« Mmmmm, Wonkishness | Main | George Bush is a Good Man and the Democrats Can Go to Hell »

July 2, 2005

A Friendly Reminder

There are four dominant strains of thought in American foreign policy. The Jeffersonians, at best warning against hubris and focusing on making ourselves better as an example to others, at worst the Michael Moore school of fiddling while Rome burns and self-loathing (isolationists); the Hamiltonians, who would as soon buy the loyalty of the world as anything, and don't really have guiding principles beyond a rigid adherence to our interests of the moment (realists); the Wilsonians, who believe in bringing representative self-governance and economic prosperity to the world by evangelizing American philosophy (Truman Democrats); and the Jacksonians, who act like Jeffersonians and Wilsonians as much as possible, but will are the vengeance of the Old Testament God made manifest when we're attacked (the neocons). The President is a mix of Wilsonian and Jacksonian, as are, I think, most Americans.

Now, the Jeffersonians are loud but powerless, and we're not going to disengage from the Middle East no longer how loud they whine. The Hamiltonians just want to preserve the flow of oil, and don't care about much else. The Wilsonians are giving a try in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere to convert the Arab nations to benign, self-governing, representative liberal democracies. The Jacksonians are quiescent, waiting to see how Afghanistan and Iraq shape up as long as we seem safe at home.

So with that as background, I'd like to make a couple of points to the jihadis, and to those Muslims unwilling or unable to stand up to the jihadis. The selection by the Iranian mullahs of a terrorist, murderer and kidnapper as president makes this particular Jacksonian pretty nervous, particularly combined with Iran's push to develop nuclear weapons. The pyramids and Karnak are pretty in pictures, but I've never been there. The oil is useful, and we'll do our best to preserve it no matter what happens, because we need it.

Outside of that, the Muslim world offers nothing to the rest of us, and if every Arab/Muslim between Algeria and Pakistan were to die in a day, we'd be shocked and appalled for a few weeks, then go on with our lives as if we never existed. Hence this warning: you live at our sufferance, and die at our will. That will will be galvanized, and almost instantly acted on, if there is ever another 9/11-scale attack on the US mainland, or a nuclear or chemical attack on American or European or other first world countries, or a series of suicide bombings in the US.

Think before you act, jihadis and apologists. America is benevolent, but not infinitely so.

Posted by jeff at July 2, 2005 8:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/286

Comments

I think you've done us Jeffersonians an injustice.

Jefferson was not averse to war, when he felt the well-being of the country demanded it. The war against the Barbary states was his undertaking; the policy prior to his inauguration was to pay protection money -- extortion so that the navies of Tripoli, Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis would leave our shipping unmolested. Genius that he was, he could easily have reached the same conclusions about going forth to liberate others out of sheer self-interest as you and I have reached.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at July 2, 2005 12:19 PM

You don't give Hamiltonians/realists enough credit. If Hamilton were alive today he'd be as much of a neocon for realist purposes: stable and representative governments usually don't attack one another and hence, increase security for most everyone. Other than that though, good post. Especially like the line about "you live at our sufferance, and die at our will." Cool.

Posted by: nemesisenforcer at July 3, 2005 1:08 AM

First, a quibble. Jeff, the neocons are Wilsonians.

Now a self-promotion. You might want to check out my post, Plan B. We've tried a Hamiltonian foreign policy in the Middle East (that's generally what we're being criticized for when we're accused of “supporting repressive regimes” there—trade. Either that or Mossadegh.). We're trying a Wilsonian policy now. If that fails, we'll adopt either a Jacksonian policy or a Jeffersonian policy. Either way the Middle East is screwed. They'd best hope that democratization of Iraq succeeds.

Posted by: Dave Schuler [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 3, 2005 9:54 AM

No offense was meant to Jeffersonians or Hamiltonians - at times their arguments are the best way forward. (And neither Jefferson nor Hamilton themselves could be accused of anything less than full-blooded American exceptionalism: there's a reason there's no "Burrite" school of foreign policy.) And point taken, Dave, about the neocons. On further reflection, I believe you are correct.

Now that you mention your post, by the way, I remember it. I think that it's a characteristic of good writing that I tend to internalize it. Steven Den Beste and Bill Whittle can do that. So can you, Dave, and you, Fran.

One last thing, Dave, to your point: we tried Jeffersonian, too, for a while. Remember all the carping early in Bush's first term, pre-9/11, about the US "disengaging" from the world? Bush is, I think, naturally Jeffersonian, absent a threat. Of course, that might just be the definition of Jacksonian, in some ways, except I don't think Jackson was as concerned about setting a moral example as was Jefferson.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 4, 2005 8:34 PM