2008 election

As I watch the primaries and all of the debating and campaigning that goes along with the major contests, I have been most curious about the candidates’ stances on foreign policy. All of them send somewhat mixed messages about the need for a new grand strategy and the future role of America in other countries. Senator John McCain’s campaign site has several instances of his realist platform regarding Iraq:

“In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military.”

“The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security.”

However, his site also speaks of the importance of “working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries…[and] maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies” – clearly a liberal view. The site even says, “John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas.” This sounds like a line directly from constructivist theory.

How do the various candidates’ stances on foreign policy conform to the schools of thought we have studied? And more importantly, which camp best describes how Americans feel right now? Will it be to candidates’ advantages to take up a new, more pragmatic realist perspective, to continue the Bush administration’s liberal campaign of expansion and hegemony, or to insist on international cooperation and the growth of American soft power on a constructivist basis?

Continuing our grand strategy strictly along Bush’s lines would clearly be a bad choice. Americans are frustrated by the stagnation of our campaign in Iraq, and most want either a withdrawal of troops or an increase in the number of troops to ensure that the enemy is defeated for good. But each IR perspective has a strong following among voters, and all for good reason.

A more restricted realist approach would prescribe a continued military buildup, but would also limit conflicts and interference in other countries to cases in which US interests are directly threatened. Liberal institutional or complex interdependence theories would lead us to reverse the trend of disregarding international institutions and work more closely with other liberal democracies. A constructivist approach would encourage the US to build soft power and trust with others, probably by limiting our military involvement, forming more alliances and international institutions, and aiding in development and the growth of free markets and democracy worldwide.

In this election, America faces a choice between a variety of new grand strategies that could continue US hegemony, weaken our power, or even increase it. The difficulty is figuring out which strategy would be most helpful to our interests. The decision rests on a number of factors that are hard to determine, including whether others view us as a revisionist or status quo state, how threatened others are by our military capabilities (versus our military policies), and whether balancing of any type is taking place or is imminent. Any candidate who could illuminate these issues and explain how their foreign policy platform would help maintain US hegemony without alienating others would gain an advantage in the 2008 election.