Gregory Scoblete takes a look at the underlying philosophies of Barack Obama and John McCain re. foreign policy. He concludes that McCain is a Universalist, whereas Obama is a particularist. In this post I will not try to analyze whether Gregory’s assessment of both men is correct; I’ll just deal with the two philosophies and, as the title implies, argue that Universalism has major weaknesses. As I see it, and as I will argue, Universalism is not a good basic philosophy for foreign policy.

Let us first try to define both Particularism and Universalism. Gregory explains:

The concepts of universalism and particularism were sketched out in the early days of the Cold War by George Kennan, an official in President Truman’s State Department and the architect of America’s containment strategy. According to the Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis, Kennan saw the universalistic approach as one which assumed “that if all countries could be induced to subscribe to certain standards or rules of behavior” than the rivalries and human emotions that begat conflict would fade away.

To a universalist, America is only secure when, to borrow the phrase, “freedom is on the march.” The key to American security is the active spread of American values and institutions around the globe…

Particularists, on the other hand, do not believe the world’s political diversity represents a threat to the U.S. However deplorable, particularists believe that tyranny, autocracy, corruption and misrule will remain a fixture in international relations so long as human beings remain fallible. Those with a particularist mindset tend to govern as “realists” - more inclined toward international cooperation, even if it entails dealing with tyrants. As Gaddis wrote in Strategies of Containment, particularists could tolerate “varying degrees of enmity in the world so long as it was neither consolidated nor coordinated.”

Again, lets not get into a debate about whether or not Gregory’s assessment of both candidates is correct (I believe it’s not). Instead, lets simply take a closer look at Universalism.

Many people adhere to a Universalism philosophy. Liberals, neoconservatives, progressives, socialists, communists, capitalists, conservatives… the list of Universalists is endless. They may not agree on many things, but they do agree on one thing; if all countries in the world would simply adopt their ideology, no wars would exist. Peace would rule.

And that brings us to the first problem with Universalism; whose universalism are we talking about? John McCain is, according to Gregory, a Universalist who believes that American values have to be exported and spread. But there are also other types of Universalists, who agree that some principles should rule the entire world, but whose principles are vastly different from McCain’s. For instance; old time liberals and neoconservatives. Neoconservatives believe in spreading America’s ‘values’ by military force. They further often despise international organizations such as the UN. But old school liberals believe that not force, but diplomacy, talks, and international organizations form the key to a peaceful world.

The second problem is, related to the one noted above, that, once determined whose universalism we are talking about, it’s incredibly difficult to define the main principles and values. What kind of values are we talking about here exactly?

Thirdly, Universalists often seem to forget that most ‘American principles’ are just that; American (or, at best, Western). They are not the results of some universal law, they are the result of a particular custom and history. What’s considered to be a ‘universal value’ in the West, is only ‘universal’ there; once you go to the East, you’ll see most people disagreeing with you. What’s ‘a universal value’ in the West, is often no such thing in the East. The reason for that is simple: different cultures and a different history. The principles of the Enlightenment and many other principles and values are products of Western culture and history. When you try to ‘export’ them to non-Western countries, you quickly run into major problems, one of which is that the populations in those countries have no idea what the hell you’re preaching the gospel of Western Democracy and Freedom. And if they do understand you, they often think to themselves ‘that might work there, but that doesn’t mean it will work here, nor that we want it to work here.’

Another problem - again related - is that exporting ‘American values and principles’ to foreign countries, say the Middle East, you’re creating more problems than you solved. People only pick up part of the message, if that. The result is, for instance, the oppression of the minority by the majority. Or, see Palestine for proof, people simply elect - one of the principles is, undoubtedly, democracy - a terrorist or other extremist organization. Westerners were surprised that Palestinians voted for Hamas. But why would they be surprised? Palestinians are not like Westerners. They are not products of our culture. They are products of an entirely different culture. They are products of Arab, Muslim culture, mixed with a culture of hate, intolerance, antisemitism and religious extremism. Export ‘American values’ to such a country will not produce positive results; it will only cause more hatred and more violence.

The sixth problem is that some ‘values or principles’ are non-exportable. You can’t export them. Impossible. You can export the idea of Democracy but you can’t export the belief that minorities - be they religious or something else - should be protected from the power of the majority. You can’t export it. Impossible. Westerners think like that, but many people in other parts of the world disagree.

Additionally, and lastly, it has to be pointed out that our ‘rights’ are products of an individualistic culture. We look at the world, at society and at other people as individuals. Individualism lies at the very core of Western society. Our kind of democracy is not possible without it. Take away individualism and Western society collapses.

But individualism too is typically Western. As an Arab, or an Asian person, or an African or - yes - an average Turk about his beliefs and worldview and you’ll quickly come to the conclusion that they are not individualists but collectivists or tribalists.

Yet, despite all the above, Universalists happily ‘export’ Western ‘values’ to those countries, thinking that all will be well. And so we have created a tremendous mess in the Balkan (yes, the current mess and the wars in the 1990s were a result of Western power ‘exporting’ their values and principles), we have created chaos and hatred in the Middle East and we have brought Africa to the brink of destruction… all because we think that products of Western culture and history can be implemented everywhere.

Perhaps it’s time for a realist foreign policy; not just from the US, but also from other Western countries (most of my criticism is also applicable on the foreign policy of the UK, Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and so on).