Search Results

Leaning on the lessons of American diplomatic history, moral democratic realism takes into account the centrality of power and the constraints imposed by the dynamics of international politics, while placing due importance to ideals, ideology and regime types. Moral democratic realism is based on the understanding that the potential for war always exist as a consequence of human imperfections and that different regimes behave differently. It dictates that American foreign policy adheres to the imperatives of global politics and that the use of military force should be guided by the virtue of prudence. Combined with Judeo-Christian morality, the virtue of prudence should also help states determine the relative degrees of moral and geopolitical evils.

The merits of moral democratic realism can best be appreciated by examining the success of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War when the country's economy had stalled as a consequence of the Arab oil boycott of 1973 and the oil shocks of 1978–1979. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger focused more on the commonality of national interests than on ideologies, supporting the policy of détente toward the Soviet Union. For his part, President Jimmy Carter worked on controlling nuclear arms in the hopes that the Soviets would reciprocate. Reagan, however, understood that the Soviet regime was a totalitarian state and therefore poses a threat to freedom. Because his views on foreign policy and the national interest are grounded on the virtue of prudence, he was not afraid to use military might despite strong opposition at home and abroad. Reagan's perseverance on the Strategic Defense Initiative and his decision to intensify economic pressure on the Soviet Union tipped the balance of power in favor of the US, ultimately putting an end to the Soviet regime.

The reasoning behind the Bush administration's strategy in fighting terrorism, also known as the Bush Doctrine, rests primarily on the belief that preemptive rather than reactive force is necessary in the US's fight against terror—as was highlighted by the events of September 11, 2001—and that a democratic regime change is needed in the Middle East, where a culture of tyranny and radicalism exists. This book contends that the Bush Doctrine is based on the principles of moral democratic realism, which is supported by two major premises: that preserving the vitality and integrity of a free society remains the fundamental goal of American foreign policy; and that the country's strategy should be guided by the virtue of prudence by not merely choosing the right ends but also the right means to achieve them.

Despite some serious differences, the US has managed to maintain good relations with Russia. Nevertheless, the US must remain wary of the growing antidemocratic trend in Russia over the past five years, including the moves to consolidate the country's energy industry under state control. The US also must increase its presence in East Asia, particularly in China, where there is unprecedented economic growth and military buildup. Promoting trade relations with China could prove beneficial to the US as this could strengthen China's private sector and temper its aspiration to become the dominant power in the Western Pacific. Combining this with containment or deterrence would be in line with the principles of moral democratic realism. Meanwhile, the war on terror failed to dampen US relations with Japan and India, which shares with the US its concern over China's attempt to dominate East Asia and its goal of defeating radical Islam.

This Chapter compares and contrast the Obama Doctrine with neorealism, classical realism, liberal internationalism, and moral democratic realism. It argues that President Obama’s approach combines elements of neorealism with some of the main staples of liberal internationalism, achieving a unique synthesis.