Gino Fontana
President after President, American foreign policy has been influenced by ideological elements and the thinking of different schools and orientations. Let’s try to understand, a few days after 2024 United States electionswhat are the main schools of American foreign policy in conversation with our expert Gino Fontana, for the column “A Look at the World”.
Historically we find four schools of thought in American foreign policy. Each embodies different positions and is the bearer of opposing values. What are the main currents of thought?
Let’s start with the Jacksonians, named after President Andrew Jackson, who served from 1829 to 1837. Jacksonians believe strongly in American exceptionalism and the spread of values. What should the Government do according to this vision? Mainly it has the task of guaranteeing the greatest possible individual freedom and protecting the safety of its citizens within the nation’s borders. Foreign policy is not a top priority, and I am for minimalism in all circumstances. Jacksonians become interventionists when they sense an existential threat approaching. To cite an example of occasional interventionist fervor, let’s take the war on international terrorism after September 11th, and then return to less interventionist foreign policy positions after the catastrophes of unresolved conflicts in the Middle East or that in Afghanistan. In essence, Jacksonians have only occasionally advocated greater interventionism, preferring instead the maintenance of American prestige (although this nevertheless involves some commitment outside their own borders).
Another school that is similar to the Jacksonians, but with some differences is that of the Jeffersonians, from Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States from 1801 to 1809. Like the Jacksonians, they do not share a very active foreign policy, but can turn into interventionists if they perceive a threat to the country. They are convinced that to reduce costs and risks, the global presence of the United States must be limited. They are for promoting freedom at home, but against increasing military spending and intervening overseas. One of the most famous current Jeffersonians is Bernie Sanders. For Jeffersonians, the focus is domestic politics, solving America’s domestic problems and not those of other parts of the world. They are also against sharing sovereignty with other countries or international institutions.
On the opposite side, among the schools of thought favorable to greater international commitment, we find the Hamiltonians and the Wilsonians.
For Hamiltonians, (after General Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the United States, whose face is depicted on the 10 dollar bill), the priority is the defense of the liberal international order in which America must play a leading role hero. The reason is above all the economic benefits that free global trade brings to the United States. This is the basis of the consensus within the nation, as well as to find the resources necessary to defend American interests in the world. Famous Hamiltonians include Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden.
Alongside the Hamiltonians we find the Wilsonians (from Woodrow Wilson, President from 1913 to 1921, famous for his 14 points), who share the need for an active commitment by the United States in foreign policy. However, their priority lies in the defense and protection of liberal democratic values. The United States must position itself as a leader of the international community, defending liberal democratic values, spreading democracy, human rights and placing the primacy of international law. Some Wilsonians define themselves as liberal internationalists, meaning they favor participation within international institutions, while others are known as neoconservatives, with positions more in favor of unilateral action.
He is telling us that both Republicans and Democrats can share the same school of thought. Are these orientations also reflected in the two traditional parties?
Of course, with just as many distinctions. During elections, foreign policy is always a topic of great ideological conflict. Take traditional Democrats for example. We can consider them the old guard, convinced of an idea of government capable of shaping society in a positive way and defenders of the global leadership of the United States. Supporters of multilateralism, they oppose the neoliberal orientation and believe that the United States should lead and strengthen international institutions, spreading American values around the world.
On the opposite side of the Democrats, we find the traditional Republicans. Traditional Republicans promote minimum government, tax cuts and public assistance programs. In the military field, the US armed forces must excel in capacity and ability compared to all others and I support their use abroad. However, there is a fundamental contradiction, that is, an ambitious and influential foreign policy cannot avoid having a “strong government”, capable of intervening economically and managing the effects and reactions that such a policy can cause internally.
On the Republican side we find a further group, that of libertarians. We could define them as the supporters of “minimum government”, that is, that vision that limits the powers of the state in the economy and in daily life. Basically, less taxes, less bureaucracy, unregulated markets and so on. The freedom and self-determination of individuals are considered the highest political goals. For their part, the state should not intervene too much in foreign policy. Notably, unlike traditional Republicans, Libertarians argue that the United States should reduce its military effort outside the West. Finally, they are convinced that to maintain security it is enough to rely on nuclear power and the geographical protection offered by the vastness of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Within the traditional Democrats, however, the group of progressives differs. Among them we find the aforementioned Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. They promote a so-called “interventionist” vision of the State, which is opposed to that of the Libertarians, arguing that the State must equip itself with strong institutions, and with the possibility of intervening in the economy in order to reduce inequalities, injustice, promote reforms laws and regulate markets. The focus, however, remains on what the government can do “at home” and not abroad. In foreign policy, there are some deep divisions: some progressives would like a greater commitment from the United States to promote human rights, while others argue that this greater interventionism could lead to military interventions and support for authoritarian governments. The “abstentionists” oppose the confrontation between the USA and China to avoid starting a new cold war. Furthermore, they argue that Europe must provide its own defense and do more to promote a “balance of power” in Asia. The progressive vision could be summarized as: “do a little less abroad to dedicate time and resources to internal problems”.
