The Capitalist Peace: a New Way Forward for American Foreign Policy

Abstract

Since the beginning of the republic, Americans have viewed their state as a “beacon of liberty.” This self-conception has caused Americans to think that they can be a force for positive change in the world. Over time, their outlook has facilitated increasingly aggressive efforts to democratization other countries, leading many to see America as an imperial power. It is my contention that regardless of other factors, Americans become the most invasive when liberal ideology, the very thing that makes them a “beacon of liberty” overpowers other ideological forces. Only by restoring a balanced debate about the merits of democratization by reintegrating other perspectives on America’s role in the world can they be the force for good they believe themselves to be.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    George H.W. Bush originally presented the United States as leading the “new world order” in a State of the Union address in 1991. After that point it became a term associated with defining America’s new position as the hegemon (Medhurst 2006, 81–101).

  2. 2.

    Many scholars have called for eliminating these terms due to their inability to truly explain american foreign policy. See for example Walter Russell Mead: “Realist versus idealist; isolationist versus internationalist; protectionist versus free trader: discussion of American foreign policy would be considerably enhanced if these six terms were banned from the language” (Mead 1996, 89).

  3. 3.

    As Patapan notes: “[Montesquieu] may be said to anticipate modern “constructivistm.” Indeed, it is possible that one of the theoretical sources of constructivism is Montesquieu, via Rousseau’s conception of society…” (Patapan 2012, 326 ft. 28).

  4. 4.

    When Haitians revolted against French colonists and created a republic, “president after president” refused to recognize the republic or establish diplomatic relations with them (Hunt 1987, 100). Even the French Revolution produced deep divisions among the Founders, some supporting it wholeheartedly and others fearing they French had gone too far (Ellis 1997).

  5. 5.

    See especially Brutus, VIII-X (Storing and Dry 1981, 405–17).

  6. 6.

    Alexander Hamilton’s behavior during the Jay Treaty is an excellent example of this perspective. He decided to side with the English, accepting mercantilist trade policy in order to protect America’s relationship with Britain eschewing the free trade option in order to solidify the relationship (Bowman 1956).

  7. 7.

    There are several other steps involved in the evolution from natural interaction to the creation of the state which Montesquieu discusses as “natural laws.” At first, man is pre-rational. He has the ability the think, but he does not have knowledge. His first thought is about his preservation. He feels his weakness and fears others, leading him to avoid others and seek peace. This is the first natural law. Man also feels his needs, so the second natural law would inspire him to seek nourishment. Even though they fear each other at first, the mutual fear would induce them to approach one another, and they would feel pleasure at the proximity of another being of their species. The pleasure of the opposite sex would induce them to come together; this is the third law. They also eventually gain knowledge which differentiates them from other animals and gives them another reason to come together into society. This is the fourth natural law (Montesquieu 1989).

  8. 8.

    It should be noted that not all states benefit. Poorer states and states that have bad domestic policies (such as Spain or Poland) may not be benefitted by commercial trade (see Larrère 2000, 352).

  9. 9.

    Cf. Heritage Foundation’s economic ranking with Freedom House’s ranking: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking; http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world.

Further Reading

  1. Adams, J. Q. 1821. Address on U.S. In Foreign policy http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/adams_jq/foreignpolicy.html.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bailyn, B. 1992. The ideological origins of the American revolution. Cambridge:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bowman, A. H. 1956. Jefferson, Hamilton and American foreign policy. Political Science Quarterly, 71(1), 18–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Morrow, James D, Siverson, Randolph M., and Smith, Alastair. 1999. An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. The American Political Science Review 93 (4): 791. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2586113.

  5. Bukovansky, M. 1997. American identity and neutral rights from independence to the war of 1812. International Organization, 51(2), 209–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de Secondat Montesquieu, C.-L. 1989. The Spirit of the Laws. (trans: Cohler, A. M., Miller, B. C., & Stone, H. S. Cambridge University Press.

  7. Desch, M. C. 2008. America’s liberal illiberalism: The ideological origins of overreaction in U.S. foreign policy. International Security, 32(3), 7–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Desch, M. C. 2010. The more things change, the more they stay the same: The liberal tradition and Obama’s counterterrorism policy. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(3), 425–429.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ellis, J. J. 1997. American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson. New York:Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gartzke, E. 2007. The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.2307/4122913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Go, J. 2011. Patterns of empire: The British and American empires, 1688 to the present. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hartz, Louis. 1991. The liberal tradition in America, Second Edition. San Diego: Mariner Books.

  13. Howse, R. 2006. Montesquieu on Commerce, Conquest, War, and Peace. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 31, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hunt, M. H. 1987. Ideology and United States foreign policy. New Haven:Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ikenberry, G. J. 2011. Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ikenberry, G. J., & Slaughter, A.-M. (Eds.) 2006. Forging a world of liberty under law: U.S. National Security in the 21st century. Princeton:The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Larrère, C. 2000. Montesquieu on Economics and Commerce. In D. W. Carrithers, M. A. Mosher, & P. A. Rahe (Eds.), Montesquieu’s Science of Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Locke, J. 1988. Two treatises of government. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Madden, T. F. 2008. Empires of trust: How Rome built--and America is building--a new world. New York:Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. 2012. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mead, W. R. 1996. Hamilton’s way. World Policy Journal, 13(3), 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mearsheimer, J. J. 2003. The tragedy of great power politics. New York:W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Medhurst, M. J. 2006. The rhetorical presidency of George H. W. Bush. Texas:Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mueller, J. 2010. Capitalism, peace, and the historical movement of ideas. International Interactions, 36(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050621003785066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Münkler, H. 2007. Empires: The logic of world domination from ancient Rome to the United States. Cambridge:Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy, C. 2008. Are we Rome?: The fall of an empire and the fate of America. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pagden, Anthony. 1998. Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c.1500-c.1800. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  28. Pangle, T. 1990. The spirit of modern republicanism: The moral vision of the American founders and the philosophy of Locke. Reprint:University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Parmar, I. 2009. Foreign policy fusion: Liberal interventionists, conservative nationalists and neoconservatives — The new alliance dominating the US foreign policy establishment. International Politics, 46(2), 177–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Patapan, H. 2012. Democratic international relations: Montesquieu and the theoretical foundations of democratic peace theory. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 66(3), 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pierce, A. R. 2007. Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman: Mission and power in American foreign policy. New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pocock, J. G. A. 1985. Virtue, commerce, and history: Essays on political thought and history, chiefly in the eighteenth century. New York:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pocock, J. G. A. 2003. The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rahe, P. A. 1994. Republics ancient and modern, volume II: New modes and orders in early modern political thought (vol. 2. 3). Chapel Hill:University of N. Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Restad, H. E. 2012. Old paradigms in history die hard in political science: US foreign policy and American exceptionalism. American Political Thought, 1(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1086/664586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Russett, B. 2005. Bushwhacking the democratic peace. International Studies Perspectives, 6(4), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Russett, B. 2010. Capitalism or democracy? Not so fast. International Interactions, 36(2), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050621003785165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schneider, G., & Gleditsch, N. P. 2010. The capitalist peace: The origins and prospects of a liberal idea. International Interactions, 36(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050621003784689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Storing, H. J. 1981. What the anti-federalists were for. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Storing, H. J., & Dry, M. 1981. The complete anti-federalist. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. US. 1776. Declaration of Independence.

  42. Wood, G. S. 1998. The creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Woodberry, R. D. 2012. The missionary roots of liberal democracy. American Political Science Review, 106(02), 244–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Burns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burns, S. The Capitalist Peace: a New Way Forward for American Foreign Policy. Soc 54, 501–507 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0197-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • American foreign policy
  • Capitalist peace theory
  • Montesquieu
  • American political development