sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Pragmatism in US Foreign Relations

Realism vs Idealism

The bedrock of sound foreign policy should be one of comprehensive pragmatism rather than utopian hopes. Our Founding Fathers understood clearly that good government was founded on a "sly understanding of men's passions."

As the Cold War drew to a close a furious debate spun up in intellectual circles as to the nature of the emerging world order. Today we understand that the world has become a more difficult and in some ways more dangerous place. Whether it was due to the "clash of civilizations" or the continuation for the Hegelian struggle for recognition, Samuel P. Huntington was accurate in his assessment that "the moment of euphoria at the end of the Cold War generated an illusion of harmony, which was soon revealed to be exactly that."

The Obama Administration's idealistic whimsy as a methodology for foreign policy is a disaster now realized that will continue to deteriorate so long as the principal actors in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government are in office, wielding power.

America was soundly founded on a tradition of skepticism and constructive realism. The success of American Republic and capitalism is due to inherent checks against human excesses in government, and appeals to human self-interest in commerce. The Founding Fathers were sober realists who possessed a rather grim perspective on the human condition. The dour restraints on the new republic reflected not only their own political experiences but also their devotion to the works of Hobbes. 

The dark forces of human nature that lie just beneath the veneer of civilization compels us to look not to the morality of intent but the morality of consequence. The pursuit of self-interest is not so much the advocacy of national aggrandizement but the realization of our own limits accompanied by an analysis of the consequences of failure. When we consider US foreign policy, we need to place a premium on self-preservation as opposed to sacrifice, public virtue over private virtue, pride in achievements over humility. It is a continuous exercise in realism that accepts the universality of human nature yet acknowledges the various wavelengths of morality that serve to contain it. Individual moral perfection and a utopian state of man, while the grist of academic discussion must be set aside for the practical realities of the world that surrounds us.
Machiavelli wrote, "Anyone wishing to see what is to be must consider what has been: all the things of this world in every era have their counterparts in ancient times." (The Prince)
The leaders of the American nation are not students of history, unless that history covers the failed disasters that are utopian socialism and Marxism. They work fine in the classroom but not in the harsh world we as a nation are forced to live in. They need to school themselves in order to understand not only what they must do, but why they need to do it.

Realism and Idealism are polar opposites, often defining the conflicts we see in our political system.* Realism defines human nature as inherently bringing about conflict. All people act on self-interest as their motivating factor. Both Madison and Hamilton believed in realism and used its tenets as principles in crafting our Constitutional government. When we founder in our foreign affairs, it is because the administration rejects this completely.

A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell --and-- Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos by Robert Kaplan


  1. Liberals and reality don't get along well. Never have, never will. Wo has spoke.

  2. Very good piece, sir!!!

    I agree totally with regard to basing foreign policy on what is practical in the world presently.

    Developing foreign policy based on pipe dreams and negotiating that policy from a position of relative weakness seems inconsistent with pragmatism. These are two ideas I would expect to be foreign to someone with no understanding of what makes a strong foreign policy.

    Interesting term, "morality of consequence" ... In my small mind, I liken that to "fear of being caught".

  3. The apocalyptic hysterical anti Rush Limbaugh lefties that express more interest in his buying an NFL team than the smear job portrayed by that weasel Al Sharpton who is yet another reminder of the limits (and double standards) of the left-wing tolerance.

    And while we are on the subject of Rush and Al Sharpton.. Jesse Jackson is another one that brings disgrace on the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. every day.

    Al Sharpton along with Jessie Jackson are two of the most sleezy, greasy, fast-talking snake oil salesmen who has to exploit his hapless followers because he could never hold down a real job.

    Yet they both pontificate about their personal moral high ground.
    Don't you think?

  4. Sharpton and Jackson make their living by perpetuating other people's sorrow and by playing to the fears of a certain group of people.

    They have a vested financial interest in damaging their own constituents. And because they're pandered to by the mainstream media (with its own agenda), their shrill, "evangelist" voices drown out all others. The NBC megaphone works.

  5. First, the picture of that baby is the sweetest thing ever!

    I must be a realist. I believe in human self-interest and taking that into account during the decision-making process.

    Obama's utopian fantasies are making the US a laughing stock on the world stage.

  6. LL - I wish I could have said it like that. What you just wrote is the entire basis for my beliefs in conservatism. If we removed these dubious people from power, and sort of transferred that power to their "subjugates", imagine how much we could help those in our population who actually need it!!

  7. Hallo.I have visited your interesting blog.Do You want visit the my blog for an exchange visit?Grazie.


It's virtual - it's a mirage - it's life