U.S National Interest: Further Synthesis

The U.S. National Interest is complex and constantly in a state of transformation. Clues to this complexity are found in the American common identity. The concept of common identity is made up of shared values on the metaphysical level, norms as a manifestation of the general view of reality on the second level, and expressive symbols as a manifestation of specific theories, goals, and expectations. Each of these identity building blocks plays a key role in the subjective definition and perception of national interests, and as interpreters of events that impact the national interest. Shared values in the American common identity are the product of three metaphysical schools of thought, the noumenalists, naturalists and bridge builders. Through a selective investigation of some of the theories and theorists from these schools, we found that the actual shared values of the American metaphysic combine elements of all these theories, and that the overriding principle is to make the journey prove the end. The direct end no longer needs to be noumenalist or naturalist. Progress and anticipation of the future become the purpose of life. The ideal end may still be in contention, but as Unamuno explains, it is this conflict which unifies action—life! American norms reflect this important synthesis. Through investigation of the Federalist Papers, a clearer picture of these norms, and their impact on the common identity, forms. Distrust in man, but a generally optimistic attitude about his potential shines through. Although the nation has changed in many ways, America still manifests these characteristics in the Madisonian Model and in our “low stateness” and “low classness.” I then interject a caution concerning the fragility and balance of he common identity as a reminder of the importance of countervailing forces to progress and survival of our nation. Finally, through investigation of the Constitution, the importance, especially in America, of expressive symbols is highlighted. Through these three building blocks, the American common identity is defined to encompass progress in the maintenance and expansion of the open society, the requirement to continually grow economically to support a stable and increasingly liberal democracy, and the view of America as “the first new nation,” with all the blessings and responsibilities this implies. Even though there may be a variety of nations with the Nation, this only further highlights the binding element of the duality of soul inherent at every level of America and where all hold these truths inviolable.

With the common identity established, a general outline of the American national interest is built. By using Joseph Frankel’s national interest classification model and a concise case study of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, a clearer picture of U.S. national interests is presented and the linkages with the American common identity shine through. On the aspirational level, American national interests are first, to preserve and protect the Madisonian Model; second to preserve and protect the right to progress (in domestic political liberalization), domestic and foreign market economics, and democratization abroad to maintain our “great nation” status and position as leader of the “free world;” and lastly, to preserve and protect the right to self-actualization. On the operational level, stability becomes the key factor in the context of security, economic interests and political solidarity. Finally, by projecting this common identity synthesis toward the future, the potential for further synthesis and progress is bright. Friction between aspirational and operational interests in Latin America is increasing. The American will to apply aspirations to operational issues is highlighted in the push for substantive democracy for democracy’s sake, not as a means to another end (as it started out to be). As long as America can maintain some form of progress and synthesis and the people’s commitment remains strong, America will continue its great synthesis and national interest will maintain a predictable and stable course. The greatest danger to this process lies in the potential deterioration of the noumenalist counterweight to naturalism. With an overpowering naturalistic (and therefore, potentially valueless) society, the pivotal synthesis of the American experiment will cease and decay will eventually triumph.

A request came my way to clarify Joseph Frankel’s National Interest categories. Here are the characteristics of Aspirational and Operational Interests (Joseph Frankel, National Interest, 1970, pp. 32-33):

Aspirational Characteristics:
1. They are normally long-term interests
2. They are generally rooted in history and /or ideology
3. They command more attention from opposition free of the restraints of, and the preoccupation with, the tasks of governing then from the actual government. Within political parties they are concerned with ideological purity.
4. Even when they do not directly influence actual policy, they can provide purpose or direction, or at the least, a sense of hope
5. They need not be fully articulated and coordinated and they can be contradictory
6. They do not require a ‘feasibility study’ and are rarely if ever costed
7. They are determined by the political will rather than by capabilities—ideology is a strong determinant. The influence of power is ambivalent: while an ambition may be due to the people’s awareness of the power of their state, it can be likewise due to their awareness of their powerlessness and their escape into daydreams

Operational Characteristics:
1. They are usually short-term interests, capable of achievement within the foreseeable future
2. They often, but not exclusively, stem from consideration of expediency of necessity
3. They are the predominant concern of the government and /or party in power
4. They are used in a descriptive rather than normative form
5. Owing to the practical problems of implementation, contradictions among them are less easily tolerated than among aspirations
6. They are generally translated into policies which are based upon the assessment of their prospects of success and which can be at least approximately costed
7. The crucial variable in tier determination is found in capabilities rather than in political will. Hence the hypothesis can be advanced that classification of states by power is here more relevant than by ideology. It is likely that all small states, whatever their ideology, merely react to overwhelming international stimuli; with them policy is distinct from positive purpose
8. They can be systematically arranged into maximum and minimum programs, the former approximating aspirational interests. Such arrangement, however, depends upon systematic planning of foreign policy and rarely, if ever, actually takes place; only Soviet foreign policy in some aspects can be regarded as a reasonable example.