The Obama Doctrine: Realism, Institutionalism, and Constructivism
Obama and his administration’s approach to foreign policy fluttered in and out of several theoretical international relation’s arguments throughout his Presidency. Sometimes Obama’s foreign policy decisions made him look like a realist, sometimes he sounded like a liberal/institutionalist, but perhaps, as the Atlantic article, The Obama Doctrine shows he typically behaved or believed more like Alexander Wendt’s moderate constructivist.
For many years in international relations, especially with the creation of the United Nations and other international organizations after World War II, and specifically in American foreign policy two ideologies dominated. These two ideologies were realism and liberalism/institutionalism. These can be seen in the foreign policy approaches of both Bush presidencies and Clinton’s presidency.
Constructivism was disliked by many in international relations due to its focus on social construction over material and individual construction. Alexander Wendt’s work and writings on constructivism revolutionized the constructivist theory and paved the way for Obama’s mix of theoretical approaches. Wendt developed a moderate lane of constructivism that recognized the importance of materialism, individualism, and scientific methods. This branch of constructivism is a conglomeration of theories and eventually became a popular decision making tool for Obama and his administration on foreign policy.
As an example, in 2011 the situation in Syria was becoming even more dire. Many Americans, some of his administration like Samatha Powers, and people all over the world wanted Obama to act. Obama resisted demands to help bring about the end of the Assad regime. He seemed to firmly believe that Assad would fall without U.S. intervention. And some might see this as Obama being a realist by not wanting a third war in the Middle East that would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars more and many more lives of American military. However, others might say that he was considering this inaction as a Liberal/Institutionalist by not acting alone but wanting an international coalition as he waited for David Cameron or the French President Hollande to join in a strike on Syria. In fact it was neither. This situation in Syria was Obama using Wendt’s theories of constructivism in making his decisions.
Obama thought that history was bending in the direction of U.S. policy. He believed that the identity of a country could change. The day he decided not to bomb Syria, he saw as a day of liberation. He rejected the foreign policy establishment that had dominated Washington for decades. Instead, the shared ideas of the international actors involved would win because self-interest would win. Obama believed in the U.S direction and that the world including Syria would follow without a need for force and military intervention.
Obama used a combination of Constructivism, the kind that was developed by Wendt, to make his foreign policy decisions. He believed, in cases such as Syria, that U.S military intervention was not needed. He thought that even a brutal dictator such as Assad would do what was right without U.S force. This ideology might be interrupted as Realism due to its desire to protect American lives first and fore most. However, it was constructivism, an ideology that requires a certain amount of hopeful thinking rather than action. Many blame George Bush for his over involvement in the Middle East. Obama is hoping that he will be praised one day for what he did not do in the Middle East.
