America should be a conservative power! Posted by Shawn Brimley

Patrick Doherty over at The American Strategist has called out David, Ilan, and myself in a good post arguing that our vision of America's role in the world is not sufficiently progressive.

To recap, I've been arguing for a while (here, here, here, here) that Americans have forgotten – both through our post-Cold War triumphalism and our post-9/11 paranoia – that the most important strategic legacy of the Cold War was not the successful containment of the Soviet Union but rather the creation and sustainment of an inherently liberal international system. When asked what sort of grand strategy America should follow my suggestion would be to pull a Marty McFly and go back to the future. I've called such a strategy sustainment, though Matt Yglesias (who digs the idea) calls the word "the ugliest neologisms I've heard in awhile." Guilty as charged.

Anyway, what inevitably what happens when I suggest that we focus on this key Cold War-era lesson is a chorus of folks arguing that such a view is insufficient and oh so 20^th century. I agree with this. Of course I'm not suggesting (and neither is Ilan, who has real 21^st century style, or David, who I've actually never met but heard he is quite hip) that we simply default back to an earlier era to sustain the system as it was in the 1980s or earlier, rather that the basic pillars of the international system (stability in key regions, a decently functioning international economy, and access to and stability in the global commons) need to be sustained if we are to deal with the great challenges of this new century. There are cracks in our foundation, and we need to pay attention.

Doherty argues that such a grand strategy pays insufficient attention to the transnational pressures at work in the world such as energy security, urbanization, and climate change – I disagree. Doherty describes well the sorts of pressures that will manifest in the coming years, but he did not outline any alternative. Patrick cites the examples of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower in critiquing the idea, while I think that what Truman and Eisenhower did was exactly what I am proposing we do today – focusing on the basic pillars of the international system, and thinking hard about creating a balance between American and global interests.   

Is such a view inherently conservative?  Absolutely.  When thinking about grand strategy, as David argues, being wary of dramatic power shifts or paying insufficient attention to the basics of one's position in the international system is a recipe for disaster and decline. But let's remember, the system as it exists is rife with liberal values and views! From global trade and commerce, to functioning alliances, to plenty of international institutions that promote diplomacy, compromise, and human rights, the system itself is liberal!  The system we have is inherently progressive! So yes, we should be very conservative when considering changing an international system that is commensurate with liberal values!

But Shadi is right that inequality was rife throughout the 20^th century and that current dynamics are likely to only exacerbate the gap between haves and have-nots. Sustaining a stable international system is only one side to the 21^st century grand strategy coin (much like sustainment complemented containment during the Cold War).  There is plenty of change to make, and plenty of challenges to pursue. Climate change, energy security, a rising China, tensions with Russia, and the perpetual challenges in the Middle East all require different approaches and the ability for America to be nimble, flexible, and, well, powerful.

After eight years of a grand strategy that has seen our deficit explode, our standing in the world plummet, and our power eroded substantially, it is vital that we think not only about where we are going but where we've been. America got grand strategy basically right before, and we can do so again.       

Comments

[Mike M.]

Every time you say that we "got grand strategy right," when you're referring to the Cold War 20th century, you should apologize to the people of Latin America. Were we right to depose democracies and to support dictatorships all in an effort to contain the kind of communism that might have actually helped the people who voted it into office in the first place?

[Dan Kervick]

But let's remember, the system as it exists is rife with liberal values and views! From global trade and commerce, to functioning alliances, to plenty of international institutions that promote diplomacy, compromise, and human rights, the system itself is liberal! The system we have is inherently progressive!

Well, I guess I should once again lodge my frequent complaint about the recent wave of think-tank promoted semantic drift, whereby "progressive" more and more means the same thing as "liberal" and "liberalism" is used more and more exclusively as a synonym for "classical liberalism". So it turns out that to be progressive is now to be squarely in the center-right of economic thinking. Awesome trick!

Sustaining a stable international system is only one side to the 21st century grand strategy coin (much like sustainment complemented containment during the Cold War). There is plenty of change to make, and plenty of challenges to pursue. Climate change, energy security, a rising China, tensions with Russia, and the perpetual challenges in the Middle East all require different approaches and the ability for America to be nimble, flexible, and, well, powerful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like you're saying one thing out of one side of your mouth, but taking some of it back with the other. It sounds like you might want to do more than sustain the international system. You might want to (sshhhhh!) innovate with it.

On the other hand, your call for the United States to respond to these new challenges by remaining "nimble, flexible and powerful" sure sounds like your departures from sustaining the old international order would not consist in building potent new international or transnational institutions, and binding ourselves to them, but would consist in reserving more freedom of national action than the internationalist spirit of the old order would allow.

What I have found missing so far in so many DA discussions of foreign policy is a noted absence among the regular contributors of a truly internationalist outlook. What I mean is this: Some people are inclined to think about global affairs primarily in terms of what kind of world they would like to build, and their prescriptions for national policy reflect their views about what their own individual nation has to do to participate in the most constructive way to the project of building that desired world. If the global interest should come into conflict with the national interest, they would give priority to the global interest.

Others think about global affairs primarily in terms of what they would like for their own nation, and their prescriptions for global policy and their own nation's foreign policy reflect their views about what the rest of the world has to do so that it ends up serving the interest of one's own nation to the greatest possible extent. If the global interest should come into conflict with the national interest, they would give priority to the national interest.

There is a weak form of internationalism and a strong form. The weak form is ultimately nationalistic, but recommends pursuing the national interest by doing some stuff with other countries. That seems to be the form of internationalism popular these days among centrists like the Democracy Arsenal crew. The stronger form of internationalism holds that the interests of the many are morally superior to the interests of the few; that the interests of the world are morally more important than the interests of any single nation.

The strong form used to be a fairly popular view with a lot of Democrats, even those in the elite governing class. I miss those old internationalists. Do you know where the few remaining old-timey, one worlder, nationalism-suspicious internationalists hang out?

[ghghg]

CHEAP rs gold
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold