The Moving Target of Foreign Policy

Is President Obama reprising the Bush administration's foreign policy? Is he hard nosed realist or starry-eyed idealist? Daniel Larison says neither:

No matter how idealistic and ideological an administration may be, there are structures and interests that limit how any administration can act: Every ‘freedom agenda’ must have its exceptions for Arab dictators and anti-Russian demagogues, every non-proliferation regime must have its exceptions for allied nuclear states outside of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and every ‘war on terror’ must make room for or at least overlook the sponsorship of terrorism by allied governments. For that matter, there may also be longtime allies that find themselves at odds with major multilateral organizations, as the Honduran transitional government recently has, in which case Washington may end up siding with the latter as part of its regional or global “leadership” role. So a lack of consistency in administration policy by itself is neither praiseworthy nor damning—it is what the reality of international affairs imposes on even the most zealous ideologue.

What unifies administrations, in my view, is the notion of America's interests. The conception of those interests changes far less dramatically than the approaches taken to secure or advance those interests. Which is why, for all the talk of change, there aren't too many sudden swings in the conduct of our foreign policy.