FALL 2019 | ISSUE NO. 1
The Quill A T
P A L M
B E A C H
A T L A N T I C
Conversations & Commentary from The LeMieux Center for Public Policy U N I V E R S I T Y
Liberty & Felicity: Insights of George Washington into American Foreign Policy By DR. ROBERT LLOYD
In recent years, controversies have arisen over American diplomatic efforts and military interventions in the Middle East, allegations of unfair trade practices by China and threats of retaliatory tariffs, disputes with Russia over the militarization of the Arctic region, and the nature and strength of American alliances around the world. Now, as in times past, the role of the United States in world affairs is hotly debated by Americans. Foreign governments and leaders, in turn, consider these debates and actions in formulating their own policies with respect to the United States.
On Sept. 19, 1796, the American Daily Advertiser published a remarkable letter now commonly known as “George Washington’s Farewell Address.” The timing was deliberate; Washington was nearing the end of his second term in office as president of the United States. In the letter’s opening, Washington states that he will not stand for a third term and briefly explains why. He then pivots to the main aim of the letter: “to recommend for your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people.” The “sentiments” are, in short, final thoughts and wisdom from the supreme military commander in the Revolutionary War and the first president of the United States under the federal Constitution.
From its inception, the American system of government differed from existing countries in that the formulation of its foreign policy reflected the varying and often conflicting interests held by its citizens. In addition to the democratic nature of its people and ideals, the relative remoteness from states that posed an existential threat reinforced American attitudes. These realities shaped the ways in which the fledgling and vulnerable republic sought to establish itself in a dog-eat-dog international system. The leading states of the day — Britain, France and Spain — all enjoyed powerful empires in the New World and continued to make claims on territory bordering the United States.
Washington’s observations, in hindsight, have proven important in understanding the role of the United States in world affairs. He states that the explicit aim of American foreign policy is to preserve the independence of the United States and secure liberty for its citizens. He notes several possible internal threats to these goals, including a lack of affection for the country (patriotism), 1
Having emerged the victor in a bitterlyfought election, Jefferson affirmed liberty secured by its representative government, but also warned of the continued threat posed by European powers. He added his prediction that the United States would grow in territory and population — eventually emerging as a major power. Two years later, under the Jefferson administration, the United States agreed with France on the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of American territory and securing the Mississippi and Missouri river valleys.
CONTINUED FROM FRONT
regional rivalries within the country, political divisions marked by parties that fail to seek the broader interests of the country and work with their political rivals, and the deliberate undermining of the Constitution. These would weaken the country and encourage foreign interventions. With this in mind, Washington concludes by noting the importance of morality in the conduct of foreign policy, the threat posed to independence by excessive government debt and borrowing, the reality that the United States has permanent interests but no permanent allies, the wish for positive foreign relations and trade, and the view that the “great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
Much has changed since the founding of the United States. The country has experienced enormous growth in population, territory, resources and power. It is no longer the fledging republic of thirteen states east of the Appalachians. From a population of 3.9 million in 1790, it grew in one decade to 5.3 million. A century later the population had increased to 76.2 million, and today stands at 329 million. Its territory expanded steadily westward across the continent to the Pacific, and then added Hawaii and Alaska. The United States had grown into an Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic power. The Spanish-American War in 1898 and World War II in the 1940s led to the expansion of American territory around the globe. Arguably, by the beginning of WWI the United States was already the most powerful country in the world.
John Adams — who served as Washington’s vice president — was elected as the second president during a time of intense partisan division in the United States. His term in office also coincided with a war between France and Britain, but one that on this occasion threatened to engulf the United States. These were precisely the conditions which Washington warned would undermine national “felicity.” Adams’s inaugural address, given six months after George Washington’s farewell address, reaffirmed many of the points made by Washington for the preservation of liberty for American citizens and a foreign policy that maintains American independence. He also added the importance of a neutrality policy with respect to European powers.
In what ways do these principles, expressed by our first presidents over two hundred years ago, affect the conduct of American foreign policy today?
Adams, having served but one term in office, was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson as president. In March 1801, Jefferson stated in his inaugural address: “Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation…”
The first way is that the United States remains committed to the goal of liberty. Although liberty may be variously defined in economic, social or cultural contexts, the idea of liberty still deeply infuses American society today. This is indeed remarkable, given the vast political, economic and demographic changes of the past two centuries. George Washington noted several internal threats to the new republic. One of these was divisive factions. Today’s factions — or what we might now term 2
special-interest groups — are very much a part of the political landscape. In Washington’s time they were based on regionalism and differing economic interests with respect to trade and agriculture. A view of a current political map of the United States reveals major contrasts between urban and rural areas and coastal and interior regions, as well as socioeconomic variations between what are commonly called “blue” (Democrat) and “red” (Republican) states. While the issues that give rise to political factions may have changed, the existence of such groups has not.
threats to the United States. It is in the foreign policy arena that the vast changes in both the United States and the international environment are most clearly seen. When the American republic was first established, imperial and authoritarian empires and states were the norm across much of the world. The idea of a functioning democratic republic was novel and untested. The spread of American ideas was a slow and intermittent process. Although many across the world were inspired to emulate the American system of government, it was not really until the last century that many countries began to democratize.
A second internal factor that has decisively changed is the relative distribution of power between center and periphery. For decades after the country’s founding, states enjoyed substantial sovereignty with respect to the federal government. Beginning with the Civil War and then moving on to the Progressive Era, World War II, Civil Rights Era and the Great Society, the federal government has increasingly subordinated the states to a more national agenda. Some of these changes have enhanced liberty and felicity in that this expansion addressed deficiencies at the state level. At the same time, the growing centralization heightened tensions by shifting conflicts to a winner-takes-all at the national level rather than addressing issues at a state or local level, with natural variations due to local contexts.
The growing economic and military power of the United States essentially allowed it to remake the world in its own image. At the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed his Fourteen Points to end the conflict in Europe and usher in a new international order that would end war for good. The Fourteen Points, which called for a new international body called the League of Nations, reflected a determined expansion of American ideals on to the world stage. World War II led to the United States assuming directly world leadership. Here American ideals of democratization were forcibly imposed on the defeated Axis countries of Germany and Japan. The United States today is what is termed a “status quo power” in that it seeks to preserve the system that it has established. It is no longer the new republican challenger to the old monarchical order. It preserves its position through long-term military alliances, the establishment of military bases around world and the maintenance of a large standing army and navy. This power secures the liberty of the United States in its far-flung commercial interests and has the external benefit of fostering free trade and protecting vital sea lanes. These developments would have very much surprised both General and President Washington.
A third internal factor is the increasing diversity of the country since its founding. While waves of immigration strengthened and enriched the country, the growing social and cultural diversity presented new sources of conflict. In recent years this has been expressed as greater disagreement with core American constitutional principles. For some, the founding principles and political order are viewed as fundamentally flawed — reflecting and perpetuating, for example, a racist system. These debates over the nature of America both echo and deepen lessening social cohesion. The critique over American ideals and actions has had an impact on the unity of the country. Polls of younger Americans consistently show a relatively low level of patriotism compared with older Americans.
How then do these realities affect today’s domestic and foreign policy disputes? First, it is clear that the United States today is a very different country in terms of power than the remote, poor, divided and experimental country of the
Washington also warned of external 3
late 1700s. This, in turn, affects the role of the United States with respect to foreign affairs. At times in their history Americans have debated if, how and when the United States should engage in the international setting. Most countries, it should be noted, do not have the luxury of even considering nonengagement due to the immediate proximity of potentially threatening neighbors.
perhaps foreseen by Jefferson, have led to a clear expectation of American leadership in world affairs. The universal ideals of the Revolution also provide a standard by which to judge its efforts and failures, both foreign and domestic. Although the United States is in many ways a different country from the one of its founding, the ideals that animated the country remain. The Constitution which converted these ideals into a practical manual for governance survives and continues to guide both politics and policymaking. So, what Washington said two hundred years ago still applies. The explicit aim of American foreign policy is to preserve the independence of the United States and secure liberty for its citizens. He would be surprised at some of these developments, pleased at others and perhaps appalled by a few. Nonetheless, the experiences and insights of the first presidents provide a prescient and extraordinary roadmap to the later development of American foreign policy. Washington’s desire for American liberty and felicity — despite pronounced internal dispute, political polarization and a dynamic and challenging international environment — was certainly not in vain.
The United States, by contrast, has exhibited a noted isolationist streak. This impulse arises fairly often, but for different reasons. Today, for some on the political right, the argument is to refrain from engaging because of the dismal state of affairs of other countries — often due to inept leadership and dreadful social and economic conditions and prospects — means that it’s a waste of national blood and treasure to try to ameliorate the situation. On the left, the view of some may be that American intervention is bound to make matters worse because other countries’ baleful circumstances are due to flawed American policies. This isolationist impulse is at times simplified as, “the United States should not engage because it is too good for the world (right) or it is too bad for the world (left).” While the isolationist impulse has waxed and waned over American history, it is not the predominant view. Rather, the United States has consistently engaged in foreign affairs, and increasingly so since the end of the 19th century. Washington himself would have supported this engagement as a way to foster trade and the strength of the United States. The neutrality position expressed by both Washington and Adams, however, fell from favor inversely as the power and interests of the United States spread throughout the world. Permanent interests have remained, but alliances have become a common method employed to strengthen them.
Dr. Robert Lloyd is dean of the School of Arts and Sciences and is the Loreen Beisswenger Farish Chair for Political Thought at Palm Beach Atlantic University.
Because the world is increasingly globalized, securing American liberty has required more international diplomatic and military efforts. Through U.S. history these policies have been successful, defending the country against European domination in the early years of the republic and later against the threats posed by fascism and communism. These changes, unanticipated by Washington but
Buy a copy of George LeMieux & Laura Mize’s award-winning new book! Visit www.floridamade.net All proceeds support The LeMieux Center for Public Policy.
4
From the desk of Senator LeMieux Welcome to our first edition of The Quill! For the past seven years, The LeMieux Center for Public Policy has promoted thoughtful conversations on issues of importance impacting our state, nation and the world. We have hosted national thought leaders, Cabinet members, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a senior White House official, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, members of Congress, leaders of the Florida Legislature, governors and prominent journalists. Thousands of students and members of our community have participated in these conversations of consequence. In addition to our speaker series, I have had the privilege of working with two students as LeMieux Fellows each spring for the last five years as they undertook significant research projects including studies of the morality of drone warfare, an in-depth study of the historical roots of sanctuary cities, a review of modern educational standards and curriculum, the ethics of genetic editing and the threat of chemical and biological agents as weapons of mass destruction, to name only a few. Today, we expand our conversations through the first of a series of newsletters bringing thoughtful topics of interest to our LeMieux Center patrons. We hope you will enjoy The Quill and share it with your friends and colleagues. The work of the LeMieux Center is only possible through the
generous patronage of our LeMieux Center Advisory Board members and contributors. For more information on how you can be part of The LeMieux Center, please reach out at one of our events or email us at lemieuxcenter@ pba.edu. Speaking of upcoming events, we have two exciting speakers to announce. On the evening of Monday, Dec. 2, 2019, we will welcome Dr. Arthur Brooks, former president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of the best-selling book Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America From a Culture of Contempt. Next year, in a first for the LeMieux Center, a former secretary of state will speak to our students and community. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will join us in January. Stay tuned for details as to the date and time. Again, thank you for your support of the LeMieux Center and enjoy The Quill.
George S. LeMieux U.S. Senator & Founder of The LeMieux Center for Public Policy
NONPROFIT ORG U.S. POSTAGE PAID WEST PALM BEACH FL PERMIT #1356
Upcoming Events Dr. Arthur Brooks Scholar & author 7:30 p.m. Dec. 2
Palm Beach Atlantic University P.O. Box 24708 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4708
DeSantis Family Chapel 300 Okeechobee Blvd. West Palm Beach, Florida
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice January Details to come
www.lemieuxcenter.org
LeMieux Center Advisory Board Brian P. Burns, Burns Law Enterprises, LLC. Jim Burns, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. James Donnelly, Castle Group Bob Dunkin, Cresset Wealth Advisors Frances Fisher, Dedicated Volunteer Mitzi Freidheim, Dedicated Volunteer Gay Hart Gaines, Dedicated Volunteer Robert Ganger, Gulf Stream Consulting Group Robert D. Helmholdt, D.D.S., Retired Orthodontist Hannes Hunschofsky, Dedicated Volunteer
Josh Kellam, ESG Companies Michele Merrell, Merrell Consulting Group Mario Murgado, Brickell Motors Joe Negron, GEO Group, Inc. Beth Neuhoff, Neuhoff Communications Robert E. O’Neil, The Stronach Group John Radtke, Advisors Asset Management, Inc. Richard Reikenis, Reikenis & Associates, LLC. Nick Sadowsky, UBS Financial Services
Academic Advisors Dr. Robert Lloyd, Loreen Beisswenger Farish Chair for Political Thought, Palm Beach Atlantic University
Tom Rooney, Congressman & LeMieux Senior Fellow