Mr. Poulos, the author of this piece, is a young conservative quite against the war in Iraq and the Bush Presidency. But I have to give him props for this piece. If I were British rather than American, I would be a liberal imperialist. Churchill once said he "gloried in the name liberal imperialist." I do not glory in the name. This is largely because America can not support it because it is a minority taste and only by alliance with the Jacksonians(which I would be if I did not think we needed a little more Machiavelli in our state craft) and the Wilsonians can we move our policy goals forward. As per usual, the Jeffersonians do not like big Navies and are in my view right out.
Here is a brief primer on the four schools of foreign policy thought in America which simplifies and boils down Russel Meades brilliant analysis on this subject. http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm
The two schools of thought which are best for America and work best in tandem are Hamiltonian and Jacksonian. However, the best argument any Hamiltonian, Wilsonian or Jeffersonian can make to foreign recreants is "you can deal with me, or you can deal with the Jacksonians."
Update: Be still my beating ego! I just found out Walter Russel Meade, in a review of a great biography of Churchill, hits some of the themes noted here!
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020501fareviewessay8065/walter-russell-mead/the-liberal-lion.html
1 comment:
Right on about Jeffersonians and the Navy. The only reason Jefferson agreed to go after the Barbary Pirates was Decatur's pitching of the expedition to TJ as a "Philosophical Diversion."
Your post conjured up a great image of Wilson, Hamilton and Jefferson saying "Gee, it would be a shame if Andy here got upset or something," with Jackson off to the side slowly whapping a baseball bat into his palm. "Batshit insane" is the departure point for that wacko.
Post a Comment