Foreign Policy Concepts: Idealism and Realism

At the dawn of the 21^st Century, it is perhaps ironic that the foreign policy of the most technologically advanced nation on Earth is still influenced heavily by theories devised nearly a century ago. For American diplomacy may confidently be said to be influenced by two divergent theories on international politics; realism and idealism.

These two seemingly incompatible outlooks, Idealism and Realism have had a pronounced impact on policy making in the United States. One could argue that most American foreign policy rhetoric is idealistic, as idealism is used to sell foreign policy to the American people and to the wider world. Historically, the Truman Doctrine was portrayed as a plan to formulate a safer democratic world in which people could live free of communist tyranny, its realist content was to contain Communism. The 1991 Gulf War was similarly portrayed although it was perhaps more to do with the economics of oil. In a nation founded on the premise that “all men are created equal”, it remains the premise the US fights for, albeit twisted and manipulated to suit politicians. In this sense, idealism itself can be seen as a tool of foreign policy.

Whilst President Monroe's Doctrine is an early example of American idealism, the concept is most closely associated with President Woodrow Wilson. His rhetoric was moralistic in his calls to make the world safe for democracy. To Wilson, the first World War was a holy war. Wilson's rationale did not match the national interest, but the war was in America's national interest. Wilson’s Fourteen Points speech to Congress in January 1918 called for an end to the old balance of power system of international politics in favour of a new collective security system grounded in the League of Nations International Organisation. Wilson brought America out of isolationism, placing her as a world power. His rhetoric called the war a crusade to win over evil (evoking the good v evil dichotomy which would pervade forever in FP rhetoric).

Idealism stresses threats to global rather than national security. During the Cold War the idealists sought to universalise the humanitarian ideals and moral principles to which the United States aspired. They advocated support for international organisations, international law, arms control, human rights, and above all, democratic government. Idealists believed in the possibility of creating a more secure, prosperous and just world order, one compatible with American values.

The notion of collective security and the equality of nations was and is foreign to many nations, especially those as entrenched in the European balance of power system.  As a result European leaders and American Congressmen rejected idealism, in favour of political realism.  Congress felt that the national interest was more important than the moralistic notion of a League of Nations, devised under the Treaty of Versailles. This resulted in a foreign policy based on rational calculations of power and national interest. It was a policy based on Machiavellian principles of interest, prudence and expediency above morality. To realists, idealistic crusades were anathema. Realism, or Realpolitik stresses the expectation of conflict between states, not collaboration, the need to increase power relative to one's adversaries, the inadequacy of moral precepts as a guide to foreign affairs, and a distrust of others' motives. The intellectual tradition of political realism rejects moralism in foreign policy and assumes instead that survival is the nation's only acceptable ethical obligation. National power is the best route to its realization.

Realism has been most popular when international events seemed to confirm its pessimistic assumptions. In threatening eras policy makers typically found realism a comfortable worldview and concluded that America should pursue its self-interest with policies based on power calculations. The American preoccupation with geopolitical spheres of influence and military balances, and the equation of national power with military might, derived from the assumptions of realpolitik. Correspondingly, debates about military preparedness and related issues were cloaked in the language of realism. Morganthau was a believer in Realism and he felt that Alexander Hamilton had been also.  The prescription that America 'act realistically' by seeking power and maintaining international order through military strength and reasoned strategy attracted a large following. Even during the Cold War however, the concept of idealism survived as a viable concept. For 20 years, Wilsonian idealism had allowed American leaders to conduct their global role with missionary vigour.

Realism and idealism are continuing traditions in American diplomacy for they compete to define the nation's objectives. While one tradition may predominate in certain periods, as idealism did after 1915 and realism did after 1945, neither has ever dispelled the influence of the other. Thus American foreign policy traditionally encompasses both prudent realism and moral idealism. Each tradition responds to two indispensable needs; to protect the nation from external threats in a hostile world and to stand for ideals worthy of emulation. This duality accounts for Washington's ability to pursue seemingly contradictory foreign policy goals.

Today's climate of opinion continues to reflect both traditions. Particularly pronounced is the notion of American idealism in enlarging the community of democratic states. This sense of mission was rooted in American history by James Madison who wrote in 1792's "Universal Peace" that he looked forward to a "decline in the role played by war" and in "a revolution in the conduct of diplomacy".  This practice was continued under Woodrow Wilson and continues today. In 1994, Henry Kissinger wrote, "all of Wilson's successors have been Wilsonian to some degree, and subsequent American foreign policy has been shaped by his maxims."

For many years, American foreign policy has, in the words of Henry Kissinger, oscillated between an excessive concern with power and the total rejection of power." Liberal internationalists found their enthusiasm for democratic promotion on Wilson's thinking. However many realists also promote the goal of enlarging the circle of democratic states. Kissinger, himself a realist stated, "America must try to forge the widest possible moral consensus around a global commitment to democracy." His former boss, President Nixon, similarly stated, " our goal should be to enlarge free market democracy." Few would openly embrace the policies of Woodrow Wilson however. Only President Carter made a visible effort to embrace Wilsonianism, with his emphasis on human rights particularly in Us -Sino relations.  When this effort visibly failed, the policy was abruptly abandoned, and was from then on cloaked in more realistic language. President Bush urged a Wilsonian style of world leadership following the Gulf War when he heralded a "new world order" in which freedom and human rights would be upheld. Wilsonianism also implies American leadership in world affairs, and again Bush referred to the post Gulf War as an opportunity for America to lead the world in the direction of peace. Rhetoric in International Relations is rarely matched with idealistic actions however, and Bush’s vision of a New World Order was no exception.

Thus realists seem to have joined idealists in treating participatory democracy as a value on which American policy can now profitably be centred and whose expansion serves the nation's security interests. The Clinton Administration embraced such a notion, when the President declared in his 1994 State of the Union Address, "Democracies don't attack each other."  It could be therefore that a revolution is occurring with both realists and idealists coming to share a common conviction about the virtues of democratisation. This process has been aided by President Clinton's attempts to strengthen American power and position by pushing for worldwide acceptance of the democratic virtues that underpin America's liberal political culture. Bill Clinton's foreign policy is based on the Wilsonian tradition, promoting democracy, prosperity and enhancing security. He has also played to the public mood by favouring a continued strong defence, consistent with realist thinking. The future of American foreign policy would appear to be dependent therefore on both realpolitik and idealism. For the moment however, Henry Kissinger has declared, "Wilsonianism is triumphant."