More of the Same

For anyone wondering in what direction Russia is traveling, look to the headlines.

Medvedev's five principles of the new Russian foreign policy bode ill for America's next foreign policy. This will not be a new Cold War - hence the difficulty. America knows how to fight and win a Cold War, because we already did for half a century. The position Russia is turning to now - one with spheres of influence, halfhearted deferences to "laws of nations" and refusal to submit to a unipolar world - seems far more 19th century than 20th. These sorts of politics, based on the balance of power rather than the confrontation of superpowers, are exactly the sort Americans like to think they have historically avoided. During the 19th (and much of the first half of the 20th) century, we secluded ourselves from European realpolitik and played hegemon in our own hemisphere. Then, in the second half of the 20th century, we were the "good" in bipolar world. Both Democrats and Republicans aspire to this sort of situation. While the neoconservative movement is oft criticized for its desire to turn any foreign policy problem into a "good versus evil" struggle, so too do many modern liberals. "Talking with our enemies" does not exclude liberals from this trend. Ultimately, restoring America's moral leadership is a meaningless idea without some immoral force to oppose. While some countries will have a smoother ride than they might get with another neoconservative President, some will have rougher ones (think of trade and human rights disagreements). The communities formed in liberal internationalist systems have boundaries. On those boundaries, even morally upstanding Presidents are forced to practice realism rather than liberalism.

What kept those sorts of politics less prevalent within the liberal community in the 20th century were common interests. While globalization and interdependence undoubtedly produce huge common interests, they are not all equal. If Europe's economic interests in Russian petroleum outweigh its political interests in standing with the US, can we be sure they will stand with us? Recent history suggests they will not. The 19th century was one of constantly shifting alliances, where ethnic ties increasingly took precedence over moral ones, though back then those moral ties were often conservative rather than liberal in nature. Nevertheless, America's next President needs to understand more than how to restore moral or protect morals. We don't need another Truman, because this isn't the Cold War. We don't need another Reagan, because this isn't the Cold War. If anything, we need a Teddy Roosevelt (and I'm waiting for McCain to prove he is) - a pragmatist that does more than simply "stand up" for American ideals.

Other items of interest...

• Fukuda resigns as PM, most likely successor, Taro Aso, is a China hawk and has all the ethnic sensitivity of Pat Buchanan. If you thought going back to the 19th century in Russia was bad, hope it doesn't happen in Asia.
• Anbar goes to the Iraqis. Now if only they can integrate the Sons of Iraq, that 2011 timeline might look pretty nice.
• Iranian nuclear deal with Nigeria. I'm not going to panic, but it makes you think...