Extended commentary—U.S.-Asian policy in the throes of McCarthyism, old and new

IF 1.4 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1111/polp.12604
William H. Thornton, Songok Han Thornton
{"title":"Extended commentary—U.S.-Asian policy in the throes of McCarthyism, old and new","authors":"William H. Thornton,&nbsp;Songok Han Thornton","doi":"10.1111/polp.12604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>The subtext of this extended commentary for the 2024 <i>Policy Studies Yearbook</i> in <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> is the crucial role that liberalism and civil rights must play in U.S. foreign policy if America is to be on the right side of history. Our explicit subject is the conflux of elite and populist forces that constantly work against such liberal-democratic engagement. It is no secret that today's MAGAism (“Make America Great Again”) wears many of the same antiliberal stripes as did postwar McCarthyism, which was its direct progenitor. Thanks largely to the center-right resistance of President Eisenhower, McCarthyism was ultimately held in check domestically. Unfortunately, that was not the case on the side of U.S. foreign policy, where tenacious strains of antiliberalism had a very long shelf life. Thus, McCarthyism ended up having its most durable impact in the developing world, where cozy relations with highly reactionary regimes were considered necessary in the face of communist inroads. At a time when liberalism was hitting its full stride on American soil, U.S. foreign policy was exporting a very different America abroad, and especially in Asia. Even domestically, the waspish virulence of McCarthyism was never eradicated. It simply hibernated, and in 2016, it came back with a vengeance in the even more truculent form of Trumpism. Once again, xenophobic populism is laying claim to U.S. foreign policy and savaging liberal internationalism. The entrenched progressivism that stood its ground against McCarthyism has long since eroded. MAGAism faces no obstacle comparable to the dynamic liberalism of the 1950s or the counterculture of the 1960s. Seen from the perspective of January 6, 2021, the old McCarthyism looks tame by comparison.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\n \n <p>Craig, Stephen C., and Jason Gainous. 2024. “To Vote or Not to Vote? Fake News, Voter Fraud, and Support for Postponing the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 52(1): 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12577.</p>\n \n <p>Haar, Roberta N., and Lutz F. Krebs. 2021. “The Failure of Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs in the Trump Administration.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 49(2): 446–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12399.</p>\n \n <p>Skidmore, Max J. 2023. “Abortion—Reactionary Theocracy Rises in America, While Declining Elsewhere.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 51(3): 437–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12534.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51679,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Policy","volume":"52 4","pages":"854-873"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The subtext of this extended commentary for the 2024 Policy Studies Yearbook in Politics & Policy is the crucial role that liberalism and civil rights must play in U.S. foreign policy if America is to be on the right side of history. Our explicit subject is the conflux of elite and populist forces that constantly work against such liberal-democratic engagement. It is no secret that today's MAGAism (“Make America Great Again”) wears many of the same antiliberal stripes as did postwar McCarthyism, which was its direct progenitor. Thanks largely to the center-right resistance of President Eisenhower, McCarthyism was ultimately held in check domestically. Unfortunately, that was not the case on the side of U.S. foreign policy, where tenacious strains of antiliberalism had a very long shelf life. Thus, McCarthyism ended up having its most durable impact in the developing world, where cozy relations with highly reactionary regimes were considered necessary in the face of communist inroads. At a time when liberalism was hitting its full stride on American soil, U.S. foreign policy was exporting a very different America abroad, and especially in Asia. Even domestically, the waspish virulence of McCarthyism was never eradicated. It simply hibernated, and in 2016, it came back with a vengeance in the even more truculent form of Trumpism. Once again, xenophobic populism is laying claim to U.S. foreign policy and savaging liberal internationalism. The entrenched progressivism that stood its ground against McCarthyism has long since eroded. MAGAism faces no obstacle comparable to the dynamic liberalism of the 1950s or the counterculture of the 1960s. Seen from the perspective of January 6, 2021, the old McCarthyism looks tame by comparison.

Related Articles

Craig, Stephen C., and Jason Gainous. 2024. “To Vote or Not to Vote? Fake News, Voter Fraud, and Support for Postponing the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.” Politics & Policy 52(1): 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12577.

Haar, Roberta N., and Lutz F. Krebs. 2021. “The Failure of Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs in the Trump Administration.” Politics & Policy 49(2): 446–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12399.

Skidmore, Max J. 2023. “Abortion—Reactionary Theocracy Rises in America, While Declining Elsewhere.” Politics & Policy 51(3): 437–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12534.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
延伸评论:麦卡锡主义阵痛中的新旧美亚政策
这篇为《2024 年政治与政策年鉴》(Policy Studies Yearbook in Politics & Policy)撰写的扩展评论的潜台词是,如果美国要站在历史的正确一边,自由主义和民权必须在美国外交政策中发挥关键作用。我们的明确主题是精英和民粹主义力量的交织,它们不断地反对这种自由民主的参与。众所周知,当今的MAGA主义("让美国再次伟大")与战后的麦卡锡主义有着许多相同的反自由主义色彩,而麦卡锡主义正是MAGA主义的直接祖先。主要由于艾森豪威尔总统的中右翼抵制,麦卡锡主义最终在国内受到遏制。遗憾的是,在美国外交政策方面却并非如此,在外交政策中,反自由主义的顽固派具有很长的保质期。因此,麦卡锡主义最终在发展中国家产生了最持久的影响,在那里,面对共产主义的入侵,与高度反动的政权保持友好关系被认为是必要的。当自由主义在美国本土大行其道之时,美国的外交政策却在向海外,尤其是亚洲输出一个截然不同的美国。即使在国内,麦卡锡主义的恶毒也从未根除。它只是蛰伏了起来,而在2016年,它又以特朗普主义这种更加顽固的形式卷土重来。仇外的民粹主义再次对美国的外交政策提出要求,并对自由国际主义进行蹂躏。在麦卡锡主义面前站稳脚跟的根深蒂固的进步主义早已荡然无存。MAGA 主义面临的障碍无法与 20 世纪 50 年代充满活力的自由主义或 20 世纪 60 年代的反主流文化相提并论。从 2021 年 1 月 6 日的视角来看,老麦卡锡主义相比之下显得温文尔雅。2024."投票与否?假新闻、选民欺诈和对推迟 2020 年美国总统选举的支持"。Politics & Policy 52(1):https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12577.Haar, Roberta N., and Lutz F. Krebs.2021."特朗普政府外交政策创业者的失败》。Politics & Policy 49(2):https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12399.Skidmore, Max J. 2023."Abortion-Reactionary Theocracy Rises in America, While Declining Elsewhere." Politics & Policy 51(3).政治与政策》51(3):437–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12534.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics & Policy
Politics & Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Issue Information “Where you stand depends on where you sit”: The politics of petroleum pricing in Ghana's election cycle Note from the Editor and Acknowledgment of Reviewers 2023–2024 A paradox of public engagement: The discursive politics of environmental justice in Canada's Chemical Valley Democratic interventionists versus pragmatic realists: Employing the advocacy coalition framework to explain Obama's shift in multilateralism with European allies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1