The Obama Doctrine

Newt Gingrich calls it “a fantasy” which “cannot be serious.” Ed Koch considers it “a foul whiff of Munich and appeasement.” According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, it is a “truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States’ view of the world.” They’re all talking about President Obama’s foreign policy.
For most of the first hundred years of America’s history, foreign policy was not a primary concern. Even today, with some notable exceptions, foreign policy rarely animates the American electorate. Exit polls from the most recent election show that a mere one in ten voters based their vote primarily on foreign policy issues.
But President Obama has made his foreign policy a major priority. The president has surged in Afghanistan, negotiated with China, begun a new partnership with Russia , and attempted to engage in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. As the new Republican Congress imperils any major domestic initiatives, the next two years may be characterized by even greater attention to foreign policy.
Yet the extent to which Obama’s efforts add up to a coherent “doctrine” remains an open question. Doctrines are based on a fundamental, systematically applied ideology or set of rules. It is difficult to judge doctrine from results. While the past two years have seen many increased efforts at engagement, there have been notable exceptions, particularly in Latin America. A president who entered office pledging dramatic change at home and abroad has also accepted many of his predecessor’s national security policies. Perhaps the Obama doctrine is what it is, except when it’s not.
That’s understandable, given that America’s relations with the world are more complex than ever before. As a result of high levels of debt, the United States may witness decreasing influence on the world stage. And the mood in the country appears to be increasingly non-interventionist. As such, it should be no surprise that even a president as internationally popular as Obama has run into trouble enacting his foreign policy agenda . The apparent lack of an “Obama doctrine” may speak less about the man than the political context in which he operates.
A pragmatic approach may be just what is needed. Traditional alliances are experiencing strain, as the American relationship with Japan illustrates. Likewise, even in an era of tight budgets, more can be done with less, for instance in the realm of foreign aid. These issues do not necessarily fit into an overarching doctrine, but consistency is not what presidents are ultimately judged on. Whether or not a true “doctrine” emerges, then, the Obama administration will have many opportunities to craft a successful foreign policy.
Chris Danello ’12 is the Covers Editor.