Foreign Policy Views and U.S. Standing in the World

Matthew A. Baum (Harvard University) and Henry R. Nau (George Washington University), who taught my first university course, have a new paper titled ‘Foreign Policy Views and U.S. Standing in the World.’

What do Americans think about the US role in world affairs and why do they think the way they do? Americans typically do not think about foreign policy most of the time, and, as a consequence, know relatively little about it (Almond 1950, Lippmann 1955, Converse 1964, Erskine 1963, Edwards 1983, Sobel 1993, Holsti 2004, Canes-Wrone 2006, Page and Bouton 2006, Berinsky 2007). While foreign policy issues can become salient when major international events (like 9/11 and the Iraq War) arise or when political candidates focus on foreign policy (Aldrich, Sullivan and Borgida 1989), ceteris paribus, Americans know and care more about domestic politics (Delli-Carpini and Keeter 1996, Holsti 1994, Canes-Wrone 2006, Converse 1964). Consequently, typical Americans are broadly aware of foreign policy, and have some available attitudes about it (Page and Bouton 2006, Aldrich et al. 1989). However, except in the face of political priming by elites or exogenous shocks, such attitudes may not be broadly accessible when making political decisions, like voting.

And if you know my style by now, you know I can’t resist throwing in a nice chart. The first illustrates the percent of Americans who believe the U.S. position in the world has grown weaker, broken down by party affiliation:

The second two charts show the favorability ratings of the United States and China based on the variations of the share of U.S.  global GDP:

Quote of the Day

“Rap is among the most conservative genres of pop music. It exalts capitalism and entrepreneurship with a brio that is typically considered Republican. (Admiring references to Bill Gates are common in hip-hop.)”

~ David Segal

34% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

A new Rasmussen poll shows that “just one-third (34%) of likely U.S. voters believe the United States is heading in the right direction.”

Conservative Contradictions

Peter Berkowitz writing in the Hoover Institution’s Policy Review:

Both the quest for purity and the quest for unity [among conservatives] are misguided. This is because modern conservatism in general and certainly American conservatism in particular is a paradoxical orientation. The central paradox pervades the writing of Edmund Burke. Rightly recognized as having informally and unofficially but powerfully launched modern conservatism in 1790 with his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke cherished two fundamental goods, liberty and tradition, that do not obviously cohere and sometimes obviously conflict. Constitutional government in America intensifies the paradox. Insofar as American conservatism involves the conservation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—and how could it not?—it puts a revolutionary doctrine and a founding document, forged by men in the heat of the political moment and constructed with numerous painful compromises, at the heart of the conservative mission.

I think this phenomenon is, in large part, a symptom of the problem that many conservatives – though claiming to advocate individual liberty – have not rejected certain collectivist principles. Many still argue for free market capitalism on practical grounds (i.e. it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people). Conservatives must return to a principled stance in defense of the individual rights, for the sake of the individual (no practical arguments for the “common good” needed). Only when conservatives once again stand on principle, can the various factions of the conservative movement be reconciled and their policy conflicts resolved.

Too Much to Ask?

A few relevant excerpts from Ayn Rand’s essay “The Anatomy of Compromise” (from the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal):

“A major symptom of a man’s – or a culture’s – intellectual and moral disintegration is the shrinking of vision and goals to the concrete-bound range of the immediate moment. This means: the progressive disappearance of abstractions form a man’s mental processes or from a society’s concerns. The manifestation of a disintegrating consciousness is the inability to think and act in terms of principles.”

“If an individual holds mixed premises, his vices undercut, hamper, defeat, and ultimately destroy his virtues. What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while? In the same way, if a group of men pursues mixed goals, its bad principles drive out the good. What is the political status of a free country whose government violates the citizens’ rights once in a while?”

“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”

To me, one of the most striking things about partisan politics is the unabashed hypocrisy found on both sides – particularly in relation to each side’s claim that it truly respects freedom and the Constitution. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail for gay marriage and the right to burn the American flag (rights that I support), but fail to respect or see the necessity of the Second Amendment and seek to censor speech they find offensive to certain minorities. Meanwhile, the Republicans are tireless in their defense of the Right to Bear Arms and their right to wave a Confederate flag, but see no value or Constitutional basis in the separation of church and state.

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that neither side sees the true nature of government (or of Man, for that matter). Without going too deep into the philosophy behind these ideas, I’ll assert as plainly evident that government is a man-made institution. It does not exist in the natural state. If government is man-made, then it cannot possess any right that one of the individuals who formed it would not possess – as its sole source of legitimacy are the individuals who entered into the social contract that formed their government. So, if an individual cannot force a particular view or action on another person, by what right can the government do so?

If you are one of the few who find this line of thought interesting, I would encourage you to read “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” by Ayn Rand.

Full discolosure: I am a practicing Christian, so I do not wish to give a full endorsement to the views expressed by Ayn Rand. However, I see my religion as irrelevant in relation to politics – as I have no right to dictate the beliefs or actions of others. Such coercion is inconsistent with man’s rational nature and degrades both the victim and the perpetrator of the coercion.

Attention: Republicans

In May 2009, Dr. Yaron Brook gave an address as the keynote speaker to the Republican Party of Virginia. I believe his message is one that conservatives would be wise to heed.

Dr. Brook was born and raised in Israel. He served as a first sergeant in Israeli military intelligence. He earned a B.S. degree in civil engineering from Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa, Israel. In 1987 he moved to the U.S., where he received his MBA and Ph.D. in finance from the University of Texas at Austin. He became and American citizen in 2003 and is now president of the Ayn Rand institute.

Republican Party of Virginia 2009 State Convention – Keynote Address