well to emulate." (Scott, 1998, p.4) In this way, Scott asserts that liberal Americans have, in their attempt to create a more "idealistic" foreign policy, have in reality maintained the traditional "realistic" view. In other words, by promoting American culture and values, Americans have continued to promote a realistic foreign policy that maintains American interests first. The only difference is that the American interests promoted by the more liberal idealists are liberal democratic ones.

Finally, a third book which details the first three years of current President Barack Obama's foreign policy and its philosophical basis, is Bending History: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy. This book openly declares that it is intended for a domestic American, as well as foreign audience, and is an attempt to explain the decisions made by Obama. The authors, Indyk, Lieberthal, and O'Hanlon, three men who have actually advised the Obama administration in foreign policy matters, argue that Barack Obama came into office with a clear "neoidealistic" view of foreign policy. The president openly stated that he wanted to "reset" the nation's relationship with much of the world. However, after several months in office, "observers noted how those realities had elicited pragmatism from the new president -- some argued that he had been 'mugged by reality'." (Indyk, 2012) As advisors to the administration, and having many contacts within the White House, the authors provide a number of inside example of how the President's "idealistic" basis for foreign policy has been transformed into a more "realistic" one, not only by events, but by internal political pressures. The main force behind Obama's change has been the 2012 election, and his need to placate the masses of American voters who maintain a "realistic" view of foreign policy, if he wants to get reelected.