Its got some issues in its framework and the theory Mead offers here operates more like guesstimation, but like most guesstimations it plays a critical role in orienting and organizing information that opens up avenues for deeper study. It is not a detailed argument built up on facts, it is an overgeneralization that allows for complicating our history as a country, letting us sit with the disjunctive and diverse legacy of our leaders and their followers. History cannot be tied down into a neat box and explained with a clear theory, in my opinion, because human beings and their own life histories are not explained by singular ideas either. I would say the most important part of the theory is his Jacksonians and the Jacksonian creed, at least for my own purposes studying rural America.
Read this along with American Nations by Colin Woodard and How the South Won the Civil War by Heather Cox Richardson. I suspect David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America would be extremely valuable since Mead references it prominently. After reading this book, then watch Mel Gibson's Braveheart. You will see it in a whole new light!
Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World 1st Edition
by
Walter Russell Mead
(Author),
Richard C. Leone
(Foreword)
|
Walter Russell Mead
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
ISBN-13:
978-0415935364
ISBN-10:
9780415935364
Why is ISBN important?
ISBN
Scan an ISBN with your phone
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
This bar-code number lets you verify that you're getting exactly the right version or edition of a book. The 13-digit and 10-digit formats both work.
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club?
Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World Since 1776Walter McDougallPaperback$16.99$16.99FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Monday, Sep 6
Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold WarPaperback$14.32$14.32FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Tuesday, Sep 7Only 19 left in stock (more on the way).
What Good Is Grand Strategy?: Power and Purpose in American Statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. BushPaperback$13.99$13.99FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Thursday, Sep 9
The World: A Brief IntroductionPaperback$15.99$15.99FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Monday, Sep 6
Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants KillPaperback$15.99$15.99FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Thursday, Sep 9
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and ReligionPaperback$10.82$10.82FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Monday, Sep 6
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World Since 1776Walter McDougallPaperback$16.99$16.99FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Monday, Sep 6
Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold WarPaperback$14.32$14.32FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Tuesday, Sep 7Only 19 left in stock (more on the way).
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and ReligionPaperback$10.82$10.82FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Monday, Sep 6
Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants KillPaperback$15.99$15.99FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Thursday, Sep 9
What Good Is Grand Strategy?: Power and Purpose in American Statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. BushPaperback$13.99$13.99FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Thursday, Sep 9
American Diplomacy: Sixtieth-Anniversary Expanded Edition (Walgreen Foundation Lectures)Paperback$26.00$26.00FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Thursday, Sep 9
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Ambitious...inventive...A heroic effort to comprehend the entirety of Americans' diplomatic past. This intellectually fecund, infectiously engaging book deserves a wide readership. It raises serious questions in abundance and provides often ingenious answers. A rich and substantial book that is sure to influence discussion of foreign-policy issues in the years ahead.--David M. Kennedy, The American Prospect."
"The most orignial and probably the most important book to have been written on American foreign policy in decades. --Martin Walker, United Press International."
"A remarkable accomplishment...[Mead] is a brilliant scholar, and he has produced a book of enduring value as both a work of intellectual genealogy and a stimulating re-evaluation of some of the roots of America's rise.--David Rieff, The Los Angeles Times."
"Mead is a clear and original thinker and an engaging writer, and these pages are filled with striking insights and pithy formulations.--Aaron L. Friedberg, New York Times Book Review."
"In his ambitious and important new book, Walter Russell Mead offers a provocative and highly original way of looking at American foreign policy, one that moves far beyond the conventional wisdom of "realist vs. idealists." His insights linking the grand sweep of American history to our present world situation are particularly valuable. I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in America's role in our increasingly complex world.--Richard C. Holbrooke, author of To End a War."
"A fresh and well-written introduction to American foreign policy traditions.--Foreign Affairs."
"A stunning achievement. At a time of crisis, Mead's book forces the reader to rethink the central ideas that have guided American foreign policy in the past and are likely to shape its future.--James Chace, author of Acheson: The Secretary of State Who Created The American World."
"This important book-high-spirited, eloquent, and imaginative-could well change the way we about America's relatons with the world.--Ronald Steel, author of Temptations of a Superpower."
"This ingenious and provocative account of AMerican foreign policy's past is a splendid introduction to its future. --Michael Mandelbaum, author of The Dawn of Peace in Europe."
"Exceedingly interesting...a treasure trove for modern-day policy-makers seeking historical justifications for their positions.--James P. Rubin, The New Republic."
"Mead is a lively and provocative thinker, and he produces the kind of work that is increasingly uncommon among political scientist; in Speical Providence, he skillfully brings the history of American foreign affaris alive, employs anecdotes to telling effect, and shuns jargon. Most of all he is never boring.--Jacob Heilbrunn, Commentary."
"A comprehensive history of American foreign policy that challenges conventional wisdom in thought-provoking ways. --Chicago Tribune."
"A treasure trove of information put together with an engaging writing style. The challenges before us now give urgency for arriving at a consensus fitting for this new era. His book provides a remarkably clear guide to how the country responded in the past.--The Christian Science Monitor."
"Brilliant...thought-provoking...Walter Russell Mead, a prolific and engaging writer, has produced a history of American foreign policy turning upon American ideas and practices since the days of the Founders. At its core is a myth-breaking proposition that the US has been actively, and mostly successfully, involved in the world economically and diplomatically since the early days of the Republic. American isolationism, the author argues, is a myth propagated to rally public opinion for engagement in the early days of the Cold War.--The Washington Monthly."
"Full of common sense and learning, and is clear and readable to boot.--The Economist."
"Insightful...The strength of Mr. Mead's clear, jargon-free analysis is that he is so even-handed in his description of all four schools, whose members are ofter vitriolic in denouncing each other.--The Wall Street Journal."
"To understand U.S. foreign policy, it is necessary to understand the United States. Nobody understands either better than Walter Russell Mead. This book is destined to join the small list of classics that explain America to the world and to Americans themselves.--Michael E. Lind, author of Vietnam, the Necessary War."
"Essential and urgent...an unparalleled clarification of American foreign policy and the choices we face.--Denver Post."
"Few people writing on U.S. foreign policy are as brilliant and original as Walter Russell Mead. In Special Providence he shatters old diplomatic theories and historical assumptions with a creative vengeance. The result is a brave, landmark study that cannot be ignored.--Douglas Brinkley, author of Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy."
"The most orignial and probably the most important book to have been written on American foreign policy in decades. --Martin Walker, United Press International."
"A remarkable accomplishment...[Mead] is a brilliant scholar, and he has produced a book of enduring value as both a work of intellectual genealogy and a stimulating re-evaluation of some of the roots of America's rise.--David Rieff, The Los Angeles Times."
"Mead is a clear and original thinker and an engaging writer, and these pages are filled with striking insights and pithy formulations.--Aaron L. Friedberg, New York Times Book Review."
"In his ambitious and important new book, Walter Russell Mead offers a provocative and highly original way of looking at American foreign policy, one that moves far beyond the conventional wisdom of "realist vs. idealists." His insights linking the grand sweep of American history to our present world situation are particularly valuable. I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in America's role in our increasingly complex world.--Richard C. Holbrooke, author of To End a War."
"A fresh and well-written introduction to American foreign policy traditions.--Foreign Affairs."
"A stunning achievement. At a time of crisis, Mead's book forces the reader to rethink the central ideas that have guided American foreign policy in the past and are likely to shape its future.--James Chace, author of Acheson: The Secretary of State Who Created The American World."
"This important book-high-spirited, eloquent, and imaginative-could well change the way we about America's relatons with the world.--Ronald Steel, author of Temptations of a Superpower."
"This ingenious and provocative account of AMerican foreign policy's past is a splendid introduction to its future. --Michael Mandelbaum, author of The Dawn of Peace in Europe."
"Exceedingly interesting...a treasure trove for modern-day policy-makers seeking historical justifications for their positions.--James P. Rubin, The New Republic."
"Mead is a lively and provocative thinker, and he produces the kind of work that is increasingly uncommon among political scientist; in Speical Providence, he skillfully brings the history of American foreign affaris alive, employs anecdotes to telling effect, and shuns jargon. Most of all he is never boring.--Jacob Heilbrunn, Commentary."
"A comprehensive history of American foreign policy that challenges conventional wisdom in thought-provoking ways. --Chicago Tribune."
"A treasure trove of information put together with an engaging writing style. The challenges before us now give urgency for arriving at a consensus fitting for this new era. His book provides a remarkably clear guide to how the country responded in the past.--The Christian Science Monitor."
"Brilliant...thought-provoking...Walter Russell Mead, a prolific and engaging writer, has produced a history of American foreign policy turning upon American ideas and practices since the days of the Founders. At its core is a myth-breaking proposition that the US has been actively, and mostly successfully, involved in the world economically and diplomatically since the early days of the Republic. American isolationism, the author argues, is a myth propagated to rally public opinion for engagement in the early days of the Cold War.--The Washington Monthly."
"Full of common sense and learning, and is clear and readable to boot.--The Economist."
"Insightful...The strength of Mr. Mead's clear, jargon-free analysis is that he is so even-handed in his description of all four schools, whose members are ofter vitriolic in denouncing each other.--The Wall Street Journal."
"To understand U.S. foreign policy, it is necessary to understand the United States. Nobody understands either better than Walter Russell Mead. This book is destined to join the small list of classics that explain America to the world and to Americans themselves.--Michael E. Lind, author of Vietnam, the Necessary War."
"Essential and urgent...an unparalleled clarification of American foreign policy and the choices we face.--Denver Post."
"Few people writing on U.S. foreign policy are as brilliant and original as Walter Russell Mead. In Special Providence he shatters old diplomatic theories and historical assumptions with a creative vengeance. The result is a brave, landmark study that cannot be ignored.--Douglas Brinkley, author of Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy."
About the Author
Walter Russell Mead is Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. A contributing editor at the Los Angeles Times, he has alsowritten for the The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, Harper's and Foreign Affairs. He is the author of Mortal Splendor: TheAmerican Empire in Transition.
Start reading Special Providence on your Kindle in under a minute.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Nolyn: The Rise and Fall, Book 1
In the depths of an unforgiving jungle, a legend is about to be born. Listen now
Product details
- ASIN : 0415935369
- Publisher : Routledge; 1st edition (September 6, 2002)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 400 pages
- ISBN-10 : 9780415935364
- ISBN-13 : 978-0415935364
- Item Weight : 1.25 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.08 x 1.08 x 9.02 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#124,612 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #128 in Political History (Books)
- #129 in International Relations (Books)
- #918 in History & Theory of Politics
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
4.6 out of 5 stars
4.6 out of 5
76 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on June 15, 2020
Verified Purchase
Reviewed in the United States on April 23, 2012
Verified Purchase
I first read Walter Russell Mead's Special Providence soon after it was published in 2001, just months prior to 9/11. This was before I had started writing book reviews in 2003, but I remember being favorably impressed. Since then, I have read, and reviewed, several books Professor Mead cites and wanted to see how my impression might change given this additional background. I'm still impressed, but perhaps in different ways.
In 2001, I was impressed with Professor Mead's simple but elegant characterization of four schools of thought that influenced the history of American foreign policy. He names each school after a famous proponent of its policies,
1. Hamiltonian: Named for Alexander Hamilton, the goals of this school are to further American commercial interests with the world.
2. Wilsonian: Named for Woodrow Wilson, the goals of this school are the creation of international organizations and legal structures based on law and morality. This school is a strong supporter of such organizations as the League of Nations, United Nations, World Court, etc.
3. Jeffersonian: Named for Thomas Jefferson, this school sought to minimize foreign entanglements (Washington's words, I believe) not only to avoid potential foreign conflicts but also to avoid domestic policy impacts such as maintaining a large and expensive standing military force and accompanying military-industrial complex. This school is based on Jefferson's own libertarian approach to government in both domestic and foreign affairs.
4. Jacksonian: Named for Andrew Jackson, this school is defined less by its policies than by its membership, typically lower and middle class Americans, originally of predominantly Scots-Irish descent, but now expanded to include those from other ethnic groups who are willing to accept their principles of patriotism and code of honor. These are the people who typically from the backbone of our armed forces and, consequently, Jacksonians typically place great emphasis on maintaining a strong military. At the same time, as the group that provides the bulk of our soldiers, they oppose wars they perceive as unnecessary, unwinnable, or not vital to the American interest (which they define as their own interest). Once engaged, however, they will insist that the war be fought to a clear victory with all necessary resources. Limited wars, limited objectives, and limited resources are anathema. Jacksonians use different rules and standards for dealing with fellow Americans, especially fellow Jacksonians, than with the outside world.
Contrasting the four schools, Wilsonians and Hamiltonians strive for world order based on morality and commerce, respectively. Jacksonian and Jeffersonians are suspicious or hostile to these global goals, Jeffersonians in a libertarian sense, Jacksonians in a nationalistic sense.
Mead is careful to point out that this naming convention is convenient shorthand; the schools existed both before and after their namesakes. He also points out that the four schools have overlapped, formed shifting alliances among themselves, and changed their focus over time. For example, the Hamiltonian School shifted from favoring protectionist tariffs to supporting free trade sometime in the mid 20th Century.
Mead also spends a fair amount of time contrasting American foreign policy with Continental realism, aka the Westphalian System, under which European states agreed to deal directly on a government-to-government basis and avoid interfering in each other's internal affairs. In this section, he points out that:
1. Economic issues play a more significant role in American and British foreign policy than in Continental Realism which focuses almost entirely on political and military relationships.
2. Domestic politics differ from international politics. In domestic politics, at least in democracies, a social contract is assumed. The state is assumed to have the best interests of the citizens in mind. In international politics, there is no social contract. National self interest is paramount under the Westphalian system, amorality trumps both morality and immorality.
3. Continental Realism's influence in the US peaked in the Nixon-Kissinger era. The economic and moral elements were not regained until the Carter and Reagan years. Nixon's termination of the Breton Woods international monetary regime was the ultimate withdrawal of the US from the economic aspects of foreign policy. More than anything, the US withdrawal from Breton Woods unified the European governments in their pursuit of an independent monetary authority. The Nixon years also saw the termination of the moral element of foreign policy. Any anti-communist government deserved our support. This amoral approach was reversed by Carter's emphasis on human rights and given a major boost by Reagan's denunciation of the Evil Empire and call to Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Together, the reentry of the economic and moral aspects of foreign policy led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Mead also describes the history of US foreign policy as one determined primarily by our evolving relationship with Great Britain. He describes four phases of this relationship and of US policy:
1. 1776-1823: The US won its independence from Britain and the two nations then worked and fought to define their economic and commercial relationship.
2. 1823-1914: The US existed in a British-dominated world order, but one within which both nations recognized areas where American concerns needed to be considered, i.e., the Monroe Doctrine to which Britain tacitly subscribed to prevent other European powers from establishing control over newly independent nations in the western hemisphere.
3. 1914-1947: The two world wars and the loss of its empire destroyed the British-dominated world order while the US struggled to decide how to fill the resulting void: Prop up Britain, replace Britain, or let the rest of the world tend to its own problems.
4. 1947-1991: By 1947, it was apparent what Britain would not be able to maintain its dominance of the world order in the face of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. The US stepped into the void. The Cold War era ended with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.
So, what did I get out or rereading Special Providence ten years after its publication?
My first reaction was that the four schools really represent different dimensions of power in world affairs. In his 1998 book, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, John Lewis Gaddis cites five dimension of power: military, economic, cultural, moral, and ideological. Using these dimensions, the Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian schools emphasized economic, moral, ideological, and military power, respectively. Would using these impersonal terms instead of naming the schools for famous individuals would have avoided some confusion? For example, Jefferson and his supporters strongly supported the initial phases of the French revolution (prior to the terror). However, support of democratic movements abroad is more a Wilsonian policy than one associated with the Jeffersonian-libertarian school as defined by Mead. On the other hand, Mead's naming convention did make me think through this question, which makes it a plus in my mind.
Professor Mead alludes to a parallel between his four schools of thought and David Hackett Fischer's four British Folkways of settlers in America which he cites in his book Albion's Seed:
1. The Puritans from East Anglia who settled in New England
2. The Royalists from the south and west of England, defeated by Cromwell's Puritans in the English Civil War, 1642-51, who settled in Virginia and Maryland
3. The Quakers and their religious kin who settled in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
4. The Scots-Irish who settled in the Appalachians west of the earlier colonies.
I've tried to map these four groups to Mead's four schools. The only clear correspondence is between Fischer's Scots-Irish and Mead's Jacksonians which is obvious since the Jacksonians are defined as Scots-Irish in origin. The Wilsonians and Hamiltonians both seem to incorporate some elements of both the New England Puritans and the Quakers of the middle colonies. The Jeffersonians seem to have no obvious intellectual connection to any of Fischer's four Folkways; although Jefferson was a Virginian, his philosophy was not at all similar to the defeated Stuart Royalists who settled that colony. Perhaps I have missed something in this comparison; if anyone wants to leave a comment on my review, I'd welcome it.
It also occurs to me that the four schools do not carry equal weight in determining US policy. Currently, I'd subjectively assign weights of perhaps 20%, 20%, 15%, and 45% respectively to the Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian schools. However, these weights undoubtedly have changed many times from 1776 to today. It would be interesting to see a well argued description of these evolving weights, but I guess that is really a separate research project. Perhaps Professor Mead will consider it for a future book.
In 2001, I was impressed with Professor Mead's simple but elegant characterization of four schools of thought that influenced the history of American foreign policy. He names each school after a famous proponent of its policies,
1. Hamiltonian: Named for Alexander Hamilton, the goals of this school are to further American commercial interests with the world.
2. Wilsonian: Named for Woodrow Wilson, the goals of this school are the creation of international organizations and legal structures based on law and morality. This school is a strong supporter of such organizations as the League of Nations, United Nations, World Court, etc.
3. Jeffersonian: Named for Thomas Jefferson, this school sought to minimize foreign entanglements (Washington's words, I believe) not only to avoid potential foreign conflicts but also to avoid domestic policy impacts such as maintaining a large and expensive standing military force and accompanying military-industrial complex. This school is based on Jefferson's own libertarian approach to government in both domestic and foreign affairs.
4. Jacksonian: Named for Andrew Jackson, this school is defined less by its policies than by its membership, typically lower and middle class Americans, originally of predominantly Scots-Irish descent, but now expanded to include those from other ethnic groups who are willing to accept their principles of patriotism and code of honor. These are the people who typically from the backbone of our armed forces and, consequently, Jacksonians typically place great emphasis on maintaining a strong military. At the same time, as the group that provides the bulk of our soldiers, they oppose wars they perceive as unnecessary, unwinnable, or not vital to the American interest (which they define as their own interest). Once engaged, however, they will insist that the war be fought to a clear victory with all necessary resources. Limited wars, limited objectives, and limited resources are anathema. Jacksonians use different rules and standards for dealing with fellow Americans, especially fellow Jacksonians, than with the outside world.
Contrasting the four schools, Wilsonians and Hamiltonians strive for world order based on morality and commerce, respectively. Jacksonian and Jeffersonians are suspicious or hostile to these global goals, Jeffersonians in a libertarian sense, Jacksonians in a nationalistic sense.
Mead is careful to point out that this naming convention is convenient shorthand; the schools existed both before and after their namesakes. He also points out that the four schools have overlapped, formed shifting alliances among themselves, and changed their focus over time. For example, the Hamiltonian School shifted from favoring protectionist tariffs to supporting free trade sometime in the mid 20th Century.
Mead also spends a fair amount of time contrasting American foreign policy with Continental realism, aka the Westphalian System, under which European states agreed to deal directly on a government-to-government basis and avoid interfering in each other's internal affairs. In this section, he points out that:
1. Economic issues play a more significant role in American and British foreign policy than in Continental Realism which focuses almost entirely on political and military relationships.
2. Domestic politics differ from international politics. In domestic politics, at least in democracies, a social contract is assumed. The state is assumed to have the best interests of the citizens in mind. In international politics, there is no social contract. National self interest is paramount under the Westphalian system, amorality trumps both morality and immorality.
3. Continental Realism's influence in the US peaked in the Nixon-Kissinger era. The economic and moral elements were not regained until the Carter and Reagan years. Nixon's termination of the Breton Woods international monetary regime was the ultimate withdrawal of the US from the economic aspects of foreign policy. More than anything, the US withdrawal from Breton Woods unified the European governments in their pursuit of an independent monetary authority. The Nixon years also saw the termination of the moral element of foreign policy. Any anti-communist government deserved our support. This amoral approach was reversed by Carter's emphasis on human rights and given a major boost by Reagan's denunciation of the Evil Empire and call to Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Together, the reentry of the economic and moral aspects of foreign policy led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Mead also describes the history of US foreign policy as one determined primarily by our evolving relationship with Great Britain. He describes four phases of this relationship and of US policy:
1. 1776-1823: The US won its independence from Britain and the two nations then worked and fought to define their economic and commercial relationship.
2. 1823-1914: The US existed in a British-dominated world order, but one within which both nations recognized areas where American concerns needed to be considered, i.e., the Monroe Doctrine to which Britain tacitly subscribed to prevent other European powers from establishing control over newly independent nations in the western hemisphere.
3. 1914-1947: The two world wars and the loss of its empire destroyed the British-dominated world order while the US struggled to decide how to fill the resulting void: Prop up Britain, replace Britain, or let the rest of the world tend to its own problems.
4. 1947-1991: By 1947, it was apparent what Britain would not be able to maintain its dominance of the world order in the face of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. The US stepped into the void. The Cold War era ended with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.
So, what did I get out or rereading Special Providence ten years after its publication?
My first reaction was that the four schools really represent different dimensions of power in world affairs. In his 1998 book, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, John Lewis Gaddis cites five dimension of power: military, economic, cultural, moral, and ideological. Using these dimensions, the Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian schools emphasized economic, moral, ideological, and military power, respectively. Would using these impersonal terms instead of naming the schools for famous individuals would have avoided some confusion? For example, Jefferson and his supporters strongly supported the initial phases of the French revolution (prior to the terror). However, support of democratic movements abroad is more a Wilsonian policy than one associated with the Jeffersonian-libertarian school as defined by Mead. On the other hand, Mead's naming convention did make me think through this question, which makes it a plus in my mind.
Professor Mead alludes to a parallel between his four schools of thought and David Hackett Fischer's four British Folkways of settlers in America which he cites in his book Albion's Seed:
1. The Puritans from East Anglia who settled in New England
2. The Royalists from the south and west of England, defeated by Cromwell's Puritans in the English Civil War, 1642-51, who settled in Virginia and Maryland
3. The Quakers and their religious kin who settled in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
4. The Scots-Irish who settled in the Appalachians west of the earlier colonies.
I've tried to map these four groups to Mead's four schools. The only clear correspondence is between Fischer's Scots-Irish and Mead's Jacksonians which is obvious since the Jacksonians are defined as Scots-Irish in origin. The Wilsonians and Hamiltonians both seem to incorporate some elements of both the New England Puritans and the Quakers of the middle colonies. The Jeffersonians seem to have no obvious intellectual connection to any of Fischer's four Folkways; although Jefferson was a Virginian, his philosophy was not at all similar to the defeated Stuart Royalists who settled that colony. Perhaps I have missed something in this comparison; if anyone wants to leave a comment on my review, I'd welcome it.
It also occurs to me that the four schools do not carry equal weight in determining US policy. Currently, I'd subjectively assign weights of perhaps 20%, 20%, 15%, and 45% respectively to the Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian schools. However, these weights undoubtedly have changed many times from 1776 to today. It would be interesting to see a well argued description of these evolving weights, but I guess that is really a separate research project. Perhaps Professor Mead will consider it for a future book.
39 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on August 20, 2005
Verified Purchase
This is a clever book by an author who must be brilliant and who clearly is plugged into a great network of information and expertise. The book's identification of four flavors of U.S. foreign policy is handy and seems more accurate than its traditional two-way rivals: liberal vs. conservative, or idealistic vs. realistic.
As a "macro" theory, Mead supports the four-way approach by reference to "micro" foundations in U.S. political demography, particularly by citing the work of David Hackett Fischer. Mead's four schools are also reminiscent of the four-way Myers-Briggs typing of personality preferences: Jacksonians as SJs, Jeffersonians as SPs, Hamiltonians as NTs, and Wilsonians as NFs?
Mead's book is clever in at least two other respects.
First, Mead risks little actual analysis and advice regarding real-world foreign policy. His main point about the outside world is that U.S. foreign policy is easier to formulate and implement when the world is simple. Humorist Richard Armour made a similar point when he concluded one of his historical reviews with the observation that the American people of the 1950s were "secure in the knowledge of whom to hate." This continues to be an important point: it illustrates the current usefulness of the Arab Muslim image in building a broad U.S. political movement.
Second, Mead has something for everyone -- at least, for every American. With malice toward none, with charity for all, he has praise for all four of the U.S. schools. He has obviously struggled with his presentation of the Jacksonian school (the militant fundamentalists), which is the one that seems farthest from Mead's roots as an intellectual. Mead credits Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. with helping him be positive about Andrew Jackson himself.
But although Mead disclaims triumphalism, he implicitly evaluates foreign policy in nationalistic terms: gains of territory and other wealth for the U.S., with low U.S. casualties, is the measure of U.S. foreign policy achievement. While he regrets non-U.S. casualties, he warns against trying to make too much of the rest of the world.
By these standards, Mead proclaims U.S. foreign policy a success and thus well conceived, even in the period before the First World War, when traditionally the U.S. was not supposed to be paying much attention to foreign affairs.
This seeming paradox is partly explained by a factor that Mead does not emphasize sufficiently: the private sector's role in expanding U.S. territory. Private American colonization went ahead of the U.S. Government into a large part of what became U.S. lands: the trans-Appalachian area, West Florida, Texas, California, Utah, and Hawaii, among the successful cases.
Mead does note briefly that "before the Civil War Southerners looked to Texas, Central America, and Cuba for more slave states," but he does not tell in any detail the story of private U.S. adventurers' attempted conquests in such areas, or of the U.S. Government's official actions for and against these efforts. The case of the Philippines provides a contrasting example, where the U.S. Government took the initiative in conquering the territory without private American colonization. However, the non-governmental pattern resumed in the 1900s with private Americans' participation in Israeli colonization, creating a Texas-type, lone-star republic, which, although not annexed, has a "special relationship" with the U.S.
These examples illustrate a mechanism by which the U.S. expanded its territory with low U.S. Government troop casualties, and thus had a successful foreign policy by Mead's standard, without the U.S. Government paying as much attention to foreign policy as that success might imply.
Obviously, territorial expansion has generated blowback, which the U.S. Government has often anticipated and tried to avoid or limit. Mead also recognizes the need to deal with this downside of expansionary foreign policy. He describes very effectively how the Hamiltonian and Wilsonian schools offer alternatives for succeeding in the larger world.
We in the U.S. have family, friends, homes, businesses, and cultural interests outside our borders, which we will not want to neglect. Mead's clarifying work is a substantial contribution to helping us think about our approach.
As a "macro" theory, Mead supports the four-way approach by reference to "micro" foundations in U.S. political demography, particularly by citing the work of David Hackett Fischer. Mead's four schools are also reminiscent of the four-way Myers-Briggs typing of personality preferences: Jacksonians as SJs, Jeffersonians as SPs, Hamiltonians as NTs, and Wilsonians as NFs?
Mead's book is clever in at least two other respects.
First, Mead risks little actual analysis and advice regarding real-world foreign policy. His main point about the outside world is that U.S. foreign policy is easier to formulate and implement when the world is simple. Humorist Richard Armour made a similar point when he concluded one of his historical reviews with the observation that the American people of the 1950s were "secure in the knowledge of whom to hate." This continues to be an important point: it illustrates the current usefulness of the Arab Muslim image in building a broad U.S. political movement.
Second, Mead has something for everyone -- at least, for every American. With malice toward none, with charity for all, he has praise for all four of the U.S. schools. He has obviously struggled with his presentation of the Jacksonian school (the militant fundamentalists), which is the one that seems farthest from Mead's roots as an intellectual. Mead credits Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. with helping him be positive about Andrew Jackson himself.
But although Mead disclaims triumphalism, he implicitly evaluates foreign policy in nationalistic terms: gains of territory and other wealth for the U.S., with low U.S. casualties, is the measure of U.S. foreign policy achievement. While he regrets non-U.S. casualties, he warns against trying to make too much of the rest of the world.
By these standards, Mead proclaims U.S. foreign policy a success and thus well conceived, even in the period before the First World War, when traditionally the U.S. was not supposed to be paying much attention to foreign affairs.
This seeming paradox is partly explained by a factor that Mead does not emphasize sufficiently: the private sector's role in expanding U.S. territory. Private American colonization went ahead of the U.S. Government into a large part of what became U.S. lands: the trans-Appalachian area, West Florida, Texas, California, Utah, and Hawaii, among the successful cases.
Mead does note briefly that "before the Civil War Southerners looked to Texas, Central America, and Cuba for more slave states," but he does not tell in any detail the story of private U.S. adventurers' attempted conquests in such areas, or of the U.S. Government's official actions for and against these efforts. The case of the Philippines provides a contrasting example, where the U.S. Government took the initiative in conquering the territory without private American colonization. However, the non-governmental pattern resumed in the 1900s with private Americans' participation in Israeli colonization, creating a Texas-type, lone-star republic, which, although not annexed, has a "special relationship" with the U.S.
These examples illustrate a mechanism by which the U.S. expanded its territory with low U.S. Government troop casualties, and thus had a successful foreign policy by Mead's standard, without the U.S. Government paying as much attention to foreign policy as that success might imply.
Obviously, territorial expansion has generated blowback, which the U.S. Government has often anticipated and tried to avoid or limit. Mead also recognizes the need to deal with this downside of expansionary foreign policy. He describes very effectively how the Hamiltonian and Wilsonian schools offer alternatives for succeeding in the larger world.
We in the U.S. have family, friends, homes, businesses, and cultural interests outside our borders, which we will not want to neglect. Mead's clarifying work is a substantial contribution to helping us think about our approach.
15 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Top reviews from other countries
"ぴろこ"
4.0 out of 5 stars
古典外交から現在まで
Reviewed in Japan on February 10, 2003Verified Purchase
建国初期から現在まで2世紀にわたるアメリカ外交を振り返る。アメリカ外交の伝統を築いたジェファソニアン、ハミルトニアン、ジャクソニアン、ウィルソニアン学派と現代の超大国アメリカを外交政策の専門家である著者が分析している。
Deals related to this item
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1



