The 2008 Presidential candidates have begun to spar on one of the most controversial foreign policy issues, Iraq strategy. Fareed Zakaria has an interesting commentary arguing against the notion that Barack Obama is an "idealist" when it comes to Iraq:
Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.
Read the rest here. Also, for a more in-depth look at McCain's foreign policy, take a look at this recent New York Times article.
The question is, who is the more "realist" candidate in terms of Grand Strategy views, McCain or Obama? Do you agree with Zakaria?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
After reading this article I would have to disagree with Zakaria’s arguments claiming that senator Barack Obama is an Idealist and has traits of a typical Realist and argue that instead Obama seems to be a Constructivist that draws on Grand Strategy Realist ideas.
Obama’s “willingness to meet with tyrants” as well as his “interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths” show Obama’s acceptance of the different ideologies and cultures of actors on the world state. His willingness to meet with people whose beliefs are different from his own and his desires to “learn” from them are classic Constructivist ideas.
However Obama’s concerns that “Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better” and his desires to “to push these progressive forces forward” are signs of USGS Realism and Neoconservatism. Obama’s fear of overextending American resources in Iraq and his desire to help spread “progressive forces” seem very similar to the values of these two American Grand Strategies.
As best put by Barack Obama himself "it's an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism”. So Zakaria’s assertions that Obama is an idealist do not seem as relevant to me as Obama’s Constructivist and USGS realist/ Neoconservatism influences.
I also find it very interesting that Condoleezza Rice describes herself as an "American realist." What exactly is an American realist? Maybe we could discuss this in class.
Dylan B-K
I agree with Zakaria that Obama is less of the idealist, and that McCain portrays himself as the idealist instead of the projected realist. I think that this is affected by the current office's policies and decisions regarding Iraq. In the past couple years, public support for occupation in Iraq has waned. Also, McCain knows that as the next Republican candidate for the election, the amount of voter support he will recieve is contingent on his foreign policies. McCain probably does not want to deliver the image that he will foster the current office's policies. Therefore, by acting as the idealist and promoting change, he is gaining more votes and public support.
~Denise
I agree that Zakaria's comments on the foreign policy of Obama and McCain are insightful. In this race, McCain and the GOP in general have, in recent years, divided the world moralistically, with countries that are "good" and "evil." Obama has taken a more pragmatic approach and talks about foreign policy based mainly on real, attainable goals. Hopefully whoever wins the election will have a good combination of both idealism and realism in order to have a good foreign policy strategy, not the "strategery" of the Bush administration.
Post a Comment