By John C. Hulsman
John C. Hulsman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributing editor to The National Interest. He is also an openDemocracy contributor. Currently on the road across America for his book tour (he is the co-author of Ethical Realism: A Vision For America's Role In The World), he agreed to blog his adventures on oD Today: this is the second chapter of his "blog the book tour" series...
Stop 2: Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. “The Great Capitalist Peace.”
The day following the raucous CATO event found us in the staid and tony environment of Georgetown University. The crowd was smallish (30 or so), well-informed, intent, and about as far from the politically charged atmosphere of the previous day as it was possible to be. The wood paneling outside the discussion room reeked, ‘future Washington establishment.’ Yet this piece of the puzzle was just as vital to begin to win over, as the larger, more boisterous crowd of the day before. A number of these kids could well determine the future direction of American foreign policy. The fact that presently the Washington foreign policy establishment is largely in the hands of utopians of both parties, speaks to both their genius for organization, and the failure of realists to do much about it. We need to have far more events like this, or we are merely fighting a delaying action.
I could tell that the day was fun for Anatol; he was truly in his element. As he delineated the core realist precepts of humility, responsibility, prudence, study, and patriotism, I noticed his speaking style had changed from the day before, as is true for most good speakers. Adopting a far more erudite tone, peppering his points with historical references, he laid out both the precepts behind ethical realism, as well as good deal of its history.
My job was to make the theoretical concrete. Instead of looking at policy, we had decided that I should talk about the Great Capitalist Peace, the overarching strategy that lay at the heart of our efforts to radically recalibrate American foreign policy. Using the similar experience of Great Britain in the 19th and early 20th centuries (its attributes revolved around soft power, trade, manufacturing and the financial markets, and lift in terms of the Royal Navy), in Ethical Realism we looked at how London managed to remain the ordering power for just over a century, despite the rise of Russia, the United States, and Germany, and despite intermittent challenges from France.
We believe the key fact was that Britain produced enough common goods (through supporting free trade, skillful use of soft power, protecting the international commons, suppressing pirates, and seeing to it that no revolutionary power overran the system) that potential rivals, though not ceasing to dislike British predominance, chose to remain status quo, rather than revolutionary powers, up until the time of the Kaiser. We firmly believe that the United States should adopt such an approach, to be first among equals, but to give up all efforts at trying to remain a hegemon. For surely with the rise of China, India, the resurgence of Russia, and the advent of a globalized world, that horse has left the stable. The real options are between the British model and overstretch and decline, between Palmerstone and Gibbon.
This different way of thinking leads to a very different strategy. First, as the greatest power in the world, the U.S. should follow 19th century Britain in adopting a conservative status quo outlook. Instead of going abroad, as John Quincy Adams warned, ‘in search of sea-monsters to destroy,’ America should concentrate on dealing with the monsters at hand-the barbarians identifying with al-Qaeda who pose a threat to all the great powers. Indeed fending off al-Qaeda (as well as furthering economic well-being) should be the twin pillars of building the Great Capitalist Peace, as all the great powers have a common stake in both projects.
Second, this idea of limits is anathema to most of the American foreign policy establishment, even after Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But to try to remain predominant everywhere clearly is beyond the United States; it risks overstretch abroad and decline at home. The US will remain the only omnipresent power, with genuine global interests, but it will not be predominant everywhere.
Third, Washington should facilitate a network of major states, all of which have an economic stake in defending the existing order. For instance, greater prosperity and well-being is likely to make China decide to be a status quo power, rather than a revolutionary challenger to the current order in East Asia. The modest goal must be stability and a form of largely consensual order among the major states. By promoting common goods centered around the common goals of limiting terrorism and promoting general economic well-being we will rally India, China, and Russia to the 21st century order, in ways that serve both America’s interests and those of the larger world.
Fourth, neoconservative slogans about democracy and freedom do not sweep away this reality.
The interesting thing about the discussion that followed was that no one questioned what even months ago would have been laughed at. While there were very good questions about our linking ethical realism to Truman and Eisenhower, about the role of religion in the ethical realist philosophy, about the practicalities of the Great Capitalist Peace in regards to Iran, no one quibbled with the strategy. That is a sign of how broken things are, that people are indeed willing to think about new ideas, as the old ones are now obviously insupportable. It also says a great deal about the depressing sameness in both parties, that Anatol talks about so often. For the incredible thing is that despite all their failings, the Democrats are unable to hit the Republican piñata, even without a blindfold. Such a strategy will not hurt them in the midterms. But come the time of the next presidential race, surely the Democrats have to say more than they went to better colleges than the Republicans, that they are smarter and will implement the same tired utopian nation-building strategy more competently. Instead what is called for is a new way of thinking. I’ll vote for whoever provides it.
