No more "neocon" or "isolationist", lets adopt a new paradigm

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I happen to think Walter Russell Mead's foreign policy paradigm is great, because it is less vitrolic and emotion based and is based on past American historical figures.

He has 4 foreign policy schools: the Jeffersonians, Jacksonians, Wilsonians, and Hamiltonians.

Many of our politicians are combinations of the schools.

Read the explanations of the schools here:
http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

http://www.lts.com/~cprael/jackson.html

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Here is the Millman chart, derived from Mead's paradigm.

Introverted means domestic influenced, extroverted mens foreign influenced.

[Aratus]

neat chart... i like the succinct breakdown. is FDR actually at the center? often both & neither? does he go New Deal internal to WW2 external?

[acptulsa]

Well, just because we adopt less inflammatory ways to describe our differences does not mean the media will follow suit. But that doesn't mean I disagree that we should make the effort. The media are trying to divide and conquer us. This is a good reason to fight back. But we must put some thought into how we fight back.

By emphasizing our commonalities over our differences, by turning the other cheek and offering love in response to hate, we might seem to be throwing the fight. But I'm not so sure. There's a reason they try to divide us before they try to conquer us. Divided we can be felled; united we will stand.

They say love is stronger than hate. If unity is stronger than division, then apparently there's something to that. The question then becomes, how do we help our fellow Americans resist the temptation to look down their noses at us, even as the media is continually brainwashing them into believing that giving into that temptation is actually a righteous thing to do?

[SpreadOfLiberty]

neat chart... i like the succinct breakdown. is FDR actually at the center? often both & neither? does he go New Deal internal to WW2 external?

It's hard to judge his foreign policy because it was a defensive war. I'm not sure.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's hard to judge his foreign policy because it was a defensive war. I'm not sure.

No it wasn't. But that's for another thread, and there are several of them about this. I won't derail this thread. y/w

[acptulsa]

No it wasn't. But that's for another thread, and there are several of them about this. I won't derail this thread. y/w

lol

Pry the rail loose, then walk away loudly proclaiming, 'There's no train here, so I didn't just derail a train!' I call b.s.

Traditionally, defensive wars are defined by one criteria: Who fired the first actual shot? By that definition, you're wrong. If you think the first person to goad the other person started the fight, regardless of who throws the first punch, then you may be right.

There, now--we have both points of view represented. Maybe I fixed that rail you pried loose, and the train will stay on track. Hope so. This topic is important enough to us for me to label anyone who distracts us from it a troll.

[jmdrake]

I happen to think Walter Russell Mead's foreign policy paradigm is great, because it is less vitrolic and emotion based and is based on past American historical figures.

He has 4 foreign policy schools: the Jeffersonians, Jacksonians, Wilsonians, and Hamiltonians.

Many of our politicians are combinations of the schools.

Read the explanations of the schools here:
http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

http://www.lts.com/~cprael/jackson.html

Jacksonian

The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

Looking for a Jacksonian President? Ronald Reagan was very much a Jacksonian, as is our current President, George W. Bush.

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that George W. Bush didn't seek out foreign quarrels. I don't see how that's true of Ronald Reagan either.

[Agorism]

Which one of them revolves around what Netanyahu wants?

[July]

I agree... The Jacksonians really should be natural allies, but we are often too quick to label them as "neocons". Trouble is that the other two camps are so good at convincing the Jacksonians that there is always some dire national interest at stake, and dragging them into new wars and overseas projects.