Several days ago I posted some material on US foreign policy from Tocqueville and A Waco Farmer here. Then I asked this question: "Question for discussion: In 2006/2007, should the United States follow the policy of George Washington as expressed by John Quincy Adams?"

Washington had called for the US not to get involved in the political/national struggles in Europe. JQA, writing in the context of the breaking-up of the Spanish Empire in Latin America wrote:

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assumed the colors and usurped the standards of freedom.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

Since I posed the question: I suppose I should offer a few thoughts. (below)


On the one hand, Isolationism is not an option. Even if we tried to create Fortress America, we could not. We are too tied into the global economy; we would not/and probably could not prevent travel into and out of the US; and the cruise missles and rockets of our enemies could strike us where we live.

JQA bases his argument, in part, on a realistic assessment of life. Everything has limits, including nations. Hubris, attempting to live like a god without limits instead of like a human being with limits, is a sin of nations as well as individuals. The Realist School of Foreign policy has this going for it, it recognizes that we cannot do everything and so must act with cold-blooded rationalism measuring national needs and national capabilities, then acting accordingly. In theological terms, Realism recognizes the reality of finitude and the reality of sin. It is Fallen World politics. Wilsonian Idealism lacks a sense of limits and can be unrealistic about expectations in a fallen world.

The problem I have with pure Realism, though, is that it has no firm place for America's principles. "He may be a SOB, but he's our SOB." It seems to me that if principles have no place in our foreign policy, then we are untrue to our founding. In theological terms, Realism assumes there to be no redemptive transformation possible. Wilsonianism at least is true to our Founding Ideals and our sense of millenial optimism.

So now what?

Have you ever noticed that proverbs often come in antithetical pairs? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush--nothing ventured, nothing gained. Look before you leap--he who hesitates is lost. The point is that wisdom is more than merely having a right rule to follow: it means becoming a wise man or woman, the kind of person who knows which proverb fits the situation. It seems to me that we must steer between the Scylla of a pure Realism and the Charybdis of pure Idealism in foreign policy. Call it Ethical Realism, or Pragmatic Idealism.