fearlesshistory

In politics, political science, and history, there are two different ways in which one can view the world: Constructivists and Realists. Before you decide which of the two you are, let’s explore the different ways in which these philosophical attitudes have been applied throughout history.

First, there’s the “Realist” world view. Realists believe that the world is the way it is and that foreign policy should be adjusted in order to deal with that reality. In essence, the injustice, criminality, immorality, and conflicting political positions are the Immovable Object and to oppose them directly is folly and counter-productive. Perhaps the most famous realist in the 20th century was George kennan who, in his famous “Long Telegram,” posited that there was no way to deal with the Soviet Union and so the United States should engineer policies that isolate the Soviet Union from the decisions made in the world as much as possible. A mis-reading of this Realist world view led to the policy of military “containment.” In a later statement before Congress, Kennan asserted that he meant political conatinment, not the military containment that had been enacted by Truman, Eisenhower, and every President since the 1946 missive.

Constructivists are technically diametrically opposed. Constructivists see that there is evil in the world (or injustice, or violation of human rights, or whatever) and work to correct it. Sounds good, right? Maybe. Jimmy Carter, in his push for Human Rights while in office, was a classic Constructivist; human rights, the abolition of assassination, forging the Camp David peace accords, etc. were seen as making the world more “just.” However, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are also constructivists, and here’s how: regime change removes the “injustice” of a tyrant ruling over 20% of the world’s oil reserves, indefinite detention of terror suspect removes the “evil” they would do in the world, spreading “democracy” via military conquest, etc.

Every President and every Congress (with the exception of isolated abstentions and lone independents of all parties) since World War Two has been Constructivist in their worldview.

Truman instituted the military containment of the USSR via the formation of NATO;

Eisenhower oversaw his so-called Eisenhower Doctrine of military containment (though he would later regret that action and warn against the Military-Industrial complex’s influence in American politics);

Kennedy and missiles in Turkey (which sparked the Cuban missile crisis), Bay of Pigs invasion;

Lyndon B. Johnson and the expansion of American military commitment in Vietnam;

Nixon and “operation linebacker” and his trip to China (who, by the way, was considered a “rogue state” and a “supporter of terrorism” by ever administration since Truman’s, yet Nixon visited with no preconditions);

Ford’s handling of the first oil embargo crisis, Carter (as mentioned above);

Reagan and his “Mr. Gorbechev” speech, “Star Wars,” and the expansion of the military;

George H. W. Bush and the first Gulf War;

Bill Clinton and Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans;

George W. Bush and the War on Terror, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, GITMO, and Abu Ghraib.

Obama looks to be even more of a Constructivist, much in the mold of FDR or John Maynard Keynes with a healthy dose of Carter’s amitiousness toward foreign policy.

But there is a certain argument to be made for Realist politics (or as they are sometimes called “Realpolitik”): Realpolitik tempers Constructivist optimism and ambition, much as Ronald Reagan’s ambition to defeat the Evil Empire was tempered with the realization that such a defeat might require the elimination of nuclear arsenals. He realized that mutually-assured destruction had ossified the relationship between the United States and the Soveit Union and the only way to break away from such a stalemate was to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Similarly, Carter realized that thought he Camp David Accords has secured peace between Israel and Egypt (much to both’s economic and political benefit) that continued development of “enclaves” and “settlements” in Gaza and the West Bank would only further exacerbate the situation that Israel finds itself in in the late 1970’s; terrorism on the rise and continued bloodshed and mayhem on both sides. Though he tried to negotiate with Menachem Begin about those settlements, and received a “verbal promise” that they would stop, he (unfortunatley) did not get it in writing and settlements continued apace (or sped up in some years).

It is my hope that Obama will similarly temper his idealism with the reality of the world’s politics. His career thus far shows his capacity to take into account other people’s viewpoints and negotiate a settlement where both parties will be equally happy (or unhappy, depending upon your point of view); Harvard Law Review, Chicago politics, Illinois and Federal politics, his own Cabinet choices…all these point to a shrewd “Realpolitik” politician. Though some neoconservatives may paint him as a wishy-washy Liberal with rainbows and unicorns in his head, just ask Alice Palmer how “bare knuckled” Obama can be if you’re an intractable opponent; almost makes you feel sorry for Ahmedinijad, Kim Jung Il, and al Qaeda.

I hope he will do well, not just because I voted for him, but because untempered Constructivism got George W. Bush and company into trouble internationally (and the United States with them). In fact, I believe we should all hope he does well.

—————————Resources————————

George Kennan’s “Long Telegram “

Brookings Institute’s estimate of Iraq’s oil reserves

Library of Economics and Liberty’s analysis of Keynesian Economics

Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech

Tammerlin Drummond’s “Barack Obama, Harvard Law Review’s first Black president ” Los Angeles Times March 19, 1990 (reprint, 2008)

Trackback URI | Comments RSS