It is often said that a true democracy is at its best when the people are as involved as was intended when the Founding Fathers first established our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers sought a government to rebut a strong, centralized and elite group of people who wielded the power of the country disproportionately, often in the interests of themselves. Political pluralism is by definition a rejection of that ideology and way of governance today, and serves to interject a sense of indebtedness to our leaders and policymakers. Abraham Lincoln once said that a “government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this Earth.” Franklin D. Roosevelt added to this sentiment, saying that it is not the Senators or the Congress or even the President that rules over this country, but “it is the voters of this country” themselves. It is easy to fall in line with this train of thought; after all, so many of our great leaders and innovators are some of pluralism’s biggest advocates. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, Obama and everyone in between have all run their administrations and their policies, especially foreign policy, around this key cornerstone of democracy: power to the people. However, I believe Lincoln’s famous quote is only partly correct; while foreign policy should always be for the people, a foreign policy of the people and by the people does not fully encompass what is best for the country and the future, and is more susceptible to the whimsical views of the uneducated majority on foreign policy. Thus, I will be arguing for a realist approach to implementation and formulation of foreign policymaking, as opposed to a liberal-democratic one.
Lincoln: Realism or Unity?
Reflecting on Lincoln’s famous quote brings forth many thoughts on the history of our nation, and the political and historical contexts surrounding the Gettysburg Address. In 1863, The United States was embroiled in one of the bloodiest and costliest wars in the American history. The Civil War proved to be pivotal in the direction and orientation of both our domestic and foreign policies, and Lincoln was keen on making sure these policies went in the Union’s favor. Without even mentioning the repercussions of a non-unified United States, France and Great Britain’s stakes in the result of our war were high, and the actions of our future President and actors in foreign policy after Reconstruction proved to be enormously critical. Thus, when looking at Lincoln’s speech from this vantage point, it is easy to see the purpose of wanting to unify the public behind a government most responsive and reflective of them. Pluralism, then, was the ultimate unifier, and the stakes for Lincoln could not have been higher when in the context of a deeply divided nation. However, a deeper look into the circumstances surrounding the end of the Civil War and the vast majority of Southern public opinion reveal why Lincoln valued unity over the actual meaning of the words preached in his speech, and reveal ironies in Lincoln’s own actions.
I argue that Lincoln’s phrase is only 1/3 correct because, in essence, the circumstances surrounding his speech are in direct opposition to a liberal-democratic approach to not just foreign policy, but governance in general. If the will of the people had been followed and acted upon, it is very likely that the South would have remained extremely apprehensive about rejoining the Union, and bears the question of what Lincoln would have done to incorporate, if at all, former Confederate leaders, citizens and their ideology. Additionally, Lincoln acted with his top strategist and general, Winfield Scott, to execute what he perceived to be the best strategy for the unification of the country when he imposed a blockade on the exports of Southern cotton to Europe and other parts of the world. Widely regarded as an expansion of wartime powers, the Supreme Court upheld Lincoln’s actions as constitutional. This was in stark contrast to public opinion at the time, which favored a more direct and immediate military attack on Richmond, Virginia in 1861 (Johnson). Thus, when looking at Lincoln’s speech in its full context, a clear irony emerges: would Lincoln’s military and naval strategy have been as successful if he had listened to the people? Did Lincoln actually mean what he said when he exclaimed policymaking should be “of the people” and “by the people”? Would he include former citizens of the Confederacy in his vision for the future of the United States? While Lincoln was certainly no authoritarian, it is clear looking at Lincoln’s actions that the more accurate meaning behind a government for, of and by the people was to be a unifying message to a divided, war-torn nation. Unfortunately, Lincoln never lived to see the true fruits of his unifying message, which ultimately played a large part in shaping our post-Civil War unity and prosperity. Where Lincoln did not depart from his overall message, however, was in a foreign policy for the people.