Book Review: Foreign Policy by Michael H. Hunt

Introduction

I have chosen to review the book, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Michael H. Hunt. The reason for selecting this text is primarily due to its thorough examination of the relationship between the United States’ ideological motives and its foreign policy. Hunt highlights the complex correlation between ideology and U.S. foreign policy. According to Hunt, ideology is “an interrelated set of convictions or assumptions that reduces the complexities of a particular slice of reality to easily comprehensible terms and suggests appropriate ways of dealing with that reality.”

Ideology as a Driving Force

Ideology can be a destructive tool in the hands of a nation that cannot distinguish between an imperialistic foreign policy and a humanitarian foreign policy. Hunt argues effectively that ideology is the core driving force behind foreign policy, describing it as a “slippery subject” (Hunt, 1987, p. 3). After the book’s conclusion, one can understand its complications, but also its appeal.

In the first chapter, Hunt presents three main reasons why ideology drives foreign policy: firstly, the United States is a “nation of greatness” (Hunt, 1987, p. 11); secondly, foreign policy is largely a racial and culture-based ideology; and finally, the United States’ ideological stance on revolutions throughout its history. Hunt argues these three reasons constitute the United States’ intervention in foreign affairs and are rooted in its ideological outlook, influenced by the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” Hunt quotes from Paine in the second chapter, “We have it in our power to begin the world again” (Hunt, 1987, p. 25).

Analysis of Key Historians

Hunt also discusses two prominent historians on foreign policy, George Kennan and William Appleman Williams. While Hunt’s analysis of the two writers is not groundbreaking, he provides a more balanced outlook on their works, specifically on Williams’ The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, which is often seen as the inferior of the two (Hunt, 1987, p. 45). Hunt critiques Williams’ “narrow conception of ideology colliding with his sensitivity to historical complexity...raises legitimate doubts about his prescription for policy change” (Hunt, 1987, p. 49). This critique is convincing and intriguing to the reader. Hunt dedicates a chapter to each of the three core reasons, emphasizing the complications historians face when evaluating foreign policy.

Visions of National Greatness

The second chapter, “Visions of National Greatness,” begins with Hunt discussing Thomas Paine’s rise to prominence and his role in shaping the ideological core impetus upon which the nation was built. Paine later reflected on his pamphlet, saying he wrote it to help men “to be free” (Hunt, 1987, p. 28). However, based on the Declaration of Independence and “Common Sense,” the United States’ imperialistic policy contradicted the notion of freedom. Hunt provides examples such as the expansionist policies during the 19th century.

Hunt then explores America’s transformation from a nation governed by few to the most powerful nation in the world, along with its growing population. By McKinley’s presidency, Hunt argues, foreign policy had become “nationalistic,” with the U.S. emerging as an imperial power (Hunt, 1987, p. 32). Hunt’s next two chapters focus on the underlying theme of race as a means to shape foreign policy and the impact of revolutions on the American worldview.

Race and Foreign Policy

Hunt argues that Americans’ growing self-belief in the superiority of their race stems from their European ancestors, whose views they inherited. He suggests that “Americans used race to build protective walls against the threatening strangeness of other people” (Hunt, 1987, p. 67). One example of racial dogma was the American view of Latinos as an “inferior race,” with animosity towards them being commonplace. “This belief in Latin American inferiority proved lasting, though ambivalence toward spreading democracy did not” (Hunt, 1987, p. 72). This racial superiority justified the aggressive foreign policy adopted by the U.S. in the 20th century.

Revolution and Ideology

Hunt’s arguments are sound, establishing why the United States viewed race as a precursor for justifying foreign intervention. While revolution is a lesser reason for ideology forming the basis for foreign policy, Hunt focuses on its underlying rationale. As the United States was born out of revolution, it had a firm stance on the positivity of rebellion, supporting what it deemed necessary when a country was in turmoil (Hunt, 1987, p. 85). However, with the growth of communism in the early 20th century, Americans feared an internal rebellion, which caused upheaval.

Americans began to view revolution negatively, and to stop it, sanctions were made on immigrants coming into the country. From being seen as a land of liberty, the United States became inhospitable to those it deemed reactionary. Hunt concludes that revolution formed a basis for policymakers’ polarized outlook on foreign policy at the turn of the 20th century, broadening the United States’ perspective on its foreign policy (Hunt, 1987, p. 95).

Historiography Context

From a historiography point of view, Hunt first wrote his book in 1988, following a time when President Reagan’s foreign policy was compromised by the Iran-Contra affair, where funds from arms sales to Iran were diverted to Nicaraguan Contra rebels (Hunt, 1987, p. 102). The two leading historians on foreign policy, Kennan and Williams, wrote their books in the 1950s, making their viewpoints more prominent for the Cold War period. Hunt’s view on Williams’ historical analytical viewpoint on foreign policy is fairly critical, although he praises it for bringing a more “sophisticated and self-conscious understanding of ideology” (Hunt, 1987, p. 110). He also notes that Williams’ work “suffers from an interpretive ambiguity that deserves attention for the limitations it reveals” (Hunt, 1987, p. 112). Hunt criticizes Kennan, stating, “Kennan’s handling of foreign-policy disqualifies him as a guide to lead current policy critics out of the interpretive morass” (Hunt, 1987, p. 115).

Critical Analysis

From a critical point of view, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy has its strengths. Hunt’s first chapter on the basis for ideology is an effective precursor for the book’s later chapters, easing the reader into the complexities of the subject. Hunt’s arguments are well thought out and presented effectively, compared to Williams’ The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, which critics argue “distorted historical evidence” (Hunt, 1987, p. 120).

The weaknesses, which are fewer than the strengths, include the limited study on religion in the context of ideology and foreign policy. Religion is an important part of ideology, and its absence, while not affecting the overall reading, does show its limitations. Another main weakness is its conclusion. In the last chapter, “The Contemporary Dilemma,” Hunt asserts an alternative foreign policy for the United States, suggesting that the country withdraw from its imperialistic policy and instead focus on domestic political and social factors (Hunt, 1987, p. 130). While one cannot belittle the audacity of his declaration, it comes across as a plea for isolationism. The assertion that a nation cannot liberate another while maintaining liberty within the United States seems contradictory, especially after 200 pages of arguing that ideology is the main motive for foreign intervention, only to juxtapose it in the conclusion.

References

Hunt, M. H. (1987). Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press.