Have more insightful or prophetic words ever been uttered in the history of American foreign policy?
John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821 (an excerpt)
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to inquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? let our answer be this –
America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit . . .
Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of mind. She has a spear and a shield; but the motto upon her shield is Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
I gave you, in reply, Kagan and Kristol:
>>Conservatives these days succumb easily to the charming old metaphor of the United States as a “city on a hill.” They hark back, as George Kennan did in these pages not long ago, to the admonition of John Quincy Adams that America ought not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” But why not? The alternative is to leave monsters on the loose, ravaging and pillaging to their hearts’ content, as Americans stand by and watch. What may have been wise counsel in 1823, when America was a small, isolated power in a world of European giants, is no longer so, when America is the giant. Because America has the capacity to contain or destroy many of the world’s monsters, most of which can be found without much searching, and because the responsibility for the peace and security of the international order rests so heavily on America’s shoulders, a policy of sitting atop a hill and leading by example becomes in practice a policy of cowardice and dishonor.<<
But why not? . . . . Take it away Grover Cleveland!
Shorter version: We’re too busy expanding at the expense of Native Americans to get involved in European wars, but we are willing to share our smarmy, self-righteous hypocrisy with the rest of the world as long as it doesn’t demand that we actually do anything, particularly since we don’t have the capacity in the first place. Yes, pretty much sums up American foreign policy.
Wish I had more time right now to respond, but I give you the state of current American foreign policy as one small piece of evidence for the lunacy of the Kristol/Kagan view we’ve been following for far too long.
Thank you Mr. Cleveland,
I wish I could have been in the audience on that long ago 4th of July. It is easy to see how, in later years, John Quincy Adams came by his nick name — “Old Man Eloquent.”
Of course he was given many other names, too.
Yes, if we’d had any ability to go abroad searching for monsters, these words would have more bite:
If we are calling forth idealistic words, I much prefer these verses from JFK:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
…
Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, “rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation”—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
[And, please, spare me the isolationist crap about how it is not in our social contract to worry about the liberty of other nations]
If isolationism means disengaging from the world, then I am no isolationist. I favor free trade, participation in international organizations, and cultural/diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world.
I even favor fighting foreign wars that are necessary to secure our interests. Two examples off the top of my head: the War of 1812 and the Afghanistan War. However, I do not favor sending Americans to fight and die in foreign lands for the interests or liberties of others when such fights are not in our national interests narrowly defined.
I’m only interested in humanity’s interests.
You are a cosmopolitan living in a world of states. The policies that might be best for humanity’s interest in the world that does exist (namely, the world of states) might be different than what is best in your ideal world where state borders, communities, and nation-states don’t exist or don’t matter. Moreover, there is no international society in which we agree on basic values – therefore, others may not agree with you about what is best for them, and so they’ll push back with all kinds of potentially bad consequences for them and us. I find your views to be a combination of hopeless idealism married to an anti-pluralistic imperialist vision lacking in humility about what can be done and what ought to be done
So, how would you respond to the basic pluralism of values? Simply force others to do what you think is right in the name of humanity’s interests? And all the while forcing us here in the US to bear the burden in terms of blood and treasure (especially as others rationally free-ride on your provision of goods, public and private)?
We (the US) face a host of practical limitations in promoting the cause of humanity around the world. Just because I’m an idealist, doesn’t mean I’m a naive idealist.
So, I can be persuaded by arguments of the type “we shouldn’t intervene because the net benefits of doing so would be negative.”
I’m completely hostile to arguments of the type “we shouldn’t intervene because it is not our place to do so.”
Ok, so you wouldn’t be willing – consistent with rule utilitarianism – to argue that respecting the international norm of sovereignty would maximize general welfare when generally observed?
See, I’m not merely worried about the social contract argument but also about the consequences of effectively mooting the norm of sovereignty – especially given the experience of the 30 Years War out of which this norm was codified into international law. The clash of values/ideas/interests unbounded by this norm could be a very nasty and brutish world — all in the name of humanity!
I think having (some) respect for sovereignty makes sense (in a utilitarian way). Also, I believe in a society’s right to make the types of rules it wants, as long as those rules don’t egregiously violate human rights.
But my basic foreign policy principle is pretty simple: Good guys should stop bad guys, where possible.
Yes, Mr. Wilson -
President Kennedy had wonderful speech writers. You provide a truly inspiring example.
Apropos of nothing much at all — In retirement, 30th President Calvin Coolidge spoke of foreign critics who felt America should take a larger part in world affairs, saying:
“Why, if England, for instance, was in our position today she would “take charge of civilization for the benefit of humanity” with in forty-eight hours.”
America, are you a Good Samaritan with Big Biceps? Or do you Stand Tall alone, showing others how to Mind their Business?
Could JQA have been affected by his father’s first failure to secure France’s aid for the furtherance of our fight with father England? That a Prevaricating Fur-Headed Philosopher made better progress with Salt on the Egg of a Royal Poach must have rubbed JQA raw to so swear off diplomatic menage a trois.
If we must die, let it not be like hogs.
[...] Of course, sometimes a state must go to war. But President Eisenhower’s words are worth keeping in mind when we think about going abroad in search of foreign monsters to destroy. [...]
[...] the finest statement on U.S. foreign policy ever written (and see here where Sven and I fight about [...]