| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
161754
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This introductory essay seeks to historicize the term “conservative internationalism.” It examines how interpretations evolved over the past century and identifies key figures who espoused distinctively conservative visions of America’s role in the world. The majority share a number of common traits: a fervent commitment to guarding national sovereignty against excessive supranational infringement, dedication to maintaining a strong military, trust in the efficacy of American power, a realist appreciation of the need to go to war and concern for order and stability at home and abroad. Yet there are also important differences over the purpose of American power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
161760
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article outlines the principles of a new conservative internationalism for the Trump era, and discusses how well the administration’s actions and words fit this paradigm. In order for Republicans and conservatives to reclaim their reputation as the party of strong national defense and competent foreign policy, current and future policymakers need to blend some traditional principles of conservative internationalist foreign policy with new adaptations required by challenging international security developments on the one hand, and changes in the domestic political views of right-leaning American voters on the other. A year into the Trump administration, there are some signs that the administration is indeed attempting to adjust slightly rather than replace the traditional principles of conservative Republican foreign policy, and therefore the “America First” grand strategy framework might become much more traditional in its actual policy decisions than in some of its rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
161761
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conservative internationalism is an important focus for study because it is a good description of America’s de facto grand strategy over time. The United States’ deployment patterns, budgetary priorities, and diplomatic initiatives tend, over the long run and across administrations, to be conservative internationalist in effect and in practice. Sometimes this de facto conservative internationalist median is directly observable in the oscillation from one presidential administration to the next. It is also evident in how policymakers find themselves entrapped between budgetary and military realities on the one hand, and liberal rhetoric and public expectations on the other. American statesmen face competing pressures to make soaring commitments to liberal ideals yet govern with a hard-nosed pragmatism that prioritizes American interests. The resulting blend is, often, a rough approximation of conservative internationalism. That is why it is likely to endure as America’s preferred approach to the world long past the Trump administration. The mix of American idealism and American strength is too potent for policymakers to ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
169560
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The international system is presented as a three-story construct, with the international governance institutions at the top, states in the middle, and civil and political society and social movements at the bottom. Within this construct, four types of globalism contend for hegemony today: the liberal international order; transformative (revolutionary) internationalism; mercantilist nationalism; and conservative (or sovereign) internationalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|