Patrick Porter argues that the timing is right, based on four distinct trends, for policy leaders to examine the benefits and dilemmas of an alternate grand strategy. He proposes ideas for a new strategy that encourages varying levels of retrenchment and a willing acceptance of multipolarity. One of the trends, hegemony fatigue held by Americans, deserves further context by introducing additional political dilemmas. Appearing to abdicate American leadership under an increasingly polarized two party political system is problematic, and the variability of public opinion causes political hesitancy, both inducing constrained strategic theorizing. These notions cause some Washington elites to move cautiously on major strategic change.
The …show more content…
world primacy, casting them on the political fringes of American conservatism and progressivism. Consequently, politicians that support more shared international power are considered radicals even if their purpose is to preserve America’s power long term. A reason for this peculiar paradigm is simple, yet important. Even the remote appearance of abdication of American leadership abroad easily transforms to an anti-American narrative in today’s polarized society. Narratives and sound bites dominate the political sphere, and tend to smother logical, yet outside of the box thinking. It is much easier for a theorist or planner to explain the logic of abdicating power, a much more difficult task for a policymaker. Abdication of American leadership is a major political hurdle, and public opinion supporting such a shift is not always a solid …show more content…
A different Gallup poll in 2012 analyzed public opinion of the top issues from 2000 to 2012. Porter’s analysis is sound; Americans care more about the economy, jobs, and less concerned about the wars and security in general. However, perhaps due to the events of 9/11, the same poll also suggests in 2004 that the wars were most important followed by the economy. While public opinion supports a more domestic focus now, that could change quickly, possibly derailing any notion of a long-term ideological shift in grand strategy. Variability of public opinion causes policymakers to act hesitantly when supporting or taking up major change.
A non-committal political arm can also cause theorists to limit their thought to only operational ideas and implementation rather than attempting the perceived futile effort of examining political feasibility strategies. Operational strategies such as Porter’s hemispheric pullback and over-the-horizon balancer are different from practical-political strategies that actually explain a path to overcome “the hard task of building domestic support.” Both strategies deserve consideration, given the realistic ideological differences in the parties best illustrated by unprecedented American
The …show more content…
world primacy, casting them on the political fringes of American conservatism and progressivism. Consequently, politicians that support more shared international power are considered radicals even if their purpose is to preserve America’s power long term. A reason for this peculiar paradigm is simple, yet important. Even the remote appearance of abdication of American leadership abroad easily transforms to an anti-American narrative in today’s polarized society. Narratives and sound bites dominate the political sphere, and tend to smother logical, yet outside of the box thinking. It is much easier for a theorist or planner to explain the logic of abdicating power, a much more difficult task for a policymaker. Abdication of American leadership is a major political hurdle, and public opinion supporting such a shift is not always a solid …show more content…
A different Gallup poll in 2012 analyzed public opinion of the top issues from 2000 to 2012. Porter’s analysis is sound; Americans care more about the economy, jobs, and less concerned about the wars and security in general. However, perhaps due to the events of 9/11, the same poll also suggests in 2004 that the wars were most important followed by the economy. While public opinion supports a more domestic focus now, that could change quickly, possibly derailing any notion of a long-term ideological shift in grand strategy. Variability of public opinion causes policymakers to act hesitantly when supporting or taking up major change.
A non-committal political arm can also cause theorists to limit their thought to only operational ideas and implementation rather than attempting the perceived futile effort of examining political feasibility strategies. Operational strategies such as Porter’s hemispheric pullback and over-the-horizon balancer are different from practical-political strategies that actually explain a path to overcome “the hard task of building domestic support.” Both strategies deserve consideration, given the realistic ideological differences in the parties best illustrated by unprecedented American