Customer Reviews

Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Just wow.

Mead contends that American foreign policy has been the most successful foreign policy in history and this book is an exploration of what Americans need to do to continue that success into the 21st century.

Mead begins by exploring the history of American foreign policy from the founding of the republic to the present. He successfully dispels the myth that the United States spent the 19th century in some kind of virtuous isolation and places many of the political and economic events in a foreign policy context.

Just as Mead dispels the myth of virtuous isolation, he seeks a new myth to explain the success of American foreign policy. A myth, he explains, is a way of condensing complex topics into a set of notions which everyone can easily discuss in a reasonably informed manner. His myth is based on our particular strengths as a democracy, the notion that competing schools fight for control over our foreign policy. The result, he claims, is that every portion of our society is represented in our approach to the world.

The next chapters describe each of the schools in turn. Mead ends the text with a cautionary but hopeful note about where America needs to go to maintain its success.

On top of all this substantive discussion, the book is a compelling read. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Walter Mead's Special Providence belies the historical myth of American foreign policy. Mead challenges the idea that American foreign policy was non-existent or amateurish before World War II. Mead argues and capably supports that the United States has a unique and rich tradition in its dealings in International Relations. Mead asserts that this policy is a product of our American democracy; a form of government that many argue is inferior when dealing in foreign affairs. However as a product of American society, a number of voices and ideals have tempered a policy that has done exceptionally well, judging by our rise to power and status today.
"American foreign policy rests on a balance of contrasting, competing voices and values - it is a symphony - or tries to be, rather than a solo," asserts Mead. Escaping the typical and lacking descriptions of realist versus idealist, Mead illuminates four active voices within America. Each voice is complicated enough that any elaboration I give here will be lacking. However, the names of the schools should give you the idea. The Hamiltonians, Jacksonians, Jeffersonians, and Wilsonians make up the America's collection of competing schools of thought. Mead concedes that the names are not historically accurate. But he makes a strong case, leading the reader to re-evaluate American foreign policy history - providing historical antidotes of each school in action. Mead treats each school with respect and supplies a convincing intellectual argument for each. Special Providence is a delight to read. This paradigm of the four schools provides deeper insight and understanding of American politics in the international arena, and even to a lesser extent on the domestic side. Meads insights are lightly glazed with wit. I found myself laughing out loud numerous times. I recommend this book to anyone with the slighted predilection for international relations or American history.

Mead's Special Providence is at its best in describing the four historical schools of American foreign policy. His framework is apt at explaining the motivations and actions of the major political figures and movements and applies in many cases to domestic policy debates as well. It also rings true with my gut feeling that binary classifications - isolationist/internationalist, hawk/dove, right/left, Democrat/Republican - do not really have a lot of explanatory or predictive power, at least since the end of the Cold War.

His conclusions are also thought provoking though not terribly well developed or convincing. Is the American foreign policy elite really much more out of touch with the American "folk" than it was fifty years ago? Have "Jeffersonian" - constitutionalist, small government - voices really been marginalized since the collapse of the Soviet Union? Does the US democratic system still provide a key advantage over Europe in formulating and executing successful policy? These are all really important questions, but I wish Mead had either left them as such or spent more time arguing his conclusions. The last two chapters are the only weak part of the book.

And, although he can't be faulted for it, I found myself wishing that the book were published later in the George W. Bush administration and, particularly, after September 11. He makes the conventional point that there are different voices in the Bush administration. But, is Bush himself a Hamiltonian (commercialist) in Jacksonian (populist) clothing or the opposite? Also, is our reaction to September 11 the key event that points the way forward for America's post-Cold War role in the world or simply a manifestation of the Jacksonian impulse to fight a total war once provoked?

Despite the weaknesses I noted, the fact that Mead has me thinking about these issues and caring what he would have to say about them shows what a really good bock Special Providence is. I highly recommend it.

I really, REALLY liked this book. It made me feel optimistic about the future - that our instincts as Americans (diverse as they are) will serve us well.

We tend to think that Americans are not very good at foreign policy, at least in the manner of Metternich and Talleyrand, and that our traditions lie in staying snug behind our oceans. Special Providence makes the case that, in fact, have been quite successful in international relations and that we have been heartily engaged with the world since independence. "We don't just draw lucky cards, we play the game well."

A consistent thrust in our history has been developing markets, a focus that has set us apart from European style power politics. "Frederick the Great thought about how to snatch Silesia from Austria; Alexander Hamilton thought about how to integrate the infant American economy into the British world system on the best possible terms." This Hamiltonian school has continued from Commodore Perry to NAFTA.

Americans have had a missionary impulse as well, whether for the gospel or democracy. Indeed, the 19th Century missionaries had a positive effect with schools, hospitals, and egalitarianism. Woodrow Wilson personified this tendency. "The European powers sneered at Wilson, but today every one of them conducts foreign policy along Wilsonian lines."

The "Jacksonian" tradition represents our cowboy impulses, our history of being slow to anger, but when aroused, carrying a terrible, swift sword to the enemy. "Jeffersonians" argue that the best way to lead the world is by example, and stay within our own borders.

Each of these four schools has its strengths and has taken the lead at different times in our history. The debates between them have robust and coalitions among them shift. The culmination of this process of checks and balances is a foreign policy that reflects the underlying national interest reasonably well.

In contrast to a couple other reviewers, I found the book to be well written. In fact, to me, every page was a treat. I liked the labeling of our divergent tendencies into "Hamiltonian," "Jeffersonian," etc., rather than sterile terms like "realist" and "libertarian," since it roots the schools in history. The work provides many good insights on domestic U.S. history along the way.

Foreigners should read this book to understand the shifting tendencies in America that shape our behavior. Americans should read it to better understand our relationship with the world.

I bought this book after I read the review of the Economist in its November 17, 2001 issue. It ends with the following words: "...a highly intelligent analysis of America's foreign policy, which is full of common sense and learning, and is clear and readable to boot". I certainly agree. Insights upon insights, erudition and absolute familiarity with US history. Political science written with accuracy approaching (inasmuch as that is possible) the exact sciences.
Example: in the chapter discussing the US school which emphasizes the maintenance of the democratic system (referred to as the "Jacksonian" by the author):
"We shall find ourselves mixed in with corrupt and unworthy allies; today we help the Afghan mujahideen by arming and training them against the Soviet Union, and tomorrow they turn those weapons against us and become a thorn in our flesh throughout the Middle East." This was written before September 11, 2001!
Ever since I read it I wonder why it's not getting anything but 5-star reviews. In view of the fact that it did get a few excellent reviews I shall merely say that I join them. We are all blessed with hindsight. Mead did his homework so well that he was able to present us with more than a few foresights. This book is political science and history at their best.

I have found Mead's book very valuable for explaining American foreign policy to Japanese graduate and undergraduate students. The great advantage of the book is that it rises above the battles over particular policy decisions and gives an aerial view of the various historical and social forces that go into the formation of American foreign policy.

The chapters on Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism are especially useful in explaining American reactions to September 11th and conflicting American attitudes about America's role in the world. These chapters are so good that they are worth the laborious process of working through the English text with Japanese students. Mead writes well with an absence of jargon and an impressive array of interesting observations. I hope that a Japanese translation is in the works.

This startlingly good book attempts to explain modern U.S. foreign policy by way of the country's early and neglected foreign policy traditions. Contrary to many informed views of early U.S. foreign policy as either inept or missing in action until the middle of the twentieth century -- Mead argues that the U.S. was actually a masterful practitioner of diplomacy and geopolitics from its earliest days. While several major European states engaged in destructive wars during the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries, the U.S. seemed to make the right moves at various key moments in its history.

Mead contends that these outcomes were not fortuitous accidents, but the result of a flexible diplomacy based on four schools of foreign policy that he names after U.S. historical figures: Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, and Andrew Jackson. The names do not mean that the foreign policy is derived from the historical figure so much as the main idea in each of the schools can be associated with him. In the case of Hamiltonians, the priority is to the country's economic health and federal support for big business. For Jeffersonians, it is a low-profile foreign policy and support for democracy at home. For Wilsonians, there is a commitment to international justice and institutions. Jacksonianism is a widespread populism that expresses itself mainly through protectionism, patriotism and a fierce belligerence at times of war.

Mead argues that each of these traditions has their place and that the reason for the geopolitical success of the U.S. is due to the flexibility from combining the different schools to various degrees. In some periods, Jeffersonianism might be appropriate as the main approach. In others, a Jacksonian approach might be what's needed. In still others, Wilsonians and Hamiltonians might both share the top billing. In any case, Mead stresses that what American policymakers have lost sight of since the beginning of the Cold War is the need for this kind of flexibility that only a deep appreciation of America's foreign policy traditions can provide.

At first, I found Mead's descriptions and examples of the four schools suspiciously vague and sometimes even contradictory and ahistorical. But his approach grew on me as I continued through the book. I found it helpful to think of Mead's four divisions as more like archetypes than schools and of his book as more of an introduction to the subject than the final word. While he didn't quite nail his conceptual framework down, I think any reader will see that he's on to something special and that his ideas about U.S. foreign policy need further discussion. (Note: Mead published "Special Providence" before 9-11, but I don't see how anything is changed by the tragedy, other than perhaps Mead's own final prescription for the foreign policy school to which the U.S. should now give priority.)

The most impressive part of the book, however, has nothing to do with the four schools. In the first two chapters, Mead deals with the foreign policy tradition of the United States. They are nothing short of revelatory as Mead rescues this tradition from the mistaken notion that the U.S. lived a blessed existence in the nineteenth century, largely free from foreign policy concerns. Instead, the truth was quite different as Americans - both the public and policymakers - were obsessed with foreign policy, particularly their economic dependence on Britain and securing the New World as their exclusive geopolitical sphere. As Mead describes it, foreign policy was not a periodic concern for Americans, but a constant concern, and the various successful ways in which policymakers of that era handled U.S. foreign policy should continue to be a guide for America in the post-Cold War era.

Like most of the reviewers here, I think this is an outstanding book, and one that will change the way you take in commentary on foreign affairs and security issues. I especially enjoy playing spot-the-school, which has become a delightful parlor game.

I was also very struck with a comment that Mead tosses off, almost in passing. I don't recall his exact words, but they were to the effect that if you want to improve the economic condition of people, encourage international trade.

It's the kind of message that sends lefties into fits of rage. But "commerce making the world safer for commerce" (my words, not Mead's) is an excellent way to describe how conditions for everyone have gotten better, however uneven the improvement has been.

Special Providence is a must-read, excellent primer on foreign policy. I can't really add much to the fine reviews already written, but to say this book should be appreciated by both the "Right" and the "Left". Mead's text provides well-balanced descriptions and historical applications of what he views as four forms of foreign policy- Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian. The writing is devoid of arcane jargon and each strategy is evenly critiqued.

Unlike a lot of the popular poli-sci/current events one finds on the shelves (for example, from the Right- Hannity, Rush, Coulter; and the Left- Moore, Chomsky, Ivins), which try to tell you "what" to think, Special Providence will teach you "how" to think and analyze what is being reported the media today.

While I personally subscribe to one of Mead's strategies, I now better appreciate the complexity of foreign policy and the difficult issues facing our leaders.

The USA is often portrayed as not having a comprehensive foreign policy. Detractors from every quarter denounce the lack of cohesiveness when compared to other country's foreign policies. The author's main points are;
1) That in spite of this stumbling and bumbling, historically the USA has had one of the most successful foreign policies of any country, especially when the country was developing in a world of powerful meddling European states. The success of the US foreign policy may have been successful just because as the Author alludes to a analogy of many countries having a foreign policy like a ship, it sails in one direction, with speed, but if it hits a rock it sinks, The US foreign policy is likened to a raft, everybody gets their feet wet, but a raft doesn't sink when it hits an obstruction.
2) The book examines the history of the four main viewpoints of American foreign policy that are still active today. The author incorporates numerous examples of why certain actions were taken throughout the history of America. The final foreign policy action is actually a resultant of the clash of beliefs within various segments of the USA.
This book is highly recommended as an overview of the history and present state of American foreign policy. The book is well written and unbiased. If the reader wants a better understanding of the foreign policy of the USA, this book is the answer. It dissects and explains the various forces in American policy making.