Published: Good Men Project (July 7, 2015)
American foreign policy has long been governed by ideas of masculinity. Now it’s time to evaluate what that has meant for our nation – and how we should redefine “masculinity” in the future.
Why do we equate “masculinity” with “aggressiveness” when conducting our foreign policy?
“In the aftermath of September 11 Bush enacted a highly masculine ideology through his treatment of the press and emphasis upon two masculine themes–strength and dominance–and that this approach facilitated wide circulation of his masculine discourse in the press.”
Even without summarizing the rest of the article, it isn’t hard to remember the tropes of machismo that Bush demonstrated throughout his presidency: The “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric, the cowboy swagger, the retrospectively ironic aircraft carrier landing in front of a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”… all used in the service of waging two wars to avenge a terrorist attack whose perpetrator remained at large (and quite comfortable) in spite of them. Seven years later, when President Obama was being criticized for not using the military to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine and various Islamic extremists in the Middle East, his manhood was inevitably drawn into the discussion. This choice quote from conservative columnist David Brooks neatly summed up the thinking (which, he noted, he does not entirely share):
“Let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely — but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or somebody like Putin? I think a lot of the rap is unfair but certainly in the Middle East there is an assumption that he’s not tough enough.”
To quote President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Cross of Iron speech, which is as relevant today as it was in 1953: ‘Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.’
Just as Bush was viewed as more masculine for waging war, Obama has had his masculinity called into question for not being militant enough.
Although these arguments were being made about 21st century presidents, Americans have always sought to promote “masculine” foreign policies. In
her 2000 book “Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars,” historian Kristin L. Hoganson explored how a desire to assert our manhood on the national stage ultimately resulted in America’s declaration of war against the Spanish Empire in 1898, despite the reservations of President William McKinley. A few years earlier, in
her 1993 essay “Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and Thinking War,” Carol Cohn reviews how gendered (and inherently subjective) terms like “wimp” and “pussy” are frequently used to disparage presidents who are perceived as being ineffective in foreign policy, again reinforcing the notion that Americans need to be “masculine” if they want to remain powerful on the world stage.
Without delving into the historic atrocities caused by this cult of masculinity, let’s briefly look at the price of our various military ventures since 2001:
– We have spent
more than $1.6 trillion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military actions against ISIS, and the Pentagon’s slush fund.
– More than
210,000 civilians have been killed by the American military in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq alone.
– To quote President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s
“Cross of Iron” speech, which is as relevant today as it was in 1953: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
In short, it seems like it’s time for a new definition of masculinity vis-a-vis the shaping and implementation of American foreign policy. I propose three guidelines:
1. Masculinity should be associated with pragmatic maturity, not the use of brute strength.
Few would dare accuse President George Washington of not being manly… yet one of his most important policies as president was keeping America
out of the war between the British and French empires that raged on during his administration. Despite being fiercely criticized for this decision, Washington believed that America needed to be responsible in how it conducted itself on the world stage,
arguing that free states “will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” Although he conceded that “so far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith,” he insisted that “the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” While this course may not be particularly idealistic, Washington believed that it would save American lives, avoid costly military projects, and secure America’s place on the international stage by keeping us out of foreign entanglements which did not directly concern us.
In short, he understood that a manly foreign policy isn’t one that is quick to get involved in foreign wars, but rather one which recognizes the practical and moral importance of not meddling in other nations’ affairs and valuing the lives and tax dollars of our own citizens.
Obviously the conduct of foreign policy isn’t a simple matter. Sometimes the line between what threatens us and what merely seems threatening can be very blurry (see the build-up to our involvement in World War II), and now that we’ve become part of an international community (even serving as the host nation to the UN), it would be unrealistic to call for a return to Washington-era isolationism. At the same time, any definition of masculinity worth respecting must promote being responsible with the lives and material resources of other people, just as it cannot countenance acts of bullying.
2. We need to recognize that a “masculine” nation behaves honorably toward its neighbors.
.
Back in 1893, President Grover Cleveland refused to annex the island kingdom of Hawaii after an
independent report determined that its legitimate government had been overthrown by American sugar plantation owners for their own financial gain. His
response?
“I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to be followed in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded and a desire for territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with a form of government not our own, ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely misapprehended the mission and character of our Government and the behavior which the conscience of our people demands of their public servants.”
What’s particularly noteworthy about this statement is that it addressed two of the most common arguments used by neo-imperialists (i.e., corporate leaders who support military actions against weaker nations to advance their business interests): Namely, that we should invade other countries either because it will make America stronger (“a desire for territorial extension”) or because we have a righteous crusade in our corner (“dissatisfaction with a form of government not our own”). The problem with these positions is that they both rely on a “might makes right” line of reasoning, one that can be easily revealed simply by applying the Golden Rule: Would we think it okay for a stronger nation to conquer us simply so it could expand its power? If another country felt that our government and/or way of life was immoral, would we accept it if they used their military power to force us to change?
Obviously the conduct of foreign policy isn’t a simple matter. Sometimes the line between what threatens us and what merely seems threatening can be very blurry (see the build-up to our involvement in World War II), and now that we’ve become part of an international community (even serving as the host nation to the UN), it would be unrealistic to call for a return to Washington-era isolationism. At the same time, any definition of masculinity worth respecting must promote being responsible with the lives and material resources of other people, just as it cannot countenance acts of bullying.
The former imperative involves learning to be mature; the latter, learning how to behave with honor. Both are core ideals by which every man should subscribe in his private life. Our geopolitical actions shouldn’t be any different.
