The Institutions Behind US Foreign Policy, with Daniel Bessner
Oct 16, 2020
auto_awesome
Daniel Bessner, a University of Washington professor and Quincy Institute fellow, dives into the depths of U.S. foreign policy and its institutional frameworks. He critiques the enduring influence of realism and the 'blob' of established policymakers, arguing for reforms from a leftist perspective. The conversation also highlights the pivotal role of the National Security Council and the need for a non-militarized approach to global issues. Bessner emphasizes constructive U.S.-China relations and the necessity for diverse voices in academia and media to reshape policy views.
US foreign policy has evolved through various ideological frameworks since World War II, significantly shaped by a Manichean understanding of international relations.
The dominant realist perspective in international relations often emphasizes state security and power, sidelining diplomatic engagement and reinforcing binary worldviews.
Addressing the complexities of military intervention for humanitarian purposes requires the left to rethink strategies that align with anti-imperialist ideals.
Deep dives
The Intellectual Foundation of US Foreign Policy
US foreign policy has evolved significantly since World War II, driven by various ideological frameworks that define how it responds to global challenges. Historians, political theorists, and other analysts provide differing narratives about this evolution, whether viewing it through the lens of security, economic expansion, or cultural dominance. A critical perspective shared in the discussions emphasizes the success of a Manichean framework, simplifying complex international relations into binaries of good versus evil. This binary logic emerged prominently after World War II, especially with the portrayal of both Nazi Germany and later the Soviet Union as existential threats, shaping the ideologies of American foreign policy makers.
Realism and Its Impact on Foreign Policy
Realism has emerged as a dominant theory in the realm of international relations, profoundly influencing the formation of US foreign policy over the decades. It posits that states are primarily concerned with their own security and power, often rejecting idealistic notions of diplomacy and cooperation. The conversation highlights how the prevailing realist perspective has shaped the mindset of policymakers, suggesting that war is an inevitable facet of international relations, which can lead to a neglect of diplomatic efforts. Consequently, the realist framework can inadvertently reinforce a Manichean view of the world, complicating efforts for constructive engagement with so-called adversaries.
The Challenges of Military Humanitarianism
Debates surrounding the use of military force for humanitarian purposes present a significant dilemma for the left in conceptualizing foreign policy. The argument hinges on the viability of 'good' military intervention, which is frequently proposed as a solution to humanitarian crises, such as in Rwanda. However, both historical evidence and theoretical critiques point to the inherent contradictions of using military power to achieve humanitarian objectives, undermining the essence of anti-imperialist goals. This ambivalence complicates the left’s stance on interventionist policies, requiring a reevaluation of strategies that do not rely on military solutions for political problems.
The 'Blob' and the US Foreign Policy Establishment
The term 'Blob' characterizes the entrenched foreign policy establishment in Washington, which straddles both major political parties and consists of various interconnected groups influencing American global strategies. This network includes defense contractors, think tanks, and policymakers, often prioritizing militaristic solutions over diplomatic engagement. The conversation underscores the historical continuity of this establishment, which has evolved through significant events like the establishment of the National Security Council post-World War II. Despite its pervasive influence, the discussion also implies that the Blob's power is not insurmountable, as rigorous critique and alternative narratives emerge in the current political landscape.
Institution Building and a New Vision for Foreign Policy
Effectively changing US foreign policy will necessitate the development of new institutions and educational initiatives that promote anti-imperialist perspectives. This path forward emphasizes the importance of creating networks that challenge the dominant military-industrial complex's narratives and building platforms for leftist viewpoints in foreign policy discourse. Moreover, the conversation touches on the growing skepticism among younger generations towards traditional notions of American power, opening avenues for alternative visions of international relations. By fostering education and institutional development, the left can effectively cultivate a more nuanced understanding of global engagement that prioritizes justice and cooperation over militarism.
University of Washington professor, Quincy Institute fellow, and (above all) Foreign Exchanges columnist Daniel Bessner joins me for a chat about his first two FX pieces, the development of US foreign policy and the foreign policy establishment in DC, and some of the structural obstacles to overhauling that foreign policy for leftists.
* You can read his piece on the Military-Intellectual Complex at The New Republic
* The Center for International Policy’s new study on the defense establishment’s funding of major think tanks is available here as a PDF
* Finally, buy Daniel’s book! Or wait for the audiobook! Or buy both!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.foreignexchanges.news/subscribe
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
