Dead Center: The Demise of Liberal Internationalism in the United States

In their article, Kupchan and Trubowitz (2007) explored the future of liberal internationalism in the United States. Liberal internationalism a political concept that refers to the ability of one liberal state to interfere in the affairs of another to achieve certain objectives. They oppose the argument that the presidency President George W. Bush marked the end of liberal internationalism in the country. The United States had previously used both its military power and international, cooperation to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Accordingly, political experts point out that the attacks on 2001 gave the Bush administration an incentive to flex the military muscle of the United States, which goes against previous foreign policy strategy of pursuing both the military and international cooperation. 

The authors oppose this view by arguing that the foreign policy adopted by the bush administration, mirrors the trajectory of the country’s foreign policy. They attribute the breakdown of liberal internationalism in the United States to the failure of the democratic and the Republican Party to agree on key issues at home. During the 20 century, liberal internationalism was anchored in the ability of the United States to use both its military strength and cooperation with partners to drive international objectives. It used its military power to ensure international stability, while it utilized multinational cooperation to lead the world. The success of liberal internationalism during this period was due to the bipartisan approach adopted by domestic political groups. Its longevity was due to the ability to incorporate power and multinational partnership in foreign policy. 

Kupchan & Trubowitz (2007) also attribute the rise of liberal internationalism to geopolitical developments across the globe. The outcomes of the Second World War forced political groups in the country to support a single foreign policy strategy. Threats posed by the soviet union and Nazi Germany, coupled with an imperialist japan compelled the united states to use it superior military power to monitor threats to international stability, while seeking the support of international institutions such as the united nations. In this position, the U.S was able to convince the international community that communism and fascism were a threat to international stability and a free economy. The rise of liberal internationalism is also attributed to domestic developments such as the elimination of class tensions by a booming economy and the beginning of political realism. These conditions made it possible for opposing political groups to forge a centrist approach to foreign policy. 

The authors do not attribute the demise of liberal internationalism to the presidency of George W. Bush. Although his presidency marked a significant shift in the country’s foreign policy strategies, evidence of its demise existed before that. They argue that the end of the Soviet Union reduced America’s incentive to pursue the ideals of liberal internationalism. The threats posed by the Soviet Union enabled both democrats and Republicans to coalesce around a single foreign policy strategy. The growing partisanship at home and the widening wealth gap between the rich and the poor have contributed to the weakening of liberal internationalism. The rise of unipolarity and ideological extremism in the country has not been weakened even by the rise of international terrorism as domestic political groups support different strategies. 

Instead of supporting the tenets of liberal internationalism, political groups in the country have either leaned on one side; either military power or international cooperation, but not both. The presidency of George W. Bush witnessed the extensive use of America’s military power to resolve international disputes. During his time, multilateralism was neglected and ignored. The attacks of September 11, 2001 gave his administration an excuse to unleash America’s military power with little or no regard for multilateralism. Additionally, the bush administration showed no respect for international institutions as witnessed when the United States attacked Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein without a UN resolution. On the other hand, the democrats support the multilateral side of liberal internationalism and most of the leading party stalwarts were uneasy when the Bush administration became assertive in use the military power. 

Concerns over the demise of liberal internationalism are captured in the paper by concerns raised by prominent voices on both sides of the political realm. Hilary Clinton, a former first lady, senator and a Presidential candidate attributed the rise of the United States in the 20 th century to the bipartisan approach on key issues of foreign policy and defense. According to her, the country must so more to return to this sensible approach to issues. The same concerns ns were echoed by 2012 republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He raised concerns over domestic divisiveness that affects the country’s ability to meet challenges. To him, new thinking on foreign policy that unites Americans and its international partners is need. However, these exhortations are hopeless when the current domestic conditions in the country are considered. The country needs to balance its foreign political commitments and domestic politics in order to have a functional foreign policy. 

The arguments given by the author regarding the rise and the demise of liberal internationalism and the subsequent implication on U.S foreign policy are true. It is worth noting that the horrors of Nazi Germany and the competition from the Soviet Union after the end of the Second World War compelled American leaders to coalesce around a single foreign policy approach that balanced military power with multilateral cooperation. The dangers posed by the USSR as shown by cold war politics did not allow the country to focus on domestic divisions. In fact it fostered cooperation between competing political groups in an effort to defeat the rise of USSR. However, the fall of the Soviet Union removed the incentives for a bipartisan approach to defense and foreign policy, democrats and Republicans started to squabble over the right approach with democrats favoring a multilateral approach and republican favoring a military approach. This is apparent because the gulf war was waged under a republican President, while the war on terror was started under the presidency of the younger Bush. 

As noted in the article, international politics in Washington were highly divisive before the Second World War. However, the end of the war ushered in a new approach under the Presidency of Roosevelt. He was able to combine power and cooperation, which was highly supported by both political groups in Washington. This approach was continued by Harry Truman when he collaborated with lawmakers to promote economic recovery in Western Europe and rearmament. The formation of NATO (Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization) was the outcome of a multilateral approach pursued by the United States. The authors were also right to mention the post war industrial boom in the United States that bridged the gap between the rich and the poor and increased incomes. These conditions limited the need for ideological extremism, allowing both Democrats and republican to collaborate on defense and foreign policy. However, these conditions have withered in the last decades due to economic challenges that have encouraged ideological wars and domestic instability. 

It is also true that the fall of liberal internationalism started way back in the 1970s and not under the presidency of George W. Bush. Bush may have exhibited contempt for the principles of liberal internationalism, but his presidency was not solely responsible for its demise. The ideological conflicts over the Vietnam War were responsible for the unraveling of liberal internationalism (Kupchan & Trubowitz, 2007). Some Americans started to question the excessive use of military power and the exaggerated threats that were common during the Cold War Period. 

The demise of liberal internationalism has serious implications for U.S defense and foreign policy and the international community. As noted in the article, ideological divisions between democratic and Republicans leasers played a significant role in the fall of this approach to international affairs. The Clinton administration showed limited interest in the use of America’s assertive power. Therefore, it relied mainly in the use of air raids as shown during the war in Yugoslavia. When Republicans regained control of congress in 1994, it opposed any government efforts at multilateralism arguing that it was damaging U.S interests abroad. The unilateral approach adopted by the Bush administration has not bored the desired results as conflicts started by the United States continue to rage in the Middle East. Under the Obama administration, attempts at multilateralism have also not given the desired results. Many blame his presidency for the weakening of the United States in the international stage because he adopted more of a multilateral approach. 

With the election of Donald Trump as the new present, it is important that the country considers its foreign policy approaches. The threats posed by the Islamic states in Syria and Iraq, global warming, economic interdependence and unchecked migration will have far-reaching implication if not managed under prudent leadership. He has shown interests in collaborating with international partners to end the threats posed by global terrorism. However, his threats to limit America’s contribution to NATO may not serve America’s interests in the long-term. It is worth considering liberal internationalism because it can help in reducing domestic ideological divisions, while promoting cooperation with international partners in solving global problems. 

Reference 

Kupchan, C., & Trubowitz, P. (2007). Dead center: the demise of liberal internationalism in the United States. International Security , 32: 75-94