"Andrew Jackson in the Persian Gulf" by Ross Douthat, NYT
This article stood out to me because it introduced a simple yet provocative way of analyzing various foreign policy philosophies (since my knowledge of foreign affairs is limited). In short, there exist certain Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian tendencies when it comes to foreign policy. As you can infer from the names, Hamiltonianism refers to business-oriented motivations, and Wilsonian policy is characterized by idealism. These are the philosophies that prevail among political elites. However, most voters hold either a distinct Jeffersonian view that condemns international warfare as corrupt and unjust, or a Jacksonian impulse marked by nationalism and a preparedness for war.
As Douthat phrased it, the assassination Suleimani embodied the spirit of Jacksonianism: "the preference for a single act of vengeance over more ambitious forms of intervention, the belief in the hardest possible counterpunch, the dismissal of norms and rules and cautious habits that constrain the violence that America deals out." This spirit was what Trump campaigned on in 2016 and reflects the values of a portion of his voter-base.
The commander in chief's Jacksonian tendencies don't exist in a vacuum, however, and American policy in the Middle East is strongly influenced by lust for natural resources and will to spread democracy-- ambitions one might call Hamiltonian and Wilsonian, respectively. In practice, foreign policy is much too complicated to be accurately defined by only four viewpoints. What was meant to be a swift counterattack might have actually heightened and prolonged hostilities in Iran.
2 comments:
I agree that foreign policy tactics are too complex to be boiled down to just four different philosophies. I wonder how education level and income are correlated to these different foreign policy philosophies. The decision of whether Jacksonian ideologies was the best route for action depends on how the Iranian government responds to Trump's decision. If they too are focused on action and retaliation, then I agree that Trump's course of action was not the best choice, as we would just begin a cycle of flexing military muscles. If they are more focused on remaining peaceful, like the Jeffersonian philosophy, then international affairs may remain a bit more calm and there may be opportunities for discussions.
I actually think that the division of foreign policy tactics into four groups is fair (maybe that's because I'm more simple-minded than all you intellectuals). I think that they are distinctly different in nature, which is helpful to quickly differentiate and stick politicians in boxes. However I agree that it is complex, and we might have to mix some of the philosophies together. For me, it's similar to the idea of political parties; a person can get a general idea of what a politician stands for/believes in without doing too much research. How Iran will react seems to have become less of a fear in Americans (at least from what I've witnessed), but I can only imagine the fear people living in Iran feel. Imagine someone coming and assassinating an important figure in our government, and then just heading back to their country and tweeting about it? I honestly don't know that much about Suleimani's former role in Iran, but clearly his death has caused a reaction. I think the Jeffersonian point of view is a bit extreme, but I might attach it to my own beliefs because it is more empathetic than the Jacksonian ready-to-fight ideal.
Post a Comment