"Foreign Policy: 2 Camps Seek McCain's Ear"

Last week, The New York Times published an article concerning the potential foreign policy of presidential candidate John McCain. In the past, McCain was considered one of the so-called pragmatists, a part of the Republican party who considered the Iraq war a mistake and with whom McCain has had close relationships. We would most likely refer to them as Realists. These “pragmatists” are expressing concern, however, that McCain is leaning more towards neo-conservatism these days. His list of potential foreign policy advisors includes Robert Kagan, who wrote a recent speech for him in which he referred to himself as a “realistic idealist.” Much of this struggle stems from the division in the party, which has led to neoconservatives unhappy about McCain’s candidacy to try to persuade him to continue neoconservatist foreign policy. McCain defended himself by insisting that he takes advice from a wide variety of people. In fact, in the past, McCain has often supported neoconsertive actions. Some say he “bridges the difference.” The article states that realists are concerned that McCain hasn’t done the work involved in formulating a strong foreign policy and does not really know as much as his campaign advisors imply- as evidence by the incidents in which he accused Iran of having ties with Al Qaeda. Overall, since McCain has yet to settle himself in one camp, the realists are worried.
This article demonstrates how relevant the debates between realists and neoconservatists really are. Whichever camp McCain decides to lean towards will decide many of his actions as president. Especially now, when a neoconservative administration has brought the nation to war and when realist fears of overextension are being played out, the foreign policy stance of presidential candidates is extremely important. The fears that realists express are understandable, even if they are exaggerated. Neoconservatives overextend, in their view, so a third consecutive presidential administration acting from neoconservative views would be ruinous for the nation. What I find most interesting about this article is the apparent refusal of McCain to take a specific stance on the issue. Foreign policy is a divisive issue within the Republican Party, as the attempts of realists and neoconservatives to vie for influence within it show. After an unpopular Republican president, McCain is probably following a smart political strategy. He is probably trying to bridge the gap by incorporating both legs of the party.
Additionally, at times, he seems to demonstrate liberal institutionalist tendencies as well. He is known to support multilateralism more strongly than most neoconservatives. He also has been a strong advocate for international environmental issues. Basically, he is covering all the bases. Multiple camps can interpret his overall stance as in compliance with their own camps. They can also, however, interpret it as in compliance totally with another camp which may hurt him in the end and lose all his support.
I wrote a little while ago about a McCain article in Foreign Affairs. He put a lot of emphasis on a league of democracies. I was not surprised to learn, therefore, that he has been receiving advice from Robert Kagan. What we have read by Kagan echoes almost exactly these ideas. It’s especially interesting to look at this emphasis in light of recent readings concern democratic peace theory and the imposition of democracy. Democracies in countries without pro-American sentiment will not necessarily ally with us, as Kagan seems to suggest, or be willing to support us. Spreading democracy has yet to make a stable, manageable Iraq. It is interesting, then, how much McCain seems to emphasize it. Let’s hope that, if elected, the recent concessions McCain has made to the neoconservative camp develop into a strong bond that trumps the wiser, in my opinion, theories of foreign policy. After eight years of unsuccessful neoconservativism, I don’t even quite understand why this is a question.