Part One: U.S. strategy in the 21st century: leadership through hegemony
Chapter II: Role and Place of the USA in the Twenty-first Century in the Research of American Political Scientists and Scholars of International Affairs
The Heritage Foundation: U.S. Leadership Based on Strength
Associates of the Heritage Foundation hold conservative views akin to those of the Republican Party, and it is to this party that they present the results of their scientific research in the domestic and foreign policy spheres. They collect their views in annual publications, which include their recommendations to politicians and government officials.
Heritage Foundation papers used to start with harsh criticism of President Clinton’s policies on every single issue because the Clinton administration had no strategy, only “a vague set of slogans intended to justify existing policies.”37 The American president took a particularly large amount of flak for his policy toward Russia. For example, Kim R. Holmes, one of the chief editors of the annual collection, Issues ’98, writes: “Take his (Clinton’s) statement that the Russians have retargeted their missiles. There is, of course, no way to verify the truth of this statement. In any event, even if it were true, it would be strategically meaningless. Missiles can be retargeted in a matter of minutes. The nuclear threat, therefore, has not been reduced at all.” (361)
Equally energetic criticism is leveled against U.S. military programs on account of their being insufficiently funded. The Heritage Foundation’s ideal is Ronald Reagan, or rather Reagan’s policy of peace through power—the policy that brought the Soviet Union to its knees without a single shot being fired. (418)
In Holmes’s view, U.S. foreign policy must unfold along the following lines: “The purpose of U.S. foreign and defense policy should be to make America safe and prosperous. (N.B., To make just America safe and prosperous, not the entire world.) To fulfill this purpose, the U.S. government must protect and defend the people and territory of the United States of America; preserve and defend the freedom of Americans and the U.S. Constitution; and promote the long-term material prosperity of the American people.” (365)
Holmes goes on to formulate principles or pillars on which the conservative U.S. foreign policy must be based after the Cold War. They are strength (meaning military strength); freedom (freedom from tyranny and foreign domination; from excessive constraints imposed on America’s sovereignty, policy, and economy by the United Nations; freedom to trade and engage in commerce; freedom of peoples around the world to build democratic institutions, foster the rule of law, and promote free markets); and leadership.
Holmes specifies that American leadership “should be based on a vigorous assertion and defense of American interests. It should never subordinate these interests to the national interests of other nations, some of which do not share Western values and hide their selfishness behind a facade of multilateralism.”
The United States must act together with its allies when possible and unilaterally when necessary. U.S. policy must be decisive, firm, clear, and constant. Mixed signals, oscillations, and indecision erode trust in American leadership both at home and abroad. (365-366)
In the pages of the Heritage Foundation’s periodicals, even more harsh criticism can be found of the previous administration’s foreign policy, coming from prominent Republican politicians. For example, former Vice President Dan Quayle lambastes the Clinton administration for wasting all the advantages in domestic and foreign policy inherited from the previous administration.38 Most importantly, U.S. leadership itself was put in a critical situation. The list of accusations encompasses practically the entire spectrum of foreign policy, including policies toward Russia and China. Talking about the financial crisis in Russia (August 1998) and her problems with democracy, he puts the question squarely: “Who lost Russia?” The answer is Clinton, of course. And why is the USA calmly watching as China unfolds a program of building up “a blue water navy?” Naturally, Quayle is against preserving the anti-missile defense treaty with Russia, which was signed “in a completely different era—with a second party that is now literally nonexistent.” (3)
He is especially indignant about the state of U.S. military strength. In his opinion, “The Clinton administration is giving us defensive politics, not defense policy.” (4) The end goal of normal defense policy is containment of future enemies. “The means, frankly, is not just to stay ahead of our competitors. We should aim to be so dominant that no one can possibly compete with us.” (3) He warns against mistakes in foreign policy that take entire generations to correct.
Leadership is the duty of the United States. This is precisely the essence of America’s national security, thinks Quayle and also the majority of the Republican leadership.
37 Stuart M. Butler and Kim R. Holmes, eds., Issues ’98: The Candidate’s Briefing Book (Heritage Foundation, 1998), 364.
38 Dan Quayle, “The Duty to Lead: America’s National Security Imperative,” Heritage Foundation, Heritage Lectures, no. 630, (January 21, 1999).
The 21st Century: The World Without Russia
(Philosophical-sociological Essay)