POPULARITY
2 episodes with wilsonianism
In this episode of The Chuck ToddCast, Chuck Todd digs into a growing sense of unease shared across the political spectrum, as 2026 looms as a “year of living dangerously” at home and abroad. From mass migration, rising nationalism, and AI-driven economic fear to flashpoints in Venezuela, Iran, and beyond, the conversation explores why so many global and domestic headlines feel like potential tipping points. Chuck argues the world is less stable—and America more divided—under Donald Trump, whose administration he says views chaos and division as sources of power rather than problems to solve. The episode draws stark parallels between the Minneapolis ICE shooting and the Ruby Ridge standoff, examining how the rush to control narratives, the politicization of law enforcement, and the erosion of civil liberties can fracture public trust. The warning is sobering: America may ultimately be okay, but right now it’s a tinderbox—and a country that fails to protect the rights of its own citizens risks losing its moral authority everywhere else. Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi joins Chuck Todd to break down what the numbers actually say about the U.S. economy—and why the headline optimism may be masking deeper problems. Zandi explains how upcoming tax refunds and delayed tax cuts will temporarily juice growth, even as that stimulus is entirely deficit-financed. Interest rate cuts are likely coming, but cautiously, and while AI stocks are soaring, the broader market is barely treading water. Beneath the surface, job creation has stalled, manufacturing jobs are shrinking under tariffs, and deportations aren’t translating into more employment for native-born workers as many expected. The conversation widens to a fragile global outlook, with Trump-era protectionism accelerating deglobalization and reshaping trade, housing, and labor markets. Zandi details why college-educated workers are now seeing the sharpest rise in unemployment, how AI skills will define the next generation of jobs, and why renting often makes more sense than buying right now. Looking ahead to 2026, he warns of elevated geopolitical and financial-system risks, an AI-driven stock market that could be vulnerable to a correction, GDP growth likely under 3%, and a job market that may struggle to grow at all. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” speech that laid out the vision for the 20th century world order & warns that retreating from it could be devastating for both the United State & the world. He also answers listeners’ questions in the Ask Chuck segment & previews the national championship between Indiana & Miami. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 05:30 People on both sides of the aisle worried if we’ll be ok 07:00 2026 will be the “year of living dangerously” 07:45 We are in uncharted waters and don’t know where it’s headed 09:30 Mass migration has led to rising nationalism in USA & Europe 10:00 Globalization caused a sense of displacement 11:00 AI will create even more fear than globalization 12:15 The political response to economic anxiety has failed 14:00 We still don’t know what will happen with Venezuela 14:30 Iranian regime likely will fall in 2026 15:45 It’s clear Trump has no plan for Venezuela 17:30 Latin America is deeply skeptical of American power 19:00 Every headline feels like a tipping point 20:00 Trump could take military action against many countries 20:30 The world is less safe because Donald Trump is president 21:45 Trump admin believes division bolsters their power 23:00 On social media, it feels like America is on the brink of civil war 24:00 America feels like a tinderbox 25:45 ICE is being trained to treat citizens as threats, not constituents 27:30 Law enforcement is supposed to be a deescalator 30:15 We’ve been living through a “vote against” political roller coaster 32:00 Voters don’t like chaos, & Trump is neither calm or stable 33:00 Elements of the American right have given up on democracy 34:15 America will eventually be ok, but is not ok in this moment 34:45 The sparks of military clash are burning around the world 37:00 Parallels between Ruby Ridge standoff & Minneapolis ICE shooting 39:15 A confrontation occurred between Weaver’s son & law enforcement 40:00 FBI sniper shot Weaver’s wife while holding her baby 40:30 Unlike Minneapolis, government held investigations after Ruby Ridge 41:30 Ruby Ridge led to militia formations & deep state conspiracies 42:15 Administration tried to solidify narrative before facts in Minneapolis 44:00 The left sees Renee Good as a victim, the right sees justification 45:00 The Trump administration has politicized the rule of law 46:00 If U.S. doesn’t respect rights of its citizens, it can’t take moral high ground 53:15 Mark Zandi joins the Chuck ToddCast 54:30 What do the numbers say about the state of the economy? 55:15 Big Beautiful Bill tax cuts about to start showing up 56:00 Tax refunds will add juice to the economy 56:45 All the “juice” is deficit financed and will only be temporary 57:45 Interest rates cuts likely to be cautious but will continue 59:00 AI stocks on fire, rest of the stocks are just up slightly 1:00:45 The economy isn’t creating any jobs despite investment 1:01:30 Job creation flatlined after “Liberation Day” 1:02:45 Manufacturing has been losing jobs due to tariffs 1:04:00 Are deportations creating more jobs for native born workers? 1:04:45 Jobs normally taken by foreign born workers aren’t being filled 1:06:00 Companies aren’t laying off, they’re just not hiring new employees 1:07:15 Trade deficit reportedly down, but is that actually a good thing? 1:08:00 Imports of pharmaceuticals have collapsed due to tariffs 1:08:45 Tariffs haven’t actually addressed the trade deficit 1:10:15 Tariff revenue shows the stated tariff rates aren’t holding true 1:11:30 Will the K-shaped economy continue through 2026? 1:13:00 Economy is affecting different income groups wildly different 1:14:15 Partisans believe economy is better depending on who is president 1:15:30 How do you price in Trump taking Greenland & ending NATO? 1:16:15 Economies around the world are in a similar, fragile place like the U.S. 1:17:15 The U.S. is rapidly pulling away from the rest of the world 1:18:15 Trump’s protectionism has been contagious to other countries 1:19:30 The world is preparing for a deglobalization 1:21:30 China hasn’t really taken advantage of U.S. global retreat 1:22:15 Countries that embrace immigration are the most successful 1:23:15 No country benefited more from globalization than China 1:25:00 USMCA has to be renegotiated, will probably remain status quo 1:27:15 Job market for new college graduates is very tough 1:28:00 Rise in unemployment is almost exclusively college educated 1:29:00 Proficiency in AI will be critical in future jobs 1:30:00 Classical higher education could make a comeback 1:32:00 Home ownership is unaffordable for many Americans 1:32:45 It’s better to rent than to buy in this market 1:33:45 There’s not a lot of buyers for prospective home sellers 1:34:30 Raising the capital gains exclusion could generate more sellers 1:37:00 There’s a chance the GOP could lose house majority before November 1:37:30 What risks that could upend the economy that concern you the most? 1:38:15 Geopolitical risk is very elevated 1:38:45 Stock market being buoyed by AI, could be ripe for correction 1:40:15 If there’s a major problem it will be in the financial system 1:40:45 If an AI company defaults, it could change the psychology of lenders 1:43:00 GDP growth will be under 3% in 2026 1:44:00 Will be tough to imagine positive job growth in 2026 1:46:15 Chuck’s thoughts on interview with Mark Zandi 1:47:00 ToddCast Time Machine – January 8th, 1918 1:47:45 Woodrow Wilson lays out blueprint for 20th century world order 1:48:30 America tried to shape the world with ideas, not empire 1:49:45 Wilson’s Fourteen Points speech rejected premise that caused WW1 1:51:15 Wilson advances transparency, diplomacy & idealistic foreign policy 1:52:15 Wilson calls for economic interdependence & free trade 1:53:15 Wilson proposes self-determination over empires 1:54:30 Some American conservatives have rejected Wilsonianism for 100 years 1:56:00 Wilson wanted America’s role to be an arbiter, not a conqueror 1:57:00 In 1919, Wilson’s vision was confronted by power politics 1:57:45 The U.S. proposes the League of Nations but doesn’t join it 1:58:30 Every global geopolitical debate traces back to Wilson’s speech 1:59:45 The post-WW2 world order benefitted America, & it’s falling apart 2:01:15 Ask Chuck 2:02:00 Reaction to the ICE shooting in Minneapolis? 2:03:30 Why hasn’t the US taken action to remove the leader of Haiti? 2:08:00 Could Rahm Emanuel beat Gavin Newsom for Dem nomination? 2:11:15 Would an attack on Colombia be a mistake for the Trump administration? 2:17:15 Miami vs Indiana national championship previewSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this episode of The Chuck ToddCast, Chuck Todd digs into a growing sense of unease shared across the political spectrum, as 2026 looms as a “year of living dangerously” at home and abroad. From mass migration, rising nationalism, and AI-driven economic fear to flashpoints in Venezuela, Iran, and beyond, the conversation explores why so many global and domestic headlines feel like potential tipping points. Chuck argues the world is less stable—and America more divided—under Donald Trump, whose administration he says views chaos and division as sources of power rather than problems to solve. The episode draws stark parallels between the Minneapolis ICE shooting and the Ruby Ridge standoff, examining how the rush to control narratives, the politicization of law enforcement, and the erosion of civil liberties can fracture public trust. The warning is sobering: America may ultimately be okay, but right now it’s a tinderbox—and a country that fails to protect the rights of its own citizens risks losing its moral authority everywhere else. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” speech that laid out the vision for the 20th century world order & warns that retreating from it could be devastating for both the United State & the world. He also answers listeners’ questions in the Ask Chuck segment & previews the national championship between Indiana & Miami. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 05:30 People on both sides of the aisle worried if we’ll be ok 07:00 2026 will be the “year of living dangerously” 07:45 We are in uncharted waters and don’t know where it’s headed 09:30 Mass migration has led to rising nationalism in USA & Europe 10:00 Globalization caused a sense of displacement 11:00 AI will create even more fear than globalization 12:15 The political response to economic anxiety has failed 14:00 We still don’t know what will happen with Venezuela 14:30 Iranian regime likely will fall in 2026 15:45 It’s clear Trump has no plan for Venezuela 17:30 Latin America is deeply skeptical of American power 19:00 Every headline feels like a tipping point 20:00 Trump could take military action against many countries 20:30 The world is less safe because Donald Trump is president 21:45 Trump admin believes division bolsters their power 23:00 On social media, it feels like America is on the brink of civil war 24:00 America feels like a tinderbox 25:45 ICE is being trained to treat citizens as threats, not constituents 27:30 Law enforcement is supposed to be a deescalator 30:15 We’ve been living through a “vote against” political roller coaster 32:00 Voters don’t like chaos, & Trump is neither calm or stable 33:00 Elements of the American right have given up on democracy 34:15 America will eventually be ok, but is not ok in this moment 34:45 The sparks of military clash are burning around the world 37:00 Parallels between Ruby Ridge standoff & Minneapolis ICE shooting 39:15 A confrontation occurred between Weaver’s son & law enforcement 40:00 FBI sniper shot Weaver’s wife while holding her baby 40:30 Unlike Minneapolis, government held investigations after Ruby Ridge 41:30 Ruby Ridge led to militia formations & deep state conspiracies 42:15 Administration tried to solidify narrative before facts in Minneapolis 44:00 The left sees Renee Good as a victim, the right sees justification 45:00 The Trump administration has politicized the rule of law 46:00 If U.S. doesn’t respect rights of its citizens, it can’t take moral high ground 52:45 ToddCast Time Machine – January 8th, 1918 53:30 Woodrow Wilson lays out blueprint for 20th century world order 54:15 America tried to shape the world with ideas, not empire 55:30 Wilson’s Fourteen Points speech rejected premise that caused WW1 57:00 Wilson advances transparency, diplomacy & idealistic foreign policy 58:00 Wilson calls for economic interdependence & free trade 59:00 Wilson proposes self-determination over empires 1:00:15 Some American conservatives have rejected Wilsonianism for 100 years 1:01:45 Wilson wanted America’s role to be an arbiter, not a conqueror 1:02:45 In 1919, Wilson’s vision was confronted by power politics 1:03:30 The U.S. proposes the League of Nations but doesn’t join it 1:04:15 Every global geopolitical debate traces back to Wilson’s speech 1:05:30 The post WW2 world order benefitted America, & it’s falling apart 1:07:00 Ask Chuck 1:07:45 Reaction to the ICE shooting in Minneapolis? 1:09:15 Why hasn’t the US taken action to remove the leader of Haiti? 1:13:45 Could Rahm Emmanuel beat Gavin Newsom for Dem nomination? 1:17:00 Would an attack on Colombia be a mistake for the Trump administration? 1:23:00 Miami vs Indiana national championship previewSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In deze uitzending kijken we vooruit naar 3 belangrijke ontwikkelingen die de waan van de dag overstijgen en niet te negeren zullen zijn in 2026. We hebben allemaal 1 onderwerp ingebracht en het lijkt erop dat ze allemaal wat met elkaar te maken hebben: de desintegratie van de band tussen Europa en de Verenigde Staten, de sleutelpositie van Taiwan en tot slot de noodzaak voor een Europese tech opbouw. We bespreken hoe 2026 het jaar is waarin we van een internationale rechtsorde naar een op macht gebaseerde wereld gaan en wat dit betekent voor Europa en Nederland. De vraag is wat Europa gaat doen, nu de wereld waarvan we dachten dat die richting democratische rechtsstaten bewoog, toch een andere kant op gaat. Zoals je van Studio Tegengif verwacht proberen we complexe zaken toegankelijk te bespreken. Deze aflevering werd gemaakt met ondersteuning van Wim Brons van remotepodcast.nl. Een aanrader voor als je op afstand een podcast wil maken met fantastische geluidskwaliteit. Wil je ons steunen? Dat kan: je kunt vriend van de show worden: https://vriendvandeshow.nl/studio-tegengif ***SHOWNOTES*** Frank Ninkovich, ‘The Wilsonian Century: U.S. Foreign Policy Since 1900' (1999) https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/f/the-wilsonian-century/30430103/ Toms Dispatch, ‘Ending the American Dream by 2029?' https://tomdispatch.com/ending-the-american-dream-by-2029/ Marije Vlaskamp, Volkskrant, ‘China toont kracht en intentie met grootste militaire oefening ooit rond Taiwan' https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/china-toont-kracht-en-intentie-met-grootste-militaire-oefening-ooit-rond-taiwan~bc86315c/ Reuters, ‘US strike on Venezuela to embolden China's territorial claims, Taiwan attack unlikely, analysts say' https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-strike-venezuela-embolden-chinas-territorial-claims-taiwan-attack-unlikely-2026-01-04/?utm_source=chatgpt.com UN, International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) Revision 4 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/Family/Detail/27 Wikipedia, ‘Wilsoniamism' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilsonianism
Links1. "The Seeds of Wilsonianism," Mark Benbow, C-SPAN, October 27, 2006.2. Mark Benbow Marymount University profile.3. "U.S. Participation in the Great War (World War I)," Library of Congress.4. Woodrow Wilson House.5. Woodrow Wilson's Wars: The Making of America's First Modern Commander-in-Chief, by Mark Benbow, Naval Institute Press, 2022.
The second half of Anderson's American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers -- Consilium -- reconstructs the perspectives of key contributors to academic (IR) thought and State Department practice, including Mead, Mandelbaum, Ikenberry and Kupchan, whose various shades of Wilsonianism and liberal internationalism (or humanitarian interventionism) are detailed here in our discussion of "Crusaders." Episode 13 is the first part of two on Anderson's summation of America's central foreign policy thinkers. Next week we return to discuss Robert Kagan, Brzezinski and Robert Art, who Anderson describes as "realists" in a meaningful sense, but all of whose vision and historical grounding of American Grand Strategy, while distinct in meaningful ways from the Wilsonians above, fall back upon the liberal default expected of the Prince's counselors. Jason King kindly provides the music that you hear in After the 'End of History.' You can find more of his work on Soundcloud.
Guests:Arman Grigoryan is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations at Lehigh University.Sarah Sewall is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center and Executive Vice President for Policy at In-Q-Tel. She previously served as the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights from 2014 to 2017.International Security Article:This podcast is based on Arman Grigoryan, “Selective Wilsonianism: Material Interests and the West’s Support for Democracy,” International Security, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Spring 2020), pp. 150–200.Related Readings:Sabrina Tavernise, “Protesters and Police Clash as Armenia Unrest Grows,” New York Times, March 2, 2008.“How To Be Good Neighbours,” The Economist, March 1, 2014.John J. Mearsheimer, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014. Aaron David Miller, “Values vs. Interests: How Should America Deal with Bad Guys?,” The National Interest, May 2, 2017.“Trump’s Strange Silence on Belarus,” Washington Post, August 21, 2020.
A century later, Woodrow Wilson's international crusading lives on, both in the establishment left and the neoconservative right. Paul Gottfried and I paint a picture of Wilson that's a bit different from what we all learned in school.
The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised important questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how Americans can best exercise power abroad in the coming years. Commentators have not shied away from offering advice. Some defend the record of the George W. Bush administration and blame Barrack Obama's “weakness” for the current disorder that wracks large sections of the Middle East. In their view, the United States must continue to carry out “unilateral” military campaigns when necessary to preempt “terrorist” threats and work to spread democratic government all over the world. It also needs to maintain unquestioned military superiority to deter the aggressive plans of countries like China, Russia, and Iran. Many authors reject the general thrust of these arguments. For some, Americans need to focus more attention on implementing “a realistic” foreign policy that avoids “crusades for democracy” and protects genuine U.S. interests as the world becomes multipolar. No doubt influenced by authors who have either predicted or announced the arrival of a “post-American world,” others have implored U.S. policymakers to address important domestic problems like income inequality and strengthen international institutions designed to promote “global governance.” In a similar vein, a number of commentators have rejected any suggestion that George W. Bush's policies represent a legitimate form of “Wilsonianism.” If Americans policymakers want to become the “true heirs” of Wilson, they need to strengthen “global governance” and work through the United Nations to gain the “legitimacy” needed when the exercise of military power abroad becomes unavoidable. The political scientist Henry R. Nau (George Washington University) enters debates about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in his new book Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Reagan, Truman, and Polk (Princeton University Press, 2013). Not one to shy away from controversy, Nau argues that authors have made a fundamental mistake when they offer advice to U.S. policymakers without reference to an important American foreign policy tradition that he defined as “conservative internationalism.” To help readers gain a better grasp of this approach, he includes detailed case studies that highlight the foreign policy successes of Thomas Jefferson, James Polk, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. More than most realize, Nau contends, these Presidents combined the use of force and effective diplomacy in ways that expanded the boundaries of freedom and handled threats in ways that did not allow them to become more costly problems for their successors. Although many critics will question the lessons that Nau draws from his Presidential case studies and analysis of events from 1991 to the present, they will be hard pressed to deny the relevance of his new book. He reminds readers that this “imperfect” world will not necessarily become a better place if the United States chooses to turn inward and fails to deal with the wide array of threats that could potentially undermine the contemporary global order. Nau also offers thought provoking insights on how the disciplined use of military power and “realistic” promotion of democratic government can serve U.S. interests quite well in the years ahead. Enjoy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised important questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how Americans can best exercise power abroad in the coming years. Commentators have not shied away from offering advice. Some defend the record of the George W. Bush administration and blame Barrack Obama’s “weakness” for the current disorder that wracks large sections of the Middle East. In their view, the United States must continue to carry out “unilateral” military campaigns when necessary to preempt “terrorist” threats and work to spread democratic government all over the world. It also needs to maintain unquestioned military superiority to deter the aggressive plans of countries like China, Russia, and Iran. Many authors reject the general thrust of these arguments. For some, Americans need to focus more attention on implementing “a realistic” foreign policy that avoids “crusades for democracy” and protects genuine U.S. interests as the world becomes multipolar. No doubt influenced by authors who have either predicted or announced the arrival of a “post-American world,” others have implored U.S. policymakers to address important domestic problems like income inequality and strengthen international institutions designed to promote “global governance.” In a similar vein, a number of commentators have rejected any suggestion that George W. Bush’s policies represent a legitimate form of “Wilsonianism.” If Americans policymakers want to become the “true heirs” of Wilson, they need to strengthen “global governance” and work through the United Nations to gain the “legitimacy” needed when the exercise of military power abroad becomes unavoidable. The political scientist Henry R. Nau (George Washington University) enters debates about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in his new book Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Reagan, Truman, and Polk (Princeton University Press, 2013). Not one to shy away from controversy, Nau argues that authors have made a fundamental mistake when they offer advice to U.S. policymakers without reference to an important American foreign policy tradition that he defined as “conservative internationalism.” To help readers gain a better grasp of this approach, he includes detailed case studies that highlight the foreign policy successes of Thomas Jefferson, James Polk, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. More than most realize, Nau contends, these Presidents combined the use of force and effective diplomacy in ways that expanded the boundaries of freedom and handled threats in ways that did not allow them to become more costly problems for their successors. Although many critics will question the lessons that Nau draws from his Presidential case studies and analysis of events from 1991 to the present, they will be hard pressed to deny the relevance of his new book. He reminds readers that this “imperfect” world will not necessarily become a better place if the United States chooses to turn inward and fails to deal with the wide array of threats that could potentially undermine the contemporary global order. Nau also offers thought provoking insights on how the disciplined use of military power and “realistic” promotion of democratic government can serve U.S. interests quite well in the years ahead. Enjoy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised important questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how Americans can best exercise power abroad in the coming years. Commentators have not shied away from offering advice. Some defend the record of the George W. Bush administration and blame Barrack Obama’s “weakness” for the current disorder that wracks large sections of the Middle East. In their view, the United States must continue to carry out “unilateral” military campaigns when necessary to preempt “terrorist” threats and work to spread democratic government all over the world. It also needs to maintain unquestioned military superiority to deter the aggressive plans of countries like China, Russia, and Iran. Many authors reject the general thrust of these arguments. For some, Americans need to focus more attention on implementing “a realistic” foreign policy that avoids “crusades for democracy” and protects genuine U.S. interests as the world becomes multipolar. No doubt influenced by authors who have either predicted or announced the arrival of a “post-American world,” others have implored U.S. policymakers to address important domestic problems like income inequality and strengthen international institutions designed to promote “global governance.” In a similar vein, a number of commentators have rejected any suggestion that George W. Bush’s policies represent a legitimate form of “Wilsonianism.” If Americans policymakers want to become the “true heirs” of Wilson, they need to strengthen “global governance” and work through the United Nations to gain the “legitimacy” needed when the exercise of military power abroad becomes unavoidable. The political scientist Henry R. Nau (George Washington University) enters debates about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in his new book Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Reagan, Truman, and Polk (Princeton University Press, 2013). Not one to shy away from controversy, Nau argues that authors have made a fundamental mistake when they offer advice to U.S. policymakers without reference to an important American foreign policy tradition that he defined as “conservative internationalism.” To help readers gain a better grasp of this approach, he includes detailed case studies that highlight the foreign policy successes of Thomas Jefferson, James Polk, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. More than most realize, Nau contends, these Presidents combined the use of force and effective diplomacy in ways that expanded the boundaries of freedom and handled threats in ways that did not allow them to become more costly problems for their successors. Although many critics will question the lessons that Nau draws from his Presidential case studies and analysis of events from 1991 to the present, they will be hard pressed to deny the relevance of his new book. He reminds readers that this “imperfect” world will not necessarily become a better place if the United States chooses to turn inward and fails to deal with the wide array of threats that could potentially undermine the contemporary global order. Nau also offers thought provoking insights on how the disciplined use of military power and “realistic” promotion of democratic government can serve U.S. interests quite well in the years ahead. Enjoy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised important questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how Americans can best exercise power abroad in the coming years. Commentators have not shied away from offering advice. Some defend the record of the George W. Bush administration and blame Barrack Obama’s “weakness” for the current disorder that wracks large sections of the Middle East. In their view, the United States must continue to carry out “unilateral” military campaigns when necessary to preempt “terrorist” threats and work to spread democratic government all over the world. It also needs to maintain unquestioned military superiority to deter the aggressive plans of countries like China, Russia, and Iran. Many authors reject the general thrust of these arguments. For some, Americans need to focus more attention on implementing “a realistic” foreign policy that avoids “crusades for democracy” and protects genuine U.S. interests as the world becomes multipolar. No doubt influenced by authors who have either predicted or announced the arrival of a “post-American world,” others have implored U.S. policymakers to address important domestic problems like income inequality and strengthen international institutions designed to promote “global governance.” In a similar vein, a number of commentators have rejected any suggestion that George W. Bush’s policies represent a legitimate form of “Wilsonianism.” If Americans policymakers want to become the “true heirs” of Wilson, they need to strengthen “global governance” and work through the United Nations to gain the “legitimacy” needed when the exercise of military power abroad becomes unavoidable. The political scientist Henry R. Nau (George Washington University) enters debates about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in his new book Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Reagan, Truman, and Polk (Princeton University Press, 2013). Not one to shy away from controversy, Nau argues that authors have made a fundamental mistake when they offer advice to U.S. policymakers without reference to an important American foreign policy tradition that he defined as “conservative internationalism.” To help readers gain a better grasp of this approach, he includes detailed case studies that highlight the foreign policy successes of Thomas Jefferson, James Polk, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. More than most realize, Nau contends, these Presidents combined the use of force and effective diplomacy in ways that expanded the boundaries of freedom and handled threats in ways that did not allow them to become more costly problems for their successors. Although many critics will question the lessons that Nau draws from his Presidential case studies and analysis of events from 1991 to the present, they will be hard pressed to deny the relevance of his new book. He reminds readers that this “imperfect” world will not necessarily become a better place if the United States chooses to turn inward and fails to deal with the wide array of threats that could potentially undermine the contemporary global order. Nau also offers thought provoking insights on how the disciplined use of military power and “realistic” promotion of democratic government can serve U.S. interests quite well in the years ahead. Enjoy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised important questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how Americans can best exercise power abroad in the coming years. Commentators have not shied away from offering advice. Some defend the record of the George W. Bush administration and blame Barrack Obama’s “weakness” for the current disorder that wracks large sections of the Middle East. In their view, the United States must continue to carry out “unilateral” military campaigns when necessary to preempt “terrorist” threats and work to spread democratic government all over the world. It also needs to maintain unquestioned military superiority to deter the aggressive plans of countries like China, Russia, and Iran. Many authors reject the general thrust of these arguments. For some, Americans need to focus more attention on implementing “a realistic” foreign policy that avoids “crusades for democracy” and protects genuine U.S. interests as the world becomes multipolar. No doubt influenced by authors who have either predicted or announced the arrival of a “post-American world,” others have implored U.S. policymakers to address important domestic problems like income inequality and strengthen international institutions designed to promote “global governance.” In a similar vein, a number of commentators have rejected any suggestion that George W. Bush’s policies represent a legitimate form of “Wilsonianism.” If Americans policymakers want to become the “true heirs” of Wilson, they need to strengthen “global governance” and work through the United Nations to gain the “legitimacy” needed when the exercise of military power abroad becomes unavoidable. The political scientist Henry R. Nau (George Washington University) enters debates about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in his new book Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Reagan, Truman, and Polk (Princeton University Press, 2013). Not one to shy away from controversy, Nau argues that authors have made a fundamental mistake when they offer advice to U.S. policymakers without reference to an important American foreign policy tradition that he defined as “conservative internationalism.” To help readers gain a better grasp of this approach, he includes detailed case studies that highlight the foreign policy successes of Thomas Jefferson, James Polk, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. More than most realize, Nau contends, these Presidents combined the use of force and effective diplomacy in ways that expanded the boundaries of freedom and handled threats in ways that did not allow them to become more costly problems for their successors. Although many critics will question the lessons that Nau draws from his Presidential case studies and analysis of events from 1991 to the present, they will be hard pressed to deny the relevance of his new book. He reminds readers that this “imperfect” world will not necessarily become a better place if the United States chooses to turn inward and fails to deal with the wide array of threats that could potentially undermine the contemporary global order. Nau also offers thought provoking insights on how the disciplined use of military power and “realistic” promotion of democratic government can serve U.S. interests quite well in the years ahead. Enjoy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised important questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how Americans can best exercise power abroad in the coming years. Commentators have not shied away from offering advice. Some defend the record of the George W. Bush administration and blame Barrack Obama’s “weakness” for the current disorder that wracks large sections of the Middle East. In their view, the United States must continue to carry out “unilateral” military campaigns when necessary to preempt “terrorist” threats and work to spread democratic government all over the world. It also needs to maintain unquestioned military superiority to deter the aggressive plans of countries like China, Russia, and Iran. Many authors reject the general thrust of these arguments. For some, Americans need to focus more attention on implementing “a realistic” foreign policy that avoids “crusades for democracy” and protects genuine U.S. interests as the world becomes multipolar. No doubt influenced by authors who have either predicted or announced the arrival of a “post-American world,” others have implored U.S. policymakers to address important domestic problems like income inequality and strengthen international institutions designed to promote “global governance.” In a similar vein, a number of commentators have rejected any suggestion that George W. Bush’s policies represent a legitimate form of “Wilsonianism.” If Americans policymakers want to become the “true heirs” of Wilson, they need to strengthen “global governance” and work through the United Nations to gain the “legitimacy” needed when the exercise of military power abroad becomes unavoidable. The political scientist Henry R. Nau (George Washington University) enters debates about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in his new book Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Reagan, Truman, and Polk (Princeton University Press, 2013). Not one to shy away from controversy, Nau argues that authors have made a fundamental mistake when they offer advice to U.S. policymakers without reference to an important American foreign policy tradition that he defined as “conservative internationalism.” To help readers gain a better grasp of this approach, he includes detailed case studies that highlight the foreign policy successes of Thomas Jefferson, James Polk, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. More than most realize, Nau contends, these Presidents combined the use of force and effective diplomacy in ways that expanded the boundaries of freedom and handled threats in ways that did not allow them to become more costly problems for their successors. Although many critics will question the lessons that Nau draws from his Presidential case studies and analysis of events from 1991 to the present, they will be hard pressed to deny the relevance of his new book. He reminds readers that this “imperfect” world will not necessarily become a better place if the United States chooses to turn inward and fails to deal with the wide array of threats that could potentially undermine the contemporary global order. Nau also offers thought provoking insights on how the disciplined use of military power and “realistic” promotion of democratic government can serve U.S. interests quite well in the years ahead. Enjoy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
