A Radical Foreign Policy Proposal for President-elect Trump
By Anthony Stahelski
American foreign policy has been formed by two very different philosophies. One is realpolitik, and the other is American Exceptionalism. Realpolitik, a term coined by a German politician in the 1800s, is diplomacy based on furthering a country’s self-interest by considering practical realities, as opposed to basing diplomacy on ethical principles or a specific political ideology. American Exceptionalism is diplomacy based on the concept that the United States is a positive exceptional country whose ethical purpose is to bring freedom and democracy to the entire world.
Since the United States became a world power in WWII, none of the post-war presidents have consistently based their foreign policy on either of these opposing philosophies. Every administration has had an inconsistent foreign policy based on a confusing mish-mash blend of the two philosophies. Given that we have been the world’s superpower since 1945 this confusion has had negative domestic and international repercussions.
Now we come to President-elect Donald Trump. He perceives himself as an anti-establishment radical. In this transition period between the election and the inauguration, he has demonstrated a willingness to ignore standard foreign policy procedures that have been followed by Presidents of both parties for decades. For example, Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from the President of Taiwan, a shocking move since we stopped recognizing Taiwan as a separate country in 1979. If Trump wants to do something that is radically different yet consistent with American values, the following proposal might appeal to him.
First, give up realpolitik.
American realpolitik is most associated with Henry Kissinger, but many other American diplomats have followed it, both before and after Kissinger’s time in power. American adherents of realpolitik believe that the United States should always operate in its own self-interest, even if this means doing things that are opposed to American values, such as supporting and allying with dictators. Perhaps the most glaring unethical consequence of American realpolitik is our inconsistent response to genocide. At times we intervened to stop genocide, for example in Bosnia and Iraq, and at other times we ignored it, as in Rwanda.
Second, consistently embrace American Exceptionalism.
Such an embrace would be criticized from opponents across the political spectrum. Perhaps the most salient criticism would be the following:
It is impossible to consistently follow American Exceptionalism as a guide to foreign policy because doing so would threaten our own self-interest.
Trump could make the following counter-argument to this criticism. Globalization has created an unprecedented level of interconnectedness in the world. This means that what happens in one part of the world can quickly affect all parts of the world. At the global level democracy and the rule of law has been declining since 2008, after over 200 years of expansion. Why should Americans care about this? Because the decline in global democracy will sooner, rather than later, threaten the ongoing existence of our own democracy. Therefore American Exceptionalism as a basis for our foreign policy is in our immediate self-interest, as well as in the long-term interest of the people of the world.
Anthony Stahelski, is a a professor of psychology at Central Washington University in Ellensburg Washington.