Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 19 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 4/26/17

The Weakness and Limits of a Jacksonian Foreign Policy

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   5 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Dan Phillips

Andrew Jackson Defends New Orleans in War of 1812
Andrew Jackson Defends New Orleans in War of 1812
(Image by The History Channel)
  Details   DMCA

One reason that some non-interventionists had hope that the Republican base was coming around on foreign policy was their widespread opposition to intervention in Syria following the alleged Ghouta chemical weapons attack by President Assad in 2013. We now know with near certainty that that attack was a Turkish false flag designed to drag the U.S. into the war on the side of the rebels, as non-interventionists insisted all along, but that is for another essay. The attack appeared to violate Obama's rhetorical "red line," and the U.S. seemed poised for war until Russian President Vladimir Putin intervened and saved President Obama's bacon.

What happened to prevent a U.S. attack at the diplomatic level is interesting, but on the ground in the U.S. there was widespread resistance on the part of the Republican base and consequently Republican office holders to support a U.S. attack on Syria. The main Republican and "conservative" voices supporting U.S. intervention in 2013 were the interventionist ideologues who reliably support military intervention such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. John McCain, and pundit Bill Kristol. Much to the chagrin of non-interventionists, especially those of us who thought Trump's America first rhetoric represented a real change in direction on foreign policy, the GOP base is all onboard with Trump's airstrikes. (86% for Trump's intervention vs. 22% for Obama's potential intervention.)

It would be easy to view this as rank partisanship, and surely some of it is, but Jarrett Stepman offers an additional explanation for this dichotomy in an article at The National Interest entitled "Trump's America 'First Policy' Will Woo Jacksonians." Stepman's explanation rings true to me and accords with observations about the GOP base that I have previously made myself (see here, here, and here), although Stepman seems supportive of the strike while I most certainly am not.

Stepman observes:

Most of the GOP base's attitude toward foreign policy is what political scientist Walter Russell Mead has called "Jacksonian," after America's seventh president, Andrew Jackson.

They do not believe that the United States should go out in the world seeking monsters to destroy, but instead they view America's international relations through the prism of what is specifically in our self-interest"

Jackson believed, as many Jacksonian voters understand today, that for the United States to maintain peace the country must be feared and respected. Jacksonians are generally proponents of using overwhelming force once they have calculated that the nation and its interests are threatened, and they demand that American "honor" be upheld in foreign relations.

Daniel Larison at The American Conservative objects to Stepman's framing because he argues that Trump's strike on Syria was not in our self-interest. I believe Larison is correct, but what is in play here is the GOP base's perception of our self-interests, not reality. Larison's objection is really less a criticism of Stepman's argument and more a recognition of the weaknesses and limitations of Jacksonianism vis-a-vis Jeffersonian non-intervention.

The problem with Jacksonianism from a non-interventionist perspective is that it can approach Jeffersonianism if it narrowly defines our interests and narrowly perceives threats, or it can approach Wilsonianism if it broadly defines our interests and broadly perceives threats. I do believe it is true that the average rank and file Republican voter is not an ideological Wilsonian, but they do over define our interests and over perceive threats and thus support interventions that are not in our real interests. They must broadly defines both these things in order to perceive a small far off country like Syria that has not attacked us as a threat or a vital interest.

American Jacksonians have this broad view because they have embraced decades of catechization that the U.S. must of necessity play a greatly outsized role on the world stage, so they see our interests and threats from their viewpoint of our necessary role, not from the view of actual real threats to the homeland. To put it another way, American Jacksonians have incorporated an element of Wilsonianism into their baseline assumptions. This often quickly comes out when you challenge them about the literal threat posed by whatever the bad foreign country of the day is.

It is this view of the U.S.'s role on the world stage that must be relentlessly challenged, but the Jeffersonians are not going away anytime soon so it is important to understand how they think and work with it. Mr. Stepman's article is a good starting point for this understanding. In the grand scheme of things, we can be thankful that they are at least better than the Utopian Wilsonians.
Rate It | View Ratings

Dan Phillips Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Dr. Dan E. Phillips is an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon, Georgia. His work has been published at many sites on the internet including The Economic Populist.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Trump is Right: NATO is Obsolete

Jennifer Rubin: Liar or Dunce?

Trump and the Rise of Republican Doves?

The Tin Ear of Free Trade Advocates

No Bolton at State!

The Weakness and Limits of a Jacksonian Foreign Policy

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend