Monday, November 29, 2004
- MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt
Walter Russell Mead: Special Providence. American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. New York: Routledge, 2001.
Reviewed by Rie, Sabrina & Wiebke.
This interesting presentation emphasized Mead's well-known model centered on the four American foreign-policy types: Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian. Prof. van de Bilt guided the debate by asking a number of questions. How can we explain the success of America as the sole super-power? Is Mead a conservative?
Another interesting question: do we need a Jeffersonian streak whenever foreign policy becomes too tightly guided by one or the other three impulses? Prof. van de Bilt argued that it was the interaction between the four "schools" that created a hugely successful foreign policy over the years.
If US policy makers can keep this consensus, then there is little doubt that America will remain the "top dog" among nations. But he stressed the importance of the self-critical Jeffersonian voice that acts as a check on the impulses emanating from the other "schools."
About the course
Prof. van de Bilt asked our opinion about the course. There were some suggestions about the reading list and about the methodology. Should the lecturer take a more pro-active stance? Should we read about the Civil War? My comment: on the whole, I was very satisfied, especially because I had to review a very interesting book.
I added that, in my opinion, history is also --and perhaps mostly-- about wars, battles and leadership. That's why I thought that some of the issues covered over the past three months had more to do with sociology than with history. But I cannot complain! (Here's link-rich review of Mead's book by BrothersJudd.)
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt
Walter Russell Mead: Special Providence. American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. New York: Routledge, 2001.
Reviewed by Rie, Sabrina & Wiebke.
This interesting presentation emphasized Mead's well-known model centered on the four American foreign-policy types: Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian. Prof. van de Bilt guided the debate by asking a number of questions. How can we explain the success of America as the sole super-power? Is Mead a conservative?
Another interesting question: do we need a Jeffersonian streak whenever foreign policy becomes too tightly guided by one or the other three impulses? Prof. van de Bilt argued that it was the interaction between the four "schools" that created a hugely successful foreign policy over the years.
If US policy makers can keep this consensus, then there is little doubt that America will remain the "top dog" among nations. But he stressed the importance of the self-critical Jeffersonian voice that acts as a check on the impulses emanating from the other "schools."
About the course
Prof. van de Bilt asked our opinion about the course. There were some suggestions about the reading list and about the methodology. Should the lecturer take a more pro-active stance? Should we read about the Civil War? My comment: on the whole, I was very satisfied, especially because I had to review a very interesting book.
I added that, in my opinion, history is also --and perhaps mostly-- about wars, battles and leadership. That's why I thought that some of the issues covered over the past three months had more to do with sociology than with history. But I cannot complain! (Here's link-rich review of Mead's book by BrothersJudd.)
# posted by Agustin @ 5:03 PM 
