Twilight of the Wise Man

The 2012 election may well mark the last gasp of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. But what’s more remarkable is that it lasted as long as it did.

BY JACOB HEILBRUNN | OCTOBER 12, 2011

Matters only got worse for Root and Stimson following World War I, when the GOP, after repudiating U.S. entry to the League of Nations, lurched toward isolationism. Stimson and Root, who had always been viewed with misgivings within the party for their reformist instincts, were now relegated to the sidelines. As Stimson tartly observed in his memoirs, he "shared the oblivion which overtook most of the Eastern Republicans during the early 1920's." Stimson became secretary of state in 1929, but once again disappointment loomed: In 1930, Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which flouted free trade precepts. Stimson felt betrayed. By October 1937, when he condemned "the wave of ostrich-like isolationism which has swept over us" in a letter to the New York Times, he was condemning his own party.

It was the Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, viewed as a traitor to his class by many wealthy patricians, who improbably rescued the surviving remnants of the Republican establishment. Under Roosevelt, Stimson became secretary of war and Frank Knox, who had been the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1936, became secretary of the Navy. The wise men viewed doing so as a matter of duty, in accordance with their belief in serving the president over political interests. The GOP, however, would have none of it, and at the 1940 Republican convention, Stimson and Knox were officially booted out of the party. Stimson voted for Roosevelt and mused that "once the central issue of partisan opposition is removed, there are few roses so sweet as those that grow over the party wall."

***

World War II offered a chance at redemption for the wise men. The conflict relegated the isolationist right to a cranky and often anti-Semitic fringe that commanded no public credence. The establishment was in charge, able to carry out a grand strategy -- the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO -- to transform the United States into a global power and counter Soviet expansionism, both in Asia and Europe. President Harry Truman's advisors -- Dean Acheson, George C. Marshall, George F. Kennan, Averell Harriman, Charles Bohlen, John McCloy, and others -- represented the second generation of the establishment and one that largely emanated from the same influential New York law and business circles that Root and Stimson had emerged from half a century earlier. In his memoir, A Thousand Days, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. astutely noted that Roosevelt and Truman relied on Republicans in part to "avail themselves of Establishment competence, partly to win protective coloration for policies which, with liberals in front, would have provoked conservative opposition. It was never clear who was using whom; but, since it was never clear, each side continued to find final advantages in the arrangement."

But even being a Cold Warrior was no protection from the likes of Joseph McCarthy, William Jenner, and other conservative Republican senators who noisily blamed the Truman administration for losing China following the country's 1949 communist revolution. Acheson scornfully referred to these critics as "the primitives," and indeed, the fight was as much cultural as it was political. McCarthy called Acheson a "pompous diplomat in striped pants." Nebraska Sen. Hugh Butler declared, "I look at that fellow, I watch his smart-aleck manner and his British clothes and that New Dealism in everything he says and does, and I want to shout, 'Get out! Get out! You stand for everything that has been wrong in the United States for years.'" When the archconservative John Foster Dulles took the reins of the State Department in 1953, the purges of the Asia division began. Kennan was banished. Acheson's name was mud.

The wise men's years in the wilderness were ended, once again, by a liberal Democratic president: John F. Kennedy. Kennedy appointed Kennan ambassador to Yugoslavia, gave Harriman a berth in the State Department, and made Dean Rusk secretary of state and McGeorge Bundy -- former amanuensis to Stimson and dean of Harvard University -- head of the National Security Council. But the establishment's moment of rejuvenation set the stage for its splintering: The Vietnam War devolved into a bloody catastrophe, the establishment turned against itself, and the Democratic Party moved left.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Jacob Heilbrunn is a senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy at the Center for the National Interest.

DARREN ROGERS

10:27 PM ET

October 12, 2011

Thank You Jacob Heilbrunn

Mr. Heilbrunn has provided the most succinct and accurate historical account of the American saga in the shortest passage of any I have perused. The boys at MI6 and S1 will be smiling after I forward this piece to them.

If anyone has ever wondered about transformational powers, the Woodrow "wilderland", and basically, how we got here, this is a very good read.

 

COMETLINEAR

12:58 AM ET

October 13, 2011

About the Iranian nuclear program

Let us bear in mind that that the Manhattan Project was the most expensive endeavor in American history, and the VPOTUS was not even aware of it.

I think it's fair to conjecture that the Iranian program may be more advanced than is generally known.

 

NICOLAS19

3:20 AM ET

October 14, 2011

putting Obama on a picture written "wise" on it...

I know it didn't refer to Obama, of course, but it made me chuckle, as the US has one of the most incompetent and weak presidents in its history.

He got his presidency by posing as someone he isn't by endorsing the likes of Lugar&Co, whom he never followed by actions only by words. I doubt he ever understood them.

He got his early political capital by promising so much (Arab Spring, Nobel-prize) in words and fulfilling nothing in action.

He is getting his political capital by claiming credit for feats he didn't initiate (Arab Spring, Libya), he probably made up (Iranian plot, OBL killing) and for what he should be ashamed (Wikileaks, Awlaki killing).

Now he is repeating those very same scenarios to win re-election. He is really good at manipulation and self-promotion, one has to give it to him, but once the happenings are gaining momentum, it becomes apparent how he is trailing behind, unable to lead and shape things. Heck, he even invented a phrase for it, "leading from behind". For somebody who campaigns with American exceptionalism, global role and commitment, he seems very proud to make America a second-grade power. Again, claiming positive credit for his own failure.

 

PHILBEST

11:00 PM ET

October 14, 2011

Agree

Agree; whatever was the writer of this article thinking by talking solely about REPUBLICAN foreign policy shortcomings?

 

BUFFALO09

4:19 PM ET

October 14, 2011

Failure to Acknowledge-Carter Admin Brilliance

Is there a reason aside from ideological convenience that Carter's decision to relinquish support for the Shah of Iran that destabilized the entire Middle East; led to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq war, Iranian hostage crisis, & the uprising of the late 70’s Islamic Revolutions (Abdullah Yusuf Azzaam/Laden Collaboration Evolves). As an independent attempting to appeal to the fair-minded members attending this post; there are no wise men when attempting to make decisions, influence policy, or appease one own political ideological ego. History has proven that there have been good decisions made by members of both parties while also decisions such as the one above; we would conveniently choose to forget as Heilbrunn has done in this instance. Please note that I do acknowledge that the Shah was quite brutal, however a decision that involved relinquishing support from the United States which was made in the name of human rights that resulted in the fore mentioned consequences and whose occurrence continues to provide repercussions over thirty years later. Reasoning as to why the author has been selective while offering praise/criticism from a perspective that could only be described as “ideological”. Discussing foreign policy, an area where a decision that was made over a lengthy time frame can be identified as both positive and negative as changes that occur over time provide opportunity for individuals that offer allegiance to political ideological aspirations as opposed to individuals that thirst for discussions involving Foreign Policy where intellectual honesty and literal facts are characteristics/methods utilized while engaging in discourse of this nature. Through the omission of United States Foreign policy during the latter part of the 1970’s, the author not only appears to be engaging in behavior that would be categorized as dishonest, he has conducted an indirect assault on the institution of free thought. Is there any publication left that is dedicated towards educating and informing readers by sourcing literal facts instead of appeasing right & left wing allegiances, I ask?

 

PHILBEST

11:07 PM ET

October 14, 2011

"Brilliance" - I love the irony

Agree; whatever was the writer of this article thinking by talking solely about REPUBLICAN foreign policy shortcomings?

 

BYTECOMPASS

10:36 AM ET

November 4, 2011

He Makes Case for a Good Topic

Polls show Lugar is vulnerable and the record, dotted with votes for that Troubled Asset Relief Program along with other government spending, is ripe for conservative critique, despite decades among the Senate's foreign policy experts. Though the tea party candidate challenging him within the GOP primary, state treasurer Richard Mourdock, lacks Lugar's heft and name recognition.

It sought out an occasion likesomanabolicmusclemaximizerthree longtime Senate moderates - Orrin Hatch of Utah, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lugar - were vulnerable to being removed by primary challenges in the right. Nevertheless the upstart campaigns in Utah and Maine have fizzled as Hatch and Snowe made concerted efforts to woo right-wing voters inside their states.

 

OLSON46

6:45 AM ET

November 6, 2011

Twilight of the Wise Man

"The first decade of the twenty-first century witnessed the FINAL decline and virtual extinctions of moderates' power and representation in the Republican Party."
"Final" is a very powerful statement. Keep in mind that history is still in the making.

Regards,
Lisa O.

 

MAKI1

6:09 PM ET

November 10, 2011

It will be interesting to see

It will be interesting to see results of the elections...
lpn training
medical assisting
cna certification programs