The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
Out of the past nine American presidents, it is my opinion that Richard Nixon had the strongest inherent political interest in and commitment to foreign policy. However, in other areas of his shortened presidency, he had one or two major deficiencies, as you may recall if you are sufficiently sapient to recall such things. Still, no one in the past fifty years has displayed more concern for the place of the USA in the world order via foreign policy than Nixon.
In late 1967, before he had won the Republican nomination for president for the second time, Nixon made an astonishing statement to Theodore White, who was then writing a book about the 1968 presidential campaign. Nixon said in an interview, “I’ve always thought this country could run itself domestically without a President; all you need is a competent Cabinet to run the country at home. You need a President for foreign policy; no Secretary of State is really important; the President makes foreign policy” (Quoted in Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician – 1962-1972, Stephen Ambrose, p. 150).
That statement was a gross overstatement, of course. Nonetheless, it did indicate Nixon’s unique and singular commitment to presidential foreign policy.
When Nixon actually became president, he had to devote far more time to domestic issues than he would have preferred. Furthermore, his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, was far more involved in foreign policy than Nixon probably desired. But his Secretary of State, William Rogers, did play the intended secondary role Nixon envisioned in his interview.
Nixon’s “opening to China” was one of the most important foreign policy initiatives since the end of World War II. His policies with respect to the Soviet Union also were world-changing. It was the War in Viet Nam that was Nixon’s most unpopular exercise in foreign policy, and deservedly so. However, he inherited the war; he did not start it.
When I was an idealistic high school student, I well remember being very proud of our country that 10 to 12% of our budget was earmarked for foreign aid. Of course most foreign assistance is in armaments for allies, or food produced by American farmers which benefits hungry people globally, or economic funding which also benefits American businesses.
Nevertheless, for a quarter of a century after World War II, the United States had a foreign policy that included an admirably high percentage of our annual budget that was directed to foreign aid. Since then, foreign assistance for anything other than military hardware has continuously shrunk. Now we barely make it into the top twenty nations in the world for foreign aid as a percentage of national annual budgets.
Human beings in general have a natural tendency to be more interested in their own wellbeing than that of other people. Virtually all nations have always been more concerned for themselves than they are for other states.
Nonetheless, it behooves wealthy states financially to encourage less developed states to improve their lives and their position in the world economy. To help others is to help ourselves, whether it is individuals or nations we are helping.
Judicious, generous, and expansive foreign policy enhances the states that engage in it. Presidents from FDR through Carter intuitively seemed to understand that. From Reagan on, though, we have had a succession of presidents whose focus has been on domestic, not foreign, policy. Currently, we have no evident foreign policy of any reasonable description.
When our primary concern is on ourselves, we are not the kind of nation which once made America great. Presidents whose main focus is foreign rather than domestic affairs are the most admirable of presidents, even if they might not be the most popular ones.
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.