For candidates and voters alike, a foreign policy must-read

The Obama years have borne witness to more than their share of books on foreign policy strategy. Standouts particularly worth applause are Bret Stephens’ "America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder" (2014) and Vali Nasr’s "The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat"(2013). Yet Eurasia Group founder and president, Ian Bremmer, sets himself apart even from the exceptional few with his newest book, "Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World," which was released in May.

This is the book presidential candidates and voters should be reading. As Bremmer indicates in his introduction, his goal is not to convince readers of one doctrine’s merits over another. The author, in fact, withholds his views until the final pages. His true opinions defied my expectations. On this front, then, the author succeeds with flying colors. His language clear and his examples relevant, Bremmer deftly explains complex policy issues and precedents without reducing them.

The crux of his work is the presentation of what he considers to be the only realistic doctrines from which the United States must choose. First, Bremmer discusses a vision of “Independent America.” This is an America which “[proclaims] emancipation from the responsibility to solve everyone else’s problems.” He contends that as “Americans deserve a government dedicated to the proposition that security and liberty may prosper together," "we can no longer accept burdens abroad that underpin our values at home, sap our strength and resources, entangle us in fights that are not our concern, and threaten the heart of our democracy.”

Bremmer then turns to a clever metaphor, likening former Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane’s “moneyball” philosophy to a pragmatic foreign policy strategy. This doctrine “relies on a cold-blooded, interest-driven approach that redefines America’s role in the world in a way designed to maximize the return on the taxpayer’s investment.” Finally, the author touches upon the exceptionalist paradigm: “Indispensable America.” According to this view, the world is better off with America’s leadership than without it: “For all its faults and mistakes, the United States has done more than any nation in history to ensure that leaders in other countries must answer to their citizens.”

I am not sure what I enjoy most about Bremmer’s analysis, but of particular note are chapters one and six, which explore the recent absence of a coherent American grand strategy. Skeptics of the Obama administration should not miss chapter six, in which the writer takes the president to task for his lack of consistent foreign policy rhetoric and strategy.

At any rate, Democrats and Republicans, doves and hawks, isolationists and interventionists alike would find enormous use in clarifying and challenging long-held views through "Superpower." Bremmer even includes periodic quizzes to help readers better understand where their views sit on the paradigmatic spectrum. My only substantive issue is the author’s own choice: “Independent America.” While it is reasonable to argue that if the United States stops intervening in global messes, our allies will no longer have incentive not to act, he underestimates the scale of the collective action problem. This is especially true when considering the decades of foreign policy hangover and disorder such a move would cause. Even if an American president were to announce the new doctrine, the adjustment period would be drawn out and rife with conflict and instability.

Whether or not Bremmer’s choice is yours, whether or not you believe American foreign policy needs moral clarity, his book is the first of many steps on the path to doctrinal clarity. This is especially crucial as we enter an election year. I’ve spoken previously on questions the candidates need to answer on foreign policy and here’s another: which America do you choose and why?