Realism and Idealism

In the realm of foreign policy, the idealists have the upper hand and are engaging in some triumphalist slamming of the realists. Robert Kaplan has an interesting peice on How We Would Fight China in the Atlantic. I heard him interviewed about the piece on Hugh Hewitt's show, and Bill Bennett had been all over the issue of China, looking at it from a variety of angles. Kaplan's a realist, and a smart one. Idealists generally give him respect and treat his writing seriously, even if Kaplan isn't influencing them very much. If Kaplan was on Bennett, I missed it, but it would be interesting to have heard Bennett's responce to the article given Bennett's concern with China.

Bennett, a species of Neocon and an idealist, rejects the Hamiltonian approach to China that was taken by Bush I and Clinton. He has a great concern with the absence of democratic reform, the political and religious repression, and the juggernaught of an economy China has. Part of Kaplan's strategy is to back away from our exclusive committment to democratization and work with strategic partners to oppose China, rather than drive all non-democratic states into China's arms.

My own sense is that we need accept that both realism and idealism speak essential truths and that the thing to do is know when to use realistic thinking, idealistic thinking, and when to attempt a hybrid. As I have argued before, realism was dominant during the Cold War for a reason. We defined the free world as anyone who was not communist, and so tried to enlist the largest possible coallition with which to resist communism. Looking at China as a global rival, there is a sense to building a big coallition against them rather than pursuing a democratic crusade and alienating Europe (which is realist to the point of cynicism) and other potential partners. However the realists need to understand that idealism and the pursuit of democracy is the most reliable way to flip states from the neutral or enemy columns into the friendly column. Democracy and freedom are powerful ideological forces; much more powerful than any other non-religious ideology, and more powereful than some theisms as well. Realists can't afford to ignore this valuable tool in any contest with China. No other tool, not money, not weapons, not diplomacy is as powerful as free markets and free societies are in combating despotism and rogue states. However, there is one more point to made in favor of the realists. Crusaders have an unlimited capacity to crusade, whether its for smoking bans, right to life, to social security reform. Realists understand that its neccesary to keep one's powder dry in preperation for unexpected conflicts and challenges by rivals. The War on Terror has the capacity to exhaust the people and create the kind of demand for normalcy which can sap any American responce to China. This is the danger of any perpetual war scenario. As conflict with China develops, if Americans have become conflict averse, we'll end up having to allow China to take the Saar, the Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, Bohemia, and threaten the Danzig corridor before we act. What the idealists understand that the realists can forget is that foreign polciy requires selling a policy to the people by advocacy rather than leaving it to experts at State and the Pentagon to manage in back channels.

Bearing and burden lead to excess commitment in Vietnam, and exhaustion from World War I lead to isolationism in the face of tyrants in the 30's. To avoid both extreams, the realists and idealists have to both take a role in the foriegn policy development.