With the election of a new president, many concerns and issues have surfaced as to how the new administration will stand on national security and defense and the issue of the economy. President Bush and the Republican Party made national security and national defense the main issue for a majority of his presidency, much of that direction was not by choice due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. However since President Obama has been in office, there has been a more liberal approach to security and the economy. The two president’s ideologues on both subjects couldn’t be more different.
Liberals generally believe that the United States can enhance national security by creating an environment of openness and transparency. Many on the left believe that national defense can be achieved by collaboration with allies and possibly even with nations that have been historically hostile to the western world. This strategy is based on the liberal’s belief that an open, democratic society will inherently be more peaceful towards the United States and our allies and that through time this strategy would eventually erode extremism.
Most liberals are eager to promote and share their liberal-democratic principles with other counties preferably through western-oriented multilateral institutions and international law. The idea is that liberal-democratic ideas and values could be transplanted to foreign nations and cultures, and if abided by, would result in less war and conflict. Liberals generally prefer to converse and negotiate with hostile countries and regimes, rather than engage or isolate them. This liberal strategy can clearly be seen by observing the current administration’s policies on the way it is handling the North Korean and Iranian nuclear crises.
It’s important to note that during President Bush’s first term in office after the terrorist attacks, the national security views of both Liberals and Realists were nearly the same. They fell more in line with the Realist’s ideology of national defense through international engagement, which is contrary to main stream liberal ideology. The same cannot be said when it comes to the issues of the economy. While liberals are eager to have the government step in and take control of certain sectors and industries such as healthcare, Realists generally promote an environment of free trade, global growth, competitiveness and global capitalism. Government control over private industry does not improve the growth or strength of the international economy; it actually may retard its growth and adversely affect that nation’s economic sovereignty. Due to the relationships between institutions and liberals, the competitive environment of the Realist would not flourish under the liberal-democratic ideology of international order because it concentrates on having a rational choice, directly impacting the balance of power as opposed to the liberal’s idea of multi-national or mutual growth. The Realist believes that each state is sovereign and that it alone is responsible for its own economic growth and strength.
In conclusion, foreign affairs and economic decisions certainly influence trade and security policies among sovereign states and nations. The world of globalization and international trade can have a direct impact on both the global economy and the security of a nation. Therefore although Liberalism and Realism differ in many ways, economic growth and capacity are the undisputed sources of power. Economic and political goals, including the goals of national and global security, are complimentary in the long term.
© American Political Analysis