Obama & Foreign Policy

Matt Macy

POL 245

21 February 2017

President Obama’s foreign policy stance as described by “The Consequentialist” article in The New Yorker did not fully fall into one school or the other of typical American foreign policy. However, it is a combination multiple schools. One of these is realpolitik, which was made clear by his openness about withdrawing troops from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since there was no clear incentive of continuing them in his administration. This could also be considered an isolationist view, as he did not want “to search for monsters to destroy”, as John Quincy Adams famously said during his stint as Secretary of State. Obama even showed some neo-conservative beliefs in his hope to spread democracy in Egypt and prevent a massacre of civilians by Muammar Qaddafi’s Libyan regime, although military force was only used in the latter situation. Liberal Internationalism would also apply to the events in Egypt and Libya. However, his beliefs are most similar to Liberal Internationalism and Realpolitik.

Liberal internationalism focuses on the actors and processes within foreign policy, as well as self-interest and exercising power through rule-based institutions. The priorities of this school of foreign policy are not only using these institutions to spread power and make decisions, but also to show off liberal values such as democracy, trade, etc. as long as they reflect American interests. For example, the Obama administration wanted to support the youthful movement which endeavored for change in Egypt by protesting Hosni Mubarak’s rule. However, keeping him in power to ensure stability in the region was important as well. Therefore, treading carefully and aiming to create an easy, peaceful, democratic transition was paramount, but it was far from simple. Attempting to back both sides ended up causing some strife on each side. Obama’s speeches and beliefs were more in line with revolutionary representatives than Secretary of State Clinton’s, whom the representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Democratic Front Party refused to speak with. In addition, Obama’s support of the UN resolution which backed interventionist support in Libya due to the belief that the Libyan government was on the brink of massacring civilians in Benghazi that were displeased with the government. This action that received 10 votes for from the UN Security Council was in line with the liberal internationalist idea that preserving humanity is important and those who are in this school of thought would advocate for such measures.

Realpolitik fits in due to the President’s statement that he would withdraw the military from both Afghanistan and Iraq. The article cites how Obama’s advisors helped influence his decision that Asia need to be a bigger focus during his time in the White House due to the increased power and threat posed by the Chinese, as well as the lack of attention given to the region in recent years. The situation-dependent attitude which Obama originally followed is an important part of ethical realism, one of the variants of realpolitik. The articles also notes that Obama would sometimes “talk like an idealist while acting like a realist”, and this puts his beliefs into perspective. While trying to follow through on more ideal, liberal internationalist aims, Obama would sometimes act more like a follower of realpolitik and focus on the issues which he and his staff deemed to be more pertinent.

Realpolitik and liberal internationalism were the two main ideas of foreign policy thought that President Obama and his administration followed during his term in office. Realpolitik was featured in the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, as the wars there were not key to the administrations’ foreign policy goals. Liberal internationalism was prominent in the intervention in Libya which targeted Libyan tanks that were meant to kill rebels who aimed to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. The combination of these two schools shows the early idea that the president would do his best to reply to events with a specific and situational response to the particular issues.

Obama and American Exceptionalism

Elif Okan 

21 February 2017

American Foreign Policy

Obama and American Exceptionalism  

Obama does believe in American Exceptionalism shown though how he thinks other countries should become democratic like how the Untied States is, others look to us and trying to be a role model to others.  

There are two examples that really showed how much Obama supported having democracies in other countries. The first was when he sent an emissary to Egypt to tell/ explain to Mubarak that "in the judgment of the United States, he could not survive the protests. The emissary would tell Mubarak that his best option was to try to leave a positive legacy by steering the country toward a real democratic transformation.". This showed how Obama tried to spread democracy to other countries which is a big part of what American Exceptionalism is. Another example of when Obama showed that he wanted America to spread democracy to other countries was during "Obama’s speech in Cairo, delivered on June 4, 2009, and devoted to improving America’s relationship with the Muslim world, was organized as a list of regional priorities... He then gave a hesitant endorsement of America’s commitment to democracy in the region. He began, '… Let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.'”. Even though he said not no one nation should force a system of government on another Obama still gave an endorsement of America’s commitment to democracy in the middle east/ Muslim world. Obama mostly believes in  American Exceptionalism and wanted to help spread democracy believing that it would help the other countries. 

When "Obama wanted to assure other autocratic allies that the U.S. did not hastily abandon its friends, and he feared that the uprising could spin out of control.", it  shows how other countries look to the United States as an example and as a role model. Since others are looking to the United States, if the United States easily abandon their friends then it would set a bad example to other countries and more importantly it would be known right away and could affect how others see the United States. Even when trying to spread democracy, America is still well known and may counties look to the Unites States. As Obama said in 2007 “America must show—through deeds as well as words—that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.”. This shows how America is a role model as well to other countries and how they could look up to the Unites States by feeling hope when seeing America. Obama wants the children to feel hope when seeing America making it should like he thinks of, or at least wants, others to look at the United States as an example which is one of the main parts of American Exceptionalism. 

Work Cited: 

Ryan Lizza (2011), “The Consequentialist”, The New Yorker 

                        http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/02/the-consequentialist 

Caitlin Melaugh

POL 245

February 21, 2016

Obama and American Exceptionalism

            American Exceptionalism rests in the idea that America is greater than other nations and holds a responsibility to the world in supporting American values. Values such as, freedom, security, and safety. Previous presidents have commonly embraced the idea of American Exceptionalism and used it as a way to spread democracies in other nations. Obama however, believed that America was not necessarily any more special than other countries. All countries hold a sense of self pride and America is no different.

            With a more realistic view in foreign policy Obama still holds the pride for this country but does not necessarily fully believe in American Exceptionalism. During his first term, there was a belief that America was losing power to China. In the New Yorker article, we read for class author Ryan Lizza states, “The relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength”.[1] This could be interpreted in a different way meaning that foreign relations and policy is constantly changing and the idea of American exceptionalism does not hold the same significance at it once did when America was the sole world leader. Obama agrees to the extreme world power America possesses however, not in an exceptionalism way. Other countries holding a hatred for America hurts this country’s ability to act as the ultimate example and shiny city on a hill.

Obama did not promote American Exceptionalism in the classical way many previous presidents did during his time in office. He believes America is a world power but does not hold the right to do anything to other countries besides be looked to as a model. This is mainly because of his view of foreign policy and the changing climate.

---

[1] Ryan Lizza, “The Consequentialist: How the Arab Spring Remade Obama’s Foreign Policy,” New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/02/the-consequentialist

Isolationist Memo

                 
Memorandum

Date 2/20/17

To: President Trump  

From: Orlando Manfredi

Subject: Increasing Isolationist Policies

Presidents since FDR have conducted interventionist foreign policy. No matter the time or the party Presidents have used a variety of justifications for different types of intervention. In a time of institutions the role of a police power such as the United States is no longer necessary to ensure that conflicts do not arise. Starting with the prominent flop that was the Vietnam War, military interventions across the globe have proved to be less than successful. From Somalia to Iraq and Libya, military peacekeeping and nation building exercises have made situations worse or unchanged from when before the United States intervened. Free trade is not dependent on government treaties and agreements and being isolationist doesn't mean that the United States Government cannot be in communication with other nations. A realistic form of isolationism that could actually be implemented is simply a sense of when to walk away and let the international community or the nation itself deal with its own issues.

By having specific favorite nations the US as global hegemon incites more conflict, most prevalent example is US relations with Israel. By having such a powerful ally other Arab nations are more emboldened to attack what they perceive as a nation that should not exist. Free trade has existed before government treaties and agreements and with less influence from the United States government not only would domestic trade flourish when being unburdened by regulations but international trade would increase with the full might of the American economy unleashed and open for free and open trade on the terms that benefit companies and individuals most.

NGO’s and other international institutions can fill in the humanitarian gap that would be left by a country such as the United States. These may be systems set up by the United States for its own benefit but now they are large and established enough that they can operate autonomously without influence from governments and perhaps even become run privately. Already in the 21st there has been a proliferation of private NGO’s that if given even greater autonomy and role by a lack of US government involvement. The United States should not turn all the way inward and not acknowledge the outside world but a United States government who has unloaded much of its responsibilities onto companies to do trade and NGO’s to do humanitarian aid and so the only government role that would still be needed is to ensure war does not break out among other nations. Like most things in life the best and most prudent choice is one that doesn't lean towards any extremes. For the past century US foreign policy has leaned towards extremely interventionist and it is in the best interest for the citizens of the US to have their government lean more isolationist.

Obama American Exceptionalism - Orlando

Orlando Manfredi

American Foreign Policy

Blog Post

Does Obama Believe in American Exceptionalism

The core philosophy of Obama has no room for American Exceptionalism as it has been traditionally defined.  American Exceptionalism as most would define it is the unique trait the United States has that makes it more important and better than all other nations. This exceptionalism gives the United States primacy in the international stage and in trade. The exceptionalism is also key to domestic policy and defines the culture of patriotism and love of American cultural values.

Obama on the other hand has a more egalitarian view on the hierarchy of nations. To him the United States is simply another nation which happens to be a superpower only through a series of events rather than a near divine mandate as is American Exceptionalism. This view is most exemplified through his speech in an April 2009 press conference where he said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.” “Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.” Obama believes in a strange form of American Exceptionalism that doesn't highlight how great America is but how much room America has to grow and improve and this also puts the US on the level of other developed nation “Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us in rank and ability to operate on the global stage.”

Obama was different from every other president in the sense that he did not believe in traditional American Exceptionalism and yet the War On Terror took his attention away from domestic issues and forced him to engage with a great deal of military force across the world. In a sense there is a disconnect between his words and his actions. His foreign policy was a mix of treaties and compromise but also with unflinching military force that would make a neoconservative think is excessive. Obama’s exceptionalism is an inward one that doesn't show how America is better than other countries but (despite his propensity to bomb many of them) but one that highlights progress and that progress is what makes America great but not greater than other countries.