Bush (43) is to __________, as Obama is to ____________.
a) Reagan; Eisenhower
b) Nixon; Truman
c) Truman; Nixon
d) Eisenhower; Hoover
Show your work.
--
c) Truman; Nixon
Yes, this is meant to turn an eyebrow or two, but just hear me out. There are essentially two different world views: Realism/Pragmatism and Progressiveism/Liberalism. Realists essentially believe that a nation's power (economic, military, & soft) should be the main concern in foreign policy, whereas Progressives believe that ideals - human rights, freedom, democracy, et cetera - should be the main concern in foreign policy.
Too often, we get tied up in party politics, and are mislead into believing that if the Democratic President does something then it must liberal, and if a Republican president does something then it must be conservative. When we look exclusively at foreign policy, we can say with certainty that this is not the case. George W. Bush's foreign policy was often called "Neo-Conservative," but don't let the name fool you it as "Neo-Conservatism" is essentially classic Progressivism/Liberalism; it was just re-branded so that it would be more palatable for conservative voters. "Transforming the Middle East, and spreading American values, through regime change in Iraq" is textbook Liberalism (CSMonitor, 2003) which closely mirror's Truman's ideological views in the lead up to and beginning of the Cold War (for more on Truman and the beginning of the Cold War email me for a copy of my Master's thesis).
On the other hand, saying to Iran "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," is a textbook example of pragmatism - the kind of diplomacy Nixon used when opening up relations with Communist China during the Cold War (State Department, 2009).
Which do you prefer? If a country we dislike has something we want, should we work with them or against them? Bear in mind the costs of war (IRWatch: Are Wars Good for the Economy?, On Deficits and Stimulus).
