February 23, 2015 | By Richard C. Longworth

A Return to a Consensus Foreign Policy



When Jeb Bush gave the first foreign policy speech of his in utero presidential campaign to the Chicago Council last week, he lit into President Obama’s record abroad. Fair enough. When then-candidate Obama gave his first foreign policy speech to the Council eight years ago, he lit into Bush’s brother’s record abroad.

That’s politics. But beneath the rhetorical artillery, the most interesting thing about Bush’s speech was how much its main themes resembled those of Obama’s speech.

Both insisted on a strong U.S. engagement in the world. Both stressed a strong military to back American diplomacy. Both said alliances—especially NATO—are vital. Both rejected the idea that American is declining or its leadership no longer necessary. Both defended America’s intelligence establishment. Both promised that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons. Both said a strong foreign policy abroad rests on a strong economy at home.

It was almost as though the same speechwriter crafted both speeches.

More than anything, this similarity testifies to a broad national consensus on America’s place in the world and a continuity in US foreign policy that guides almost all administrations, Democratic or Republican, including that of Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, or Bush 41.

In a sense, we’ve returned to a common, almost bipartisan, view of foreign policy, at least in the adult wings of the two parties. This is not to say that there’s total agreement, or that Jeb Bush would make the same decisions as Obama or any other president. But at least they’re starting from consensus on America’s place in the world.

We’ve almost forgotten what this consensus looks like, because it broke down during the administration of Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, or Bush 43.

The foreign policy of Bush 43 forsook US leadership for US dominance. It based its military strategy on first-strike pre-emptive war, not deterrence or containment. It scorned NATO and other allies. It sought enemies where none existed.

And it got us into a lot of trouble. Instead of patient tending to American interests, the second Bush administration violated John Quincy Adams’ admonition that America “goes not abroad in search of dragons to destroy.”

That administration, by seeking dragons such as Saddam Hussein, bogged the nation down in Iraq, botched the search for Osama bin Laden, severely strained America’s alliances and undermined the economy that paid our superpower bills. By the time of the 2008 election, Obama was being cheered abroad mostly because he wasn’t George Bush.

All this gave Obama plenty of ammunition in his 2008 Chicago speech. But what he really was saying then was that we needed to return to the policies that guided every other postwar administration, including that of Bush 41, who may have been our most skillful foreign policy president since Harry Truman.

Jeb Bush told his Chicago audience that “I am my own man,” beholden to the ideas of neither his father nor his brother. But he sounded a lot more like his father—and Obama.

“America is a force for peace and security in the world,” Bush said here. Eight years earlier, Obama said “I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth.”

Obama “has left America less influential in the world,” Bush said. Obama said that “we know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect.”

Obama: We must help “working Americans burdened by the dislocations of a global economy.” Bush: “We can’t be a force for peace if our economy doesn’t grow over the long haul.”

Bush: “The president’s word must be backed by the greatest military force in the world.” Obama: “We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.”

Bush: “America needs to lead, but it can’t do it alone,” which first means strengthening NATO. Obama: “As we strengthen NATO, we should also seek to build new alliances and relationships.”

Obama: “We need a nimble intelligence community.” Bush: To defeat non-state threats, “we need strong intelligence.”

Bush: “America doesn’t have the luxury of withdrawing from the world.” Obama: “We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission.”

Obama: “The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” Bush: Keeping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons “is the defining foreign policy issue of our time.”

The devil, of course, is in the details. Bush made it clear that he opposes Obama’s restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba, favors sending arms to Ukraine, feels that stability in places such as Egypt is more important than any quick transition to democracy, and indicates that he may like Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu better than Obama does.

But details dropped into a speech by a candidate can turn out differently for a president. In his speech, Obama said he would “bring a responsible end to this war in Iraq,” and promised to change America’s reputation as a “country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there,” a reference to Guantanamo. Things haven’t quite worked out that smoothly.

Important figures in both parties frequently oppose the terms of this foreign policy consensus. On a rare occasion, these forces can seize that policy and twist it out of recognition: this is what Dick Cheney and his allies did in the Bush 43 Administration. Even Jeb, who wants to be Bush 45, admitted that this was a mistake.

Much has been made of the presence of the disgraced Paul Wolfowitz, a leading architect of the Iraq War, on Jeb Bush’s foreign policy team. But that team also includes James Baker, the mastermind of the first President Bush’s successful policy, plus veterans from other administrations.   

In the end, the next president, whoever he or she is, will rely on a small cadre of foreign policy advisers. Making foreign policy is an elite preoccupation. The Wise Men, who devised America’s postwar policy to contain the Soviet Union, would have fit into a large taxi. But the policy, once adopted, led the country through the Cold War and into the reunification of Europe: it had its faults—some horrendous, such as Vietnam—but in the end, it worked.

That same policy of strong American engagement and leadership in the world, based on diplomacy and alliances backed by military strength, with an underpinning of liberal ideas and a strong economy, still prevails.

From Vietnam to Guantanamo, it looks messy in its execution. But Jeb Bush, like Barack Obama before him, seems to feel it’s the best policy we’ve got.

About

Richard Longworth is nonresident senior fellow on global cities at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and author of On Global Cities and Caught in the Middle: America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalism, on the impact of globalization on the American Midwest. He also was a distinguished visiting scholar at DePaul University and adjunct professor of international relations at Northwestern University, and is a mentor at the Harris School at the University of Chicago.

Archive


| By Richard C. Longworth

Global Cities Speak

Global cities exist. Like globalization itself, they’re new but real. And like globalization, they’re both enriching and impoverishing, good for those who know how to navigate these global waters, bad for those left in their wake.

| By Richard C. Longworth

On Global Cities

In my new book, On Global Cities, I take a fresh and focused look at global cities — what they are, why they are special, what makes them global, how they emerged, and where they are going.

| By Richard C. Longworth

Into The Madding Crowd

We’re told that we’re living in a world of lonely individuals. Maybe so. But my bet is that the future really lives, like the rest of us, in crowds.


| By Richard C. Longworth

The Future of Farming

I was talking recently with a farmer who farms a big spread in northern Illinois. There’s more to this these days, he said, than just going out and plowing the back 40. Where and how he plows depends largely on the data he gets daily from three satellites orbiting a thousand miles above his farm.  

| By Richard C. Longworth

New Life for Old Cities

Instead of larding the PACs of their favorite political candidates, wouldn’t it be nice if Chicago’s plutocrats put their money where it might actually do some real good? 

| By Richard C. Longworth

Chicago as Stockholm

Chicago is getting bad press, to put it mildly. It may be time for the city to think about a makeover – in both substance and image – if it is going to be taken seriously as a global city. 

| By Richard C. Longworth

Governors on the Warpath

Illinois and Indiana may be competitors, but it’s mostly over which governor can do the most damage to his state. Earlier this month, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence seemed ready to retire the gubernatorial dunce cap, with his signing and then backtracking on his state’s infamous “religious freedom” law. But now comes Bruce Rauner, Illinois’ rookie governor, with a virtual declaration of economic warfare on the Hoosiers next door.

| By Richard C. Longworth

The Midwest's Fresh Water Solution

The Midwest is sitting on the resource that will shape the future, and it’s just beginning to think what it can do with it. No, it’s not oil. Nor iron, steel or farmland, the resources that powered its industrial-era economy. It’s water. Or rather, fresh water, the useful low-salt variety that is in increasingly short supply around the country and around the world. 

| By Richard C. Longworth

What's Ailing Midwestern Legislatures?

The Indiana legislature recently passed a bill, signed by Gov. Mike Pence that, in effect, authorizes businesses in that state to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Pence and the Indiana legislature claim the bill is meant to protect religious freedom, not to discriminate against any group. Not surprisingly, nobody believes them, especially as their's isn't the only Midwestern state passing this type of legislation. 


| By Richard C. Longworth

It's Politics Time Again in Iowa

It’s early days yet in Iowa. The state girls’ basketball tournament is barely over. Farmers won’t start planting the first corn or soybeans for another month yet. The last vestiges of snow still fringe some fields. But it’s never too early for politics in the state that seems to have a lock on the quadrennial jockeying for pole position in the presidential sweepstakes.

| By Richard C. Longworth

Chicago Picks a Mayor

Chicagoans, or at least a few of them, will vote next month in a mayoral election notable both for its importance and for its meager turnout. Either Mayor Rahm Emanuel or his challenger, Jesus (Chuy) Garcia, will be the next mayor. In a sense, it’s a shame they both can’t win.