Kind of an offspring of the Ron Paul debate. In the poll I have presented the five major schools of thought in US foreign policy. I was wondering what you think our philosophy should most closely resemble.

Questions for Debate:

1) What should be the philosophy of US Foreign Policy? Why?

2) What are the positives/negatives of that policy with the US as a global superpower?

3) How should the US go about conducting the policy that you chose?

I'm a bit confused by your poll. Realism and Liberalism are International Relations theory frameworks, whereas Liberal Internationalism and Isolationism are foreign policy imperatives and Hegemonism is just a model of power-politics; which is not exclusive of Realism?

For example, Realism and Isolationism are not mutually exclusive. Isolationism can be analyzed using a Realist framework (in fact the early chapters of "Rise to Globalism" by Ambrose and Brinkley do just that) while at the same time a government populated by Realists and employing Realist analysis could employ an Isolationist policy.

Which is why I added the "combination" choice. Isolationism and realism have a lot in common just as internationalism and liberalism have a lot in common, but that doesnt mean that they are the same thing. Isolationism, internationalism, an hegomonism are frameworks just the same as realism and liberalism. They emphasize different facets of US power and have different goals/objectives.

PS- Had to read 'Rise to Globalism' for my FP class

Fair enough... I guess I'm just being a snob; IR and Foreign Policy frameworks don't belong on the same list in my tidy little brain.

1) What should be the philosophy of US Foreign Policy? Why?

I guess one that is the slightest bit deductive... at this point it doesn't matter much which one. Right now the "Philosophy" that dictates American foreign policy is a hodge-podge of pie-in-the-sky ideals that cannot be named or analyzed because there appears to be no rational, organized framework conducting it.

The value of employing an analytical framework is that it allows policy-makers to understand the actions of States (and other agents) in a closed, rational system. Actions have reasonably predictable outcomes and responses can be planned in advance. Contrast that with the current state of affairs, where almost every single "assumption" used to guide American Foreign policy in the last six years has turned out to be wrong and as such America's FP initiatives have almost universally failed.

3) How should the US go about conducting the policy that you chose?

That's easy. Letting "experts" and policy-makers provide recommendations, and having the elected politicians rely on their expertise in making decisions. Right now policy is decided by a small cohort of private-sector men (Cheney) and former military officials; with the influence of the State Department essentially minimized. I know it's currently "hip" to reject "experts" as eggheads and "white tower intellectual snobs," but people who have made it their academic and professional careers to study and analyze foreign policy will always provide advice that will always produce more predictable outcomes and allow for more consistent policy.

Always be wary of philosophies that try and make arguments with their same, pro-life, pro-choice, realism...spin spin spin.

I think we like to pretend that the great achievements in foreign policy happen by accident and that if we all just mind our own business everyone will benefit.

Or alternately we don't care if anyone else benefits.

I chose liberal internationalism simply because it describes the real world as I see it. State actors are motivated by a variety of ends, including ideology.

The way to accomplish a goal is to make a decision and get to work on it, not cross your fingers and hope for the best.

I guess I am non-interventionist to some degree-NO military bases on foriegn soil, and our military called outside our borders only to protect our shipping or air commerce, if neccesary (such as escorting a tanker or something) and state to state combat that threatens our existance- pull out all aid to all countries- period. The only aid is to occasionally, with great debate- help build an economy- but allow groups like the Peace corp to do humanitarian work on a limited scale.

Protect our borders against illegal immigration and entry- but possibly up the quotas of legal immigrants.

I don't mean not allowing US citizens to travel or any of that stuff, or pull out diplomatically- I just want to shrink our entire military philoosophy and projectabe force to our borders.

Realism does not try to make an argument with it's name. Rather the name is derived from the approach, which is to analyze politics based purely on the real-world actions of international actors, and an attempt to describe the "world" in a framework that avoids vagaries such as human nature.

What Joe said. Realism isn't a domestic/foreign policy philosophy; it's international relations theory. There are several variants: classical, neo-classical, neo-realism, and defensive and offensive realism, which are just like neo-realism except they approach the security dilemma differently. All realism theory is based on the state of man, the state of anarchy in the international system and their consequences. Classical realism is a reaction to and rejection of the idealism that pervaded the inter-war period between WWI and WWII. All other IR theories are based on realism to some extent because they reject realism.

Other IR theory includes liberalism, neo-liberalism (not to be confused with U.S. neo-liberal economic policies) and constructivism. I dislike the idea of leaning on any IR theory, but if I had to choose I would combine neo-realism with neo-liberalism. I appreciate the pragmatic approach of realism and accept the potential of institutions to address injustice, conflicts, act as warning signals and the possibility to rig the prisoner's dilemma in liberalism for the benefit of all parties, combined with a healthy dose of political isolationism. Frankly, the flag shouldn't follow commerce and the soldiers shouldn't follow the flag. It doesn't bother me too much when Republican and Democratic economic neo-liberals want to continue conducting trade with oppressive regimes like China and Equatorial Guinea, but we're fools if we think we'll spread democracy by giving our economic elites access to new foreign markets. To paraphrase classical realist E.H. Carr the idea that we all want free trade is bogus. Economics is subject to politics and politics determines economic policy. Laissez-faire is the ideology of the powerful and they make it sound as if globalization is in everyone's interests.

I will combine my understanding of realism (which I will understand as realpolitik and liberal internationalism)

I think the United States should aspire to be a benevolent hegemon. While we have an advantage in power in the world we should wield that power for the general welfare of the world. My theory is in part selfish for the United States. We tend to benefit from economic competition in the present atmosphere, if we chug forward and work to get the rest of the world not to ruffled by our wake, then we should stay in an advantageous position.

My understanding of the world is based largely on the foreign policy worldview concept that was apllied by Metternich and Bismarck. But I think that if we practice balance of power politics we will inspire a balance to our power. If we practice theory behind the UN of collective security we can uphold the values of civic nationalism that our nation is based on and encourage by example and economic power the rest of the world to adhere to the values we hold most dear.

What are the American values? IMHO they are a commitment to individualism, secular government, respect for property, commitment to a capitalist economy, and a deterrence of military aggression.

However if way stay on a course of you are either with us or a against us, a new balance of power will emerge that knocks us from a hegemonic position (which is only ever achieved because of toleration from the rest of the world)

We need to be more politically sophisticated in pursue our goals in the world. These things have there time to immediate action, but in terms of our relationship with established powers we can damage our relationship quickly, but it takes time and talent to craft strong effective relationships. (see the United Kingdom and Japan as examples)

We also need to look for non-adversarial solutions out there in the world. We need win-win solutions.

As it stands today I see a new balance of global power arising that will mirror that of the European Balance of Power through centuries of war. I don't necessarily see the incessant string of wars between the competing areas, but without a less antagonistic American policy a see the United States moving from being the elephant in the room to one of the players at the table. (See Great Britain circa 1900)

I see the United States, China, and Europe being the big powers with a possibility for a Pacific Rim Alliance and a possibility of India passing China in power.

The Muslim World, and the CIF would be world players in this and Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (not in that order) would be the sicker men of the world.

From my naive, ignorant viewpoint, I don't see why any of these philosophies have to be mutually exclusive. Doesn't it depend on the situation? Sometimes we need to play power politics, sometimes we have to hold high ideals, sometimes we have to accept the responsibility of being a superpower, sometimes we have to leave bad enough alone.

Perhaps the best philosophy might be "situationalism."

The problem of operating without a consistent analytical framework is that you end up with wildly inconsistent policies and lack of organized processes for decision making. It is this lack of organization that makes it so easy for Bush to pick up his destabilization-hammer and start swinging at random countries on the map.

I know that on these boards "neo-conservatism" is a word that brings about much disdain. It is certainly stereotyped to represent the hawkish policies of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney and I think rightfully so. Neo-conservatism as a foreign policy framework arised by realists who thought that power alone was not enough conducting foreign affairs. So they borrowed the ideals of liberalism and combined the two. Liberalism was the goal and realism was the means. Putting it this way doesn't really sound so terrible. If I had to pigeon-hole myself, I would say that I was a non-interventionist, neo-conservative. This may seem kind of contradictory, but I see it as a manner in which we can fulfill our interests without getting tangled in foreign wars. Whenever vital interests are attacked, we defend. When democratic allies are attacked, we defend. We do not interfere in the affairs of nations that have zero US interests. Realism is historically the most prominent way to conduct international relations and I do not think we should ignore thousands of years of history. But the goals of liberalism are lofty, and should be the ultimate objective. I think we should support democratic reform in all countries, even our 'enemies.' We do this not by being aggressive and forcing the issue, but by gradual change and incentives. We show them the benefits of opening their economy and givign their people civil liberties.

It may be a crazy idea, but so far it makes sense to me