Read on Twitter
Excellent thread from @ProfPaulPoast on Biden’s new foreign policy apparatus.
Some thoughts [thread] https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1330139139128356865">https://twitter.com/profpaulp...
Some thoughts [thread] https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1330139139128356865">https://twitter.com/profpaulp...
. @ProfPaulPoast makes several excellent points, as usual. My two cents to chip in: It’s not just that your foreign policy can be motivated by Realism and have Liberal Internationalist objectives — it bears reminding that these concepts are mere constructs of IR philosophy.
Ipso facto, it behooves each of us to examine the world, if only from time to time, through each of those most pertinent to our matter of study. Constructivist analysis will tell you things that Realism cannot, just as Realism will inform a worldview that Constructivism will not.
Each has something to give, and should, in this young scholar-analyst’s humble opinion, come to be treated less as a dogma to which one subscribes, and more as tools for examining the world of IR.
As my very first (perhaps my best) teacher of International Studies taught: You must be careful with your isms, for at some point, you cease to think about them, and they begin to think for you.
This is all the more true in the ever-evolving and increasingly complex world in which we find ourselves.
(Caveat: This thread is does not assume or ascribe an ism to Prof. Poast, but is meant to provoke greater thought.)
Ultimately, I believe a better question to pose of Biden’s new foreign policy team is: Is his team’s worldview set in stone, or is it dynamic? How do they view the United States’ role in the world today, and what role do they aspire to?
There are a few good litmus tests for these questions:
- How do they see the relationship between China and the U.S.?
- Where, when, and under what circumstances should the U.S. use military force?
- Should the U.S. support Democracy abroad, how, and in what way?
- How do they see the relationship between China and the U.S.?
- Where, when, and under what circumstances should the U.S. use military force?
- Should the U.S. support Democracy abroad, how, and in what way?
There are of course, many more questions one could add to this list to come up with a more comprehensive worldview for Biden’s foreign policy team.
Nevertheless, the point here is to illustrate that the IR school of thought we might ascribe to the Biden foreign policy team is less revealing and informative, overall, than their stances on enduring questions of statecraft.
Reverse-engineering someone’s school of thought by their actions is do-able, and helpful as a “quick overview guide,” but like many things — the more you simplify, the more you lose nuance and the less is told.
And if there’s one field where nuance, its comprehension, and its conveyance is king, it’s International Relations. [End]
