In June 1949, the director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff,
George Kennan, twice brought theologian Reinhold Niebuhr to the group’s
meetings as a consultant. Niebuhr returned to speak to the State Department
many times during the Truman administration, and was joined in doing so by
arch-realist political scientist Hans Morgenthau. According to an attendee at
one of the sessions, Niebuhr’s “position was to promote all possible
international cooperation and organization, but not to allow utopian visions of
world government to interfere with the complicated task of securing the
precarious order and justice that were available within the existing system.”
That is about as succinct a definition of foreign-policy realism as it is possible
to get.
With Kennan, Niebuhr, and Morgenthau all pioneers of this approach to
international affairs, those meetings were arguably the high-water mark for
realist thinkers in the upper echelons of a Democratic administration. But they
were hardly the only times liberals and realists have found profit in allying.
And with today’s Republican Party relying almost exclusively on
neoconservatives to set its foreign-policy agenda, realists are once again
starting to move toward the Democratic Party.
Realism is widely thought to be antithetical to liberalism. This school of
thought in American foreign policy emerged in the first place as a reaction
against the reckless naiveté of that exemplar of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson.
As Morgenthau wrote in his 1948 book Politics Among Nations, a
foundational text for realists, Wilson’s pledge to make the world safe for
democracy, his promises to support self-determination for all peoples, and his
endeavors to make the League of Nations the guarantor of world peace were the
very embodiment of utopianism. Certainly the self-righteous Wilson would have
found blasphemous the basic postulates of realism: power is the driving force
in the world, the international system is impossible to harmonize, stability
requires a balance of power, and no country is innocent.
Yet while Wilson unfailingly couched his actions in moralistic language, his
decision to involve America in World War I in 1917—rather than much sooner, as
Theodore Roosevelt urged—can be seen as a classic realist maneuver. After
letting the combatants exhaust themselves for three years while sitting on the
sidelines and preserving its power, America intervened to prevent a hostile
power—Germany—from rearranging the European balance of power in its favor. In
his realist manifesto U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic,
journalist Walter Lippman, who served in the Wilson administration as an
adviser, wrote that the “undeclared” reason for American involvement was that
“many Americans saw in 1917 that if Germany won, the United States would have
to face a new and aggressively expanding German empire which had made Britain,
France, and Russia its vassals, and Japan its ally.” In the Great War,
“Wilson’s idealistic vision coexisted with geopolitical realism,” as the journalist-historian
Michael Lind put it in his book The American Way of Strategy.
After securing victory for the Allies, however, Wilson jettisoned any
semblance of realism and instead embraced a quixotic attempt to remake the
world along the lines of universal justice. His Republican successors Harding
and Coolidge erred in the opposite direction: they withdrew America from
involvement in European affairs, ignoring realist principles by permitting
Germany to rearm. As Kennan argued in his classic work American Diplomacy,
1900-1950, “It [is] essential to us, as it was to Britain, that no single
continental land power should come to dominate the entire Eurasian land mass.”
Such a power would inevitably embark upon an overseas expansion that would
jeopardize American security with all the resources of the interior of Europe
and Asia, Kennan wrote.
It would take the paradigmatic Democratic president of the 20thcentury to
prevent this. Indeed, although FDR is beloved by liberals for leading the fight
against fascism, he is equally respected by realists for letting the Soviet
Union and Great Britain do most of the fighting against the Nazis and for
taming the hostile would-be continental powers of Germany and Japan. “Roosevelt
did have certain realist instincts,” says Stephen Walt, a leading international
relations theorist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. But
more importantly, says Walt, the world imposed realist logic on Roosevelt.
Liberal priorities at the time—spreading freedom, protecting democracy,
defeating totalitarianism—overlapped with the realists’ goals of preserving a
favorable balance of power.
The beginning of the Truman administration was in many ways the apogee of
Democratic foreign-policy realism. With Kennan an influential member of the
State Department and Secretary of State George Marshall the most persuasive
voice in the president’s ear, Truman reoriented U.S. foreign policy towards
containing the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan that did so much to rebuild
Western Europe was, according to Kennan, the quintessential example of his
containment theory in practice. The creation of NATO was likewise an essential
move for convincing Western Europe of American security commitments. And
Marshall nearly single-handedly kept the U.S. out of a potentially cataclysmic
war with China, according to the political scientist Robert Jervis.
There is no doubt that the Truman administration also contained significant
elements of liberalism and missionary zeal. Expanding the Korean War above the
49th parallel, the Truman Doctrine of aiding any government resisting
Communism, a defense build-up beyond what was necessary—these policies lacked
the crucial realist element of proportion, as Kennan, Lippman, and others
warned at the time.
Yet the Truman administration synthesized a strategy for containing (and
eventually defeating) the Soviets without waging war. Despite Truman’s
mistakes, even his expanded containment doctrine was more realist-minded than
the Republican plan of rollback, a more aggressive, forward-leaning policy than
mere containment of the Soviets.
It was only during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that Democrats
fully embraced crusading liberalism. As theorized by Kennan, Morgenthau, and
Lippman, containment was only supposed to be applied to Europe, but the Korean
conflict convinced policymakers that the Cold War was a global struggle. Kennedy and Johnson pursued this notion to its logical conclusion, ensnaring
America in futile, counterproductive adventures in Cuba, Laos, and most disastrously,
Vietnam. Nevertheless, “the idea that Democrats are the party of human rights
and Republicans are the party of realists is just a caricature,” says Joseph
Nye, assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration.
Like all caricatures, there is some truth in the drawing. It was left to the
Republican Nixon administration to inject realism back into American strategy
following the Kennedy-Johnson era. Splitting the Sino-Soviet alliance was a
masterstroke, and détente was a wise plan to husband U.S. power in an age of
overstretch. Yet Nixon and his right-hand man Kissinger also succeeded in
discrediting realism. Indeed, the term “Kissingerism” was coined to
denote a particular brand of ruthlessness in foreign policymaking, so closely did
the secretary-of-state-turned-national-security-adviser come to personally
embody this approach to the world. In 1976, both Democratic nominee Jimmy
Carter and Republican primary contender Ronald Reagan attacked the
Nixon-Kissinger-Ford style of foreign policy as amoral, contrasting it with
their preferred methods based around human rights and anticommunism
respectively. Since then, foreign-policy realism has been shunned by
politicians, in public at least, as immoral and contrary to American values.
Ironically, the assumption that Kissinger was, and is, the realist par
excellence was flawed from the beginning. While realist-minded in some
ways, in other respects Kissinger was anomalous. Nearly all realists
opposed both the Vietnam and Iraq Wars—except for Kissinger. Similarly,
realists always focused on Western Europe as the leading (usually only) front
in the Cold War, but Kissinger and Nixon were obsessed with maintaining
strength in the Third World, overthrowing governments and sponsoring coups.
They too expanded containment beyond the European theatre, but wrongly claimed
to be acting as realists in doing so. “Kissinger’s motives and actions departed
significantly from the realist model,” says historian Jeremy Suri, author of Henry
Kissinger and the American Century.
With Kissingerism wrongly conflated with realism, it is no wonder the
American public associates the latter with brutality. And even apart from that,
there are those who argue that realism can never gain a dependable foothold in
this country. They point to the messianic aspects of the American character and
argue that liberalism is hard-wired into the country’s DNA. “Getting Americans
to support realism is something of an uphill battle,” says Walt. “It often
becomes popular in this country only when things get bad.”
But that’s why realism has made something of a comeback in the wake of the
Iraq War. That misadventure is a prime example of how seemingly noble aims can
lead to disastrous outcomes, both for the United States and for those the U.S.
intends to liberate. With its doctrine of preventive war, disdain for allies,
and disregard for the probable consequences of failure, the Bush administration
was “explicitly anti-realist,” the prominent realist Kenneth Waltz said in
2006. He once voted for Republicans, but “like most of today’s realists, Waltz
is now a Democrat—a trend that he views as a reaction to the capture of the
Republican Party, from Ronald Reagan onward, by remake-the-world ideologues,”
the National Journal reported.
Beginning in 2005 and 2006, the Bush administration embraced a semblance of the realism that had been prevalent in the George H.W. Bush administration. “Bush brought in Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, fired Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney had much less influence,” says Lind, who notes that there was a sort of palace restoration of his father’s allies. But there are not many Bush I Republicans left to keep filling the palaces of successive GOP administrations.
Beginning in 2005 and 2006, the Bush administration embraced a semblance of the realism that had been prevalent in the George H.W. Bush administration. “Bush brought in Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, fired Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney had much less influence,” says Lind, who notes that there was a sort of palace restoration of his father’s allies. But there are not many Bush I Republicans left to keep filling the palaces of successive GOP administrations.
Realist Republicans are increasingly abandoning their party. “I think the
party got carried away with the idea of American exceptionalism,” says Lawrence
Korb, an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration.
“Reagan resisted the neocons, but under Bush they finally came to power.” A long-time
Republican, Korb is now, tellingly, with the Center for American Progress, a
leading liberal think tank. “It’s no coincidence that Colin Powell and I both
endorsed Obama,” he says. Joining Powell and Korb in doing so were other
prominent realists, including Walt, Lawrence Wilkerson, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Robert Pape, and Andrew Bacevich. “I think people from the Nixon administration
and the Reagan administration would be comfortable in the Obama
administration,” says Korb.
Meanwhile, figures from the first Bush administration, such as Brent
Scowcroft and James Baker, are nowhere to be found in the Party of Palin. “The
realist community has not been at the forefront of the debate in the party’s
evolution,” admits Stefan Halper, who worked in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and
Bush I administrations. Jack Matlock, ambassador to the Soviet Union during the
Reagan administration, says he is no longer a Republican: “Where the GOP
leadership has gone has just been appalling.” Matlock, who worked for the first
President Bush as well, points to resistance to President Obama’s New START
arms-reduction treaty with Russia as a striking example of the Republican
Party’s un-realist turn.
Even as recently as the 1990s the Republican Party was hospitable to
realism. The party was divided about sending troops to the Balkans and spurned
the concept of nation-building. As a presidential nominee in 2000, George W.
Bush emphasized humility as his overriding foreign-policy theme. “I’m worried
about over-committing our military around the world,” he said during a debate
with Al Gore. “I want to be judicious in its use.” The GOP was extremely
skeptical of rebuilding failed states. “We don’t need to have the 82nd Airborne
escorting kids to kindergarten,” Condoleezza Rice wrote in 2000.
But 9/11 obliterated the realist presence in the GOP. Figures like Scowcroft
and Powell were marginalized as Republicans jettisoned their humility and
embraced nation-building. “If you look at George W. Bush’s second inaugural
address, it sounds like something that could have been written by Woodrow
Wilson,” says Nye. So dramatic was the Republican turnaround in foreign policy
that by 2008, after serving eight years at President Bush’s side, Rice had
reconsidered her comments scoffing at the ineffectiveness of American soldiers
taking kids to school: “I still think that’s right, but somebody’s got to do
it.”
Now realists and liberals are increasingly lining up on the same side of the
political balance sheet on issue after issue: withdrawal from Iraq and
Afghanistan, the need for U.S. pressure to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace,
diplomacy toward Iran, cutting the defense budget, and protecting civil
liberties. “What you’re seeing right now is realists, the left, and some
libertarians acting together in opposition to liberal internationalists and the
neocons,” says Walt. Michael Lind goes farther: “Obama comes out of the realist
wing of the Republican Party,” he says. “I think he is basically a Rockefeller
Republican.”
President Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan runs contrary to realist logic,
which says that counterinsurgency and nation-building are doomed strategies.
His foreign-policy advisers include numerous humanitarian interventionists, who
prevailed on him to intervene in Libya last year. But there are at least
elements of realism in the Obama administration, which is more than can be said
for today’s GOP. Vice President Biden, for example, has pushed for the
president to focus on defeating only Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban, in Afghanistan.
“The person Colin Powell called most often when he was secretary of state was
Joe Biden,” says Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s former chief of staff. Most
realists have been disappointed in Obama, but the alternative—a Republican Party
that remains in thrall to hawkish ideologues—may be even worse. Realists might
have to get used to putting a “D” beside their names. It won’t be the first
time they have done so.
No comments:
Post a Comment