The Disappointment of a Mainstream Foreign Policy Perspective

Fourth Quarter 2000

by Tracy Kuperus

In assessing the foreign policy perspectives of the major presidential candidates, some observers have come to the conclusion that the similarities outweigh the differences. Whether George W. Bush or Al Gore is elected president, the trajectory of US foreign policy will be, in the words of Stephen Walt, "hegemony on the cheap," or the unilateral exercise of America's preponderant power at the lowest cost possible. This judgment can be clarified through an assessment of the campaign rhetoric of the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.

One of the most persistent criticisms hounding Governor Bush is that he is not knowledgeable enough about foreign affairs to lead the United States. While it is true that Bush lacks the intellectual depth pertaining to foreign policy issues, that limitation is not sufficient to disqualify him as a leader in foreign affairs. Americans have previously elected presidents whose knowledge of foreign affairs was scant or for whom foreign policy was a low priority (e.g. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton), and some of these candidates ran against opponents (Jimmy Carter, George Bush and Robert Dole) with consider-ably more knowledge about, and experience in, foreign affairs.

The more serious problem with the Bush foreign policy team is its projection of the expectation that under a Bush presidency US foreign policy will be significantly different from and superior to Clinton administration policy. Bush and his advisors have depicted the last eight years (and by extension the future under a Gore administration) as a visionless and undisciplined period in American foreign policy. Instead of pursuing American national interests in a dynamic world order through a strengthened military, limited military commitments abroad, and strong ties with allies, the Clinton administration is criticized for having pursued humanitarian interests with murky political goals and multilateral agreements as ends in themselves. A Bush administration's internationalist (but unilateralist) vision would, in Condoleezza Rice's words, make the world "more prosperous, democratic, and peaceful."

Bush and his advisors need not be chastised too strongly for their portrayal of Democratic administrations as pursuing neo-liberal foreign policy agendas crafted around an "illusory international community." Al Gore sounds like just such a neo-liberal when, for example, he calls for an internationalist foreign policy of "forward engagement" and criticizes Bush for adhering to a perspective clouded by the Cold War. Gore has emphasized that he will rely on diplomacy to settle unconventional issues that threaten US security, such as the environment, population growth, or biotechnology issues, and that he will bolster support for the United Nations.

However, the reality of the Clinton administration's actions in foreign policy endeavors, and even Gore's positions on these issues, reveal a party committed much more to realpolitik than to mushy idealism. Political scientist Stephen Walt has pointed out that the Clinton-Gore administration maintained America's military strength and limited the US military's direct role in conflicts while encouraging allies to become more involved in regional conflicts (such as Kosovo, Bosnia, and East Timor). And despite the cooperative rhetoric of the Clinton administration, it relied on multilateral initiatives and international organizations when they coalesced with US interests (for example, supporting the United Nation's democratization efforts in Haiti in 1994)) and ignored them when they did not (for example, denying the need for a peacekeeping force in Rwanda in 1994).

In the end, then, despite the difference of opinion between the candidates on specific foreign policy issues (such as national missile defense and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), the broad direction of US foreign policy will most likely continue to be "hegemony on the cheap" regardless of whether Gore or Bush becomes president. Christians seeking innovative or visionary foreign policy perspectives will not find much to encourage them in the Republican or Democratic nominees for president. Both candidates appear to have adopted pragmatic foreign policy agendas that aim to advance American (self-) interests narrowly.

A more encouraging perspective does exist. It revolves around principled foreign policy decision-making which would seriously address issues of a "new world order," such as the appropriateness of state intervention in humanitarian crises, the implications of increased economic interdependence, and the need for the kind of economic development in many areas of the world that will show greater concern for the breadth and diversity of human life on earth. But, alas, the time for such a perspective has not yet come.

[Dr. Kuperus is assistant professor of political studies at Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts.]