Idealism and Realism in Presidential Justification of Foreign Policy
In contemporary America, the basic purpose and theme of American politics is the definition of what national interest entails. This national interest is under the power of politics, ideologies, military, and economics. Often, American presidential candidates pledge when elected, to have more competent foreign policy agendas than the current administration (Green and Twining 1). This is because after the cold war consensus and the American defeat in Vietnam, succeeding administrations have made attempts at new ideas in foreign policy (McCormick 102). These ideas often follow a hard line realist or idealist approach. This research explores how different American presidents adopted the idealist, realist, or a combination of both approaches to foreign policy. I shall first define political realism and idealism and look at the different realist and idealist approaches by presidents. The purpose of this research is to show that America currently does not follow a single foreign policy ideal, but rather a combination of realism and idealism, which is more powerful.
America assumes a prominent status in the world stage as it adopts democracy and capitalism as a model for other nations. Many of America’s missions in adopting foreign policy initiatives are under the guidance of the “moral idealism” (Adolfo et al. 635). This ideology looks at “nations as normally willing to cooperate and to agree on moral standards for conduct” (Adolfo et al. 635). In this ideology, America assumes that nations will adopt moral considerations when setting national policies. Ideally, nations come together to work and keep the peace as proposed in the League of Nations by President Wilson Woodrow (1913-1921). Many of America’s foreign policy initiatives have a basis on this philosophy as it embraces an idealist view of the world (Adolfo et al. 636). Examples of this are President John Kennedy’s Peace Corps intended for the spread of America’s goodwill and technology. Kennedy’s idealistic view sought an America that can “pay any price” and “bear any burden” for the liberty of the world (Bardes, Mack and Schmidt 636). The American political realism, on the other hand, looks at the world as dangerous. To this ideology, nation tries to survive and maintain its own interests without regards for moral considerations (Leitner and Stupak 87). Political realism is a “philosophy that sees each nation acting principally in its own interest” (Adolfo et al. 636). In this ideology, the U.S. has to make its foreign policy decisions without morality. In this ideology, presidents believe the nation must defend itself and protect its interest.
The realist approach has key assumptions directing presidential foreign policy decisions. The first is that the nation is the main actor in world politics, where power defines national interest as the main motivation of actions (McCormick 102). In this ideology, the balance of power, mainly military power, is the concern of the nation. In addition, the relations between states determine the response a nation gives another. These key assumptions make up the realists’ justification and reasons for actions and foreign policy decisions made. Presidents that were pure realists are like President Nixon, whose foreign policies were purely realistic (Green and Twining 1). Foreign policy was under the direction of the realist principle of “balance of power” with a basis on global equilibrium in the U.S., China, and the U.S.S.R. (McCormick 102). In this ideology, the U.S. limits its role in global politics but has substantial regional power, which it exploited in the name of American interests. Nixon’s approach to foreign policy is by the desire to see the U.S.’s partnership with the rest of the world will bring peace. Secondly, American strength will protect the U.S.’s national interests (McCormick 106). Peace requires a willingness of America to negotiate to resolve national differences with states. However, America’s approach to the world under this ideology ended being amoral and inconsistent with democratic traditions (McCormick 106). This ideology under Nixon moved towards realism, as policy making, tends to have a basis on pragmatism leading to a presidential defeat in 1976. In 1976, attention is towards a foreign policy approach that has moral standards.
This gave way to the idealist president, Jimmy Carter, whose presidency entails the making of the U.S.’s foreign policy in tune with the goodness of Americans. The idealist approach has key assumptions that influence or justifies the foreign policy decisions made. The first assumption is that the nation is part of many nations participating in foreign policy (Green and Twining 2). Secondly, values predominantly shape foreign policies rather than national interests. Thirdly, of equal importance to foreign policy decisions are values, social, military, and economic views along with distribution of power. Lastly, global conditions dominate foreign policy thinking, rather than relationships between nations.
President Carter’s campaign pledges entail the restoration of morality and integrity to American foreign policy (Kaufman 110). This is to orientate the policies away from adversaries especially the U.S.S.R. and towards a global strategy. This entails four policy areas, where foreign policy emphasizes on domestic values and resolves regional conflicts, and improves relations with allies. Thirdly, it entails the de-emphasizing of American, foreign policy away from the Soviet Union. Lastly, foreign policy is for the promotion of the world human rights (Kaufman 110). Like his predecessor, Carter was turning to realism by the end of his term as realist policies dominate his foreign policies. Criticism due to failure and incoherence of Carter’s foreign policy were the mark of American politics by 1979. This is because his approach led to problems like the replacement of the Shah following the Iranian revolution (McCormick 124).
It is difficult to take a stand that a president adopts a purely idealistic or realistic approach to foreign policy. Analysis of the foreign policy approaches America takes over the decades concludes that a mix of idealism and realism are in use. This is not only by the change of ideology in the last years of President Nixon and Carter’s rule, but also in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and his Successor Barrack Obama. Under Ronald Reagan, foreign policy made use of both forms of ideology to achieve freedom by defeating the Soviet Union’s totalitarianism (Kaufman 113). Reagan’s policy led America and the world to realize that through democratic capitalism and an aggressive economic program, national prosperity, world leadership, and self-confidence are achievable in the 1970s. Reagan’s foreign policy ideology was constant throughout his administration. His ideology was internationalism where totalitarianism of Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union are threats to order and liberty (Kaufman 114). Secondly, Reagan had the belief that only American power can protect vital national interest within the realm of geopolitics. Reagan also required the foreign policies reflect the confidence in the economic and moral superiority of democratic capitalism (Kaufman 115). Reagan made use of an alloy of idealism and realism to create a foreign policy that seeks peace for national interest by any means necessary.
Ronald Reagan’s principles were the beginning of a new American, foreign policy, which drew from idealism and realism, doing away with the confusion of Carter and Nixon’s approaches. Other presidents that reflect the mix are George Bush who drew from the tradition of morality during the war on al Qaeda and terrorism. The president’s foreign policy on the issue of Osama bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan, has a moral drive to fight evil (Adolfo et al. 636). Morality was the basis for the U.S.’s foreign policy on fighting terrorism and dealing with nations that support terrorism. Another example was President George Bush Senior’s idealism and realism policy that led to the first Gulf War. A similar ideology is in the Second Gulf War in 2003, when President Bush Junior, leads America to invade Iraq in the name of national security. In this war, the securing of U.S. security is realistic while the liberation of Iraqis and the creation of a democratic nation from an oppressive regime are idealistic (Adolfo et al. 636). President George Bush’s policies are a combination without classification in either realism or idealism, yet immensely powerful. President Bush like his predecessors creates a national, foreign policy on the aggressive spread of democracy. However, he defends and justifies his aggressive policies with the need for protecting national interests and preventing emergent threats to national security. Moreover, the combination of idealism and realism are with the current administration’s foreign policy as reflected by Condoleezza Rice’s statements in 2008. To the Secretary of State, currently America’s foreign policy is no longer under the mercy of the dichotomy of idealism and realism, as national interests and universal ideals are no longer at odds (Adolfo et al. 636).
It is evident that the combination of realism and idealism in foreign policy is creating powerful and sustainable policies in comparison to the policies under separate ideologies. This is because under the combined ideologies America currently has stronger realistic policies than those of President Nixon (Leitner and Stupak 87). This is so since, current policies focus on true creation of free, justified, and open leadership structures without any coercion, corruption, intimidation, and misinterpretation of laws. This current policy gears itself towards the selling of political systems with democratic outlooks. Realism is seeing the nation protect its national interests by fighting terrorism, seeking economic recovery, and protecting the environment. The foreign policies on pure realism and idealism as seen with presidents Carter and Nixon began failing in the last term of their presidencies. This made the presidents adopt the opposite ideology indicating that realism and idealism as standalone ideologies is not powerful or sustainable. The combination of policies as seen with President George Bush and President Obama’s administration creates sustainable and effective policies and maintains America’s global power. Therefore, the research shows that America currently does not follow a single foreign policy ideal, but rather a combination of realism and idealism, which is more powerful.
Works Cited
Adolfo, Santos, Bardes Barbara A., Crain Ernest, Mack Shelley C., Schmidt Steffen W. and William Maxwell E. American Government & Politics Today, 2009-2010 Edition, Texas Edition. 14th ed. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
Green, Michael J. and Twining Daniel. Democracy and American Grand Strategy in Asia: The Realist Principles Behind an Enduring Idealism. Contemporary Southeast Asia 30.1 (2008): 1-28.
Kaufman, Robert G. In Defense of the Bush Doctrine. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2007. Print.
Leitner, Peter M. and Stupak Ronald J. Realism Revisited: Philosophical Assumptions, Power Patterns, and American Foreign Policy. Journal of Power and Ethics 2.1 (2001): 86-102.
McCormick, James M. American Foreign Policy and Process. 5th Ed. Wadsworth, USA: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
