"The Deal": The Balance of Power, Military Strength, and Liberal Internationalism in the Bush National Security Strategy

Abstract

The Bush National Security Strategy, even as it calls for “a balance of power that favors freedom,” in truth rejects a balance of power approach to international order. It foresees instead the cooperation of all Great Powers under American leadership in furtherance of a common agenda imagined to be founded in universal values. Such rejection of a genuine “balance of power” approach represents a coherent evolution from America’s long tradition of foreign policy thought. Emerging from its founding tradition of separation, U.S. strategic thought was influenced both by Theodore Roosevelt’s advocacy of military strength in the service of good and Woodrow Wilson’s ideological conviction that American engagement in the world could be made conditional on the pursuit of global reform in line with an idealized conception of American values and practices. The conviction that this notional “deal” is still valid provides this administration’s ideological bedrock. The Bush worldview should not be seen as a radically new phenomenon, but as a logical outgrowth from the American foreign policy tradition.

Open Networks and the Open Door: American Foreign Policy and the Narration of the Internet1

“…From Edward Barrett, Truman’s assistant secretary of state for public affairs, and his assertion that “truth is our weapon” (Barrett 1983:10) to George Schultz’s argument that the free flow of information undermined the Soviet Union and authoritarianism (Schultz 1984–85:715; LaFeber 2000:12–19) to the Bush administration’s preoccupation with public diplomacy and strategic communications in the war on terror (Kennedy and Lucas 2005; Edlestein and Krebs 2005; Smith 2007:xii–xxix), the free flow of information has been viewed as a crucial step toward the creation of peaceful democratic states and, thus, American security and prosperity in the international system. As part of the universalist and expansionist ideology and practice of American foreign policy (Williams 1972; Hunt 1987; Westad 2005:8–38; Layne 2006; Jahn 2007; Smith 2007; Quinn 2008) which seeks to open markets to American capital and liberalize foreign states—the “Open Door” tradition—the pursuit of the free flow of information forms is of signal importance. As US policymakers emphasized the importance of winning the battle of ideas both during the Cold War and in the post‐2001 period, the ability to transmit America’s “soft power” via communications networks has been perceived as vital.…”

The Great Illusion: Chimeras of Isolationism and Realism in Post‐Iraq U.S. Foreign Policy1

“…Meanwhile, it was hoped the Americas could operate a cooperative system of order, under benign U.S. hegemony. Thus, in the formative decades of the republic, realist patterns of thought concerning international order became tainted by association with the European system from which it was America's chief object to remain separate (see Quinn 2008; Quinn and Cox 2007).…”

“…The previous section's explanation of the historical pressure to cleave to liberal universalism leads to the conclusion that compulsion toward liberal universalism and aversion to realism are opposite sides of the same ideological coin. These themes are explored at more length elsewhere (Quinn 2008; Quinn and Cox 2007). The central point to be made here is that U.S. internationalism is politically sustained by a commitment to the pursuit of world reform toward a liberal, cooperative order.…”

Renovating Realism

“…As we have argued elsewhere at length (Quinn, 2007(Quinn, , 2008Quinn & Cox, 2007), commitment to intruding into other societies to make them "more like us" has been cornerstone of the dominant ideological tendency in U.S. policy making since the beginning of its internationalist phase in the late 19th century. This is not to say that U.S. leaders have been obsessed with promoting values at the expense of interests but rather that for reasons of history, culture, and political inclination, America's interested elites have tended to link their definition of the national interest and their pursuit of national security to the pursuit of an ultimate end-state of nearuniversal liberal democracy (as defined by the United States).…”