Introduction: Why We Disagree about International Relations

Using the Perspectives

In a review published by the New York Times, Jonathan Tepperman compared and contrasted a number of recent books dealing with U.S. foreign policy. He criticized those works that focused on the "big ideas" of international affairs while neglecting the more tedious "how-to" aspects of policy application. He identifies three authors that have addressed the "how-to" aspects particularly well: Nancy Soderberg, a top aide for Bill Clinton; Henry Kissinger, who worked for both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor. Consider his following statement:

"The Superpower Myth, which doubles as a memoir of Soderberg's years in the Clinton administration, is a history told from inside meeting rooms, full of detail about how government bureaucracies actually function-and why sometimes they don't. Kissinger and Brzezinski, meanwhile, both preach the value of working through tedious institutions like NATO or the United Nations, urging Washington to reinvest in the painstaking business of alliance building."

1.  At which level of analysis is Soderberg's book written? How can you tell?
     

2.  According to this statement, which perspective best describes the books written by Kissinger and Zbigniew? Why?
     

Tepperman goes on to argue that the "big idea" books rely too much on rhetoric, ignoring the actual substance of which foreign policy is composed. They often take ideological and bombastic approaches to problems, viewing the world in strict black-or-white terms. What is needed, argues Tepperman, are more "ugly duckling" foreign policy works that promote a practical, pragmatic approach over the bluster and abstraction of "big ideas."

"Calls for accommodating clumsy institutions hardly make for rousing battle cries, of course, which probably explains why they don't attract much attention. With their moderation and caution, such books can come off sounding bloodless. A pragmatist like Soderberg can look like a spoilsport for poking holes in nice-sounding notions like Bush's declared commitment to universal democracy. Kissinger has long been condemned . . . for putting statecraft over principle; and sure enough, in his latest book he praises the virtues of hypocrisy."

3.  From this statement, what perspective best reflects Tepperman's own views? What perspective does he suggest that President      Bush subscribes to? How can you tell?
     

4.  Under which of the three classifications of ethics would you put Henry Kissinger, according to this statement? Why?
     

5.  Do you agree with Tepperman that foreign policy literature should be primarily a how-to guide? Is there a need for the "big ideas"      books?
     

Jonathan Tepperman, "Foxes and Hedgehogs," New York Times, October 16, 2005.