Home › Features › Essays › After the Election: Foreign Policy Under Reagan II

After the Election: Foreign Policy Under Reagan II

By Henry A. Grunwald
Winter 1984/85
Article Summary and Author Biography

The second Reagan Administration has a rare opportunity to reshape American foreign policy. The opportunity obviously springs from President Reagan_s overwhelming election victory, which, if he remains in office for four more years, will make him the first full two-term president since Eisenhower. This victory has further strengthened his already impressive capacity for political leadership, reinforcing his authority to deal with the factions of his own party, with the feuding wings of the bureaucracy, and with foreign countries. The question is whether he will seize that authority and will know how to use it. Which Reagan, and which group of Reagan advisers, will dominate the second term? Will it be the stubbornly hard-line or the flexible President, the _ideologues_ or the _pragmatists_ among his counselors?

Henry A. Grunwald is Editor-in-Chief, Time Incorporated.

Print Email

The second Reagan Administration has a rare opportunity to reshape American foreign policy. The opportunity obviously springs from President Reagan's overwhelming election victory, which, if he remains in office for four more years, will make him the first full two-term president since Eisenhower. This victory has further strengthened his already impressive capacity for political leadership, reinforcing his authority to deal with the factions of his own party, with the feuding wings of the bureaucracy, and with foreign countries. The question is whether he will seize that authority and will know how to use it. Which Reagan, and which group of Reagan advisers, will dominate the second term? Will it be the stubbornly hard-line or the flexible President, the "ideologues" or the "pragmatists" among his counselors?

That distinction is, of course, somewhat oversimplified; the divisions within, and around, the President are not quite so clear-cut. There are apocalyptic and rational ideologues; there are very tough and semi-tough pragmatists. Still, the familiar labels do describe a genuine conflict, and in the first term, the evolution of that conflict was quite evident: from ideology to pragmatism.

The Administration started out by confronting the world with a hard-line, aggressive and Manichean set of policies, or pronouncements, that in nearly every instance gave way to compromise and at least outward accommodation. This was true of attitudes toward the Soviet Union, arms control, Central America, the European allies, and support of the International Monetary Fund, among others. The retreat and reversal on the Soviet-European gas pipeline issue was typical of this trend. These accommodations happened only after bitter bureaucratic infighting, and in response to various outside pressures: public opinion, politics, allied complaints, the risk of diplomatic debacles...

This is a premium article

You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.

Buy PDF

Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.

Related

Essay, Spring 1988
Lessons of the INF Treaty
Lynn E. Davis

"The INF treaty singles out for elimination all land-based missiles of a specified range". Gives the background to the treaty from 1979. In effect it resulted from the USSR calling Reagan's bluff on his zero-option proposal of 1981. The consequence is that the West is on the defensive, lacking a coherent approach and compelled to proceed on the basis of its present policy. The lesson of the treaty is therefore for the West to define its long-term objectives, and the roles of the USA and Western Europe within them. US deputy assistant secretary for defense (policy plans), 1977-81.

Read
Essay, Special 1987
The 1988 Election: U.S. Foreign Policy at a Watershed
George McGovern

"So clearly is communism neither the wave of the future nor the major challenge to American security", that a fundamental re-appraisal of US foreign policy is needed, recognizing weaknesses of both the US and Soviet economies. Neither can afford the war economy. Proposes instead (1) regional US-Soviet co-operation (2) further arms control (3) 30% cut in military spending over ten years (4) support for Third World 'democratic centrist forces' with military intervention as the exception (e.g. Cambodia under Pol Pot) (5) environmental and anti-hunger priorities (6) recognition of interdependency of national and international problems (e.g. drugs) (7) greater use of the UN. Inveighs against US presidential malpractice (covert actions, hasty campaign pledges). US presidential candidate, 1972.

Read
Essay, Summer 1985
The Postwar Era: The Eagle and the Bear
James Schlesinger

The linkup of American and Soviet forces at Torgau on the Elbe in April 1945 may be taken as the event symbolizing a new era in international relations--one largely dominated by the central relationship between two great powers, later known as the superpowers. The meeting at Torgau meant the splitting of Germany, the preeminent European power for three-quarters of a century. Germany's division was to be both a fixture of the postwar era and, additionally, a continuing source of unease. Also, the event dramatically initiated what was to become die Wacht an der Elbe, an American protection against the power of the East of what was to become a democratic Germany--and behind Germany an abiding American commitment to the security of Western Europe. Despite the misjudgments in the immediate aftermath of the war, the lessons of two world wars had been insinuated into American foreign policy. Finally, in the way of symbolism, perhaps the brief exchange of fire between Soviet and American forces on the Elbe provided an early harbinger of the tensions that were ultimately to emerge.

Read