Why this: "Baker’s dissertation undermines the premise that he could be the Kissinger to Vance or some other GOP figure."
I'm also not sure what his dissertation is saying about American foreign policy (and your pull from it about the dominions is odd, since the early postwar period is when they become completely independent and stopped relying on Britain completely anyway).
On the first point, I exercised a bit of poetic license. Kissinger studied the Concert of Europe and it’s diplomatic giants (Metternich, Castlereagh). When in office, he was something of a throwback to that era, flying around the world, making deals on the fly. (While he had successes on some critical technical stuff, like textiles with Japan and arms control with the Soviets there were significant problems.) Of course Baker could play that role under a President Vance (perish the thought.) But I guess I’m saying that his understanding of the foreign policy bureaucracy might lead to a more technocratic approach that betters suits our times and should result in more robust policies.
Thanks for the comment and for readings. Second point first. Having become independent from Britain, the Dominions did not wish to then come under an American empire. They were able to use their experience managing Britain as well as their continuing contacts with Britain to similarly manage the United States. That is they established relationships in which they U.S. respected their sovereignty. This model then extended to how the U.S. approached other potential allies. It’s a revisionist argument, since the general thesis was that the U.S. was inherently anti-imperialist and would have on its own established a voluntary international order. Baker says that the U.S. has plenty of imperialism in its past, and that the nature of this voluntary order was rooted in how the Dominions were able to manage their relations with the new superpower. I hope to give the book a thorough read and review.
OK, I see the point. It seems arguable, particularly given the tension in the US-UK relationship over colonies; it's not like the US tried to colonize India in place of the UK. But it might be an interesting lens for Carney's "middle powers" idea of managing up in a bipolar world. (But, of course, I am completely out of my lane here, and probably have no idea what I am talking about).
I’m just restating Baker’s claim. I’m hoping to do a serious read and maybe even write a review. I am particularly intrigued by his emphasis on foreign policy bureaucracy. It does seem to align with Carney’s analysis. It’s also interesting the Baker focused on the English speaking Dominions, not India. South Africa is discussed as the outlier because they failed to build a foreign policy bureaucracy.
Why this: "Baker’s dissertation undermines the premise that he could be the Kissinger to Vance or some other GOP figure."
I'm also not sure what his dissertation is saying about American foreign policy (and your pull from it about the dominions is odd, since the early postwar period is when they become completely independent and stopped relying on Britain completely anyway).
On the first point, I exercised a bit of poetic license. Kissinger studied the Concert of Europe and it’s diplomatic giants (Metternich, Castlereagh). When in office, he was something of a throwback to that era, flying around the world, making deals on the fly. (While he had successes on some critical technical stuff, like textiles with Japan and arms control with the Soviets there were significant problems.) Of course Baker could play that role under a President Vance (perish the thought.) But I guess I’m saying that his understanding of the foreign policy bureaucracy might lead to a more technocratic approach that betters suits our times and should result in more robust policies.
Thanks for the comment and for readings. Second point first. Having become independent from Britain, the Dominions did not wish to then come under an American empire. They were able to use their experience managing Britain as well as their continuing contacts with Britain to similarly manage the United States. That is they established relationships in which they U.S. respected their sovereignty. This model then extended to how the U.S. approached other potential allies. It’s a revisionist argument, since the general thesis was that the U.S. was inherently anti-imperialist and would have on its own established a voluntary international order. Baker says that the U.S. has plenty of imperialism in its past, and that the nature of this voluntary order was rooted in how the Dominions were able to manage their relations with the new superpower. I hope to give the book a thorough read and review.
OK, I see the point. It seems arguable, particularly given the tension in the US-UK relationship over colonies; it's not like the US tried to colonize India in place of the UK. But it might be an interesting lens for Carney's "middle powers" idea of managing up in a bipolar world. (But, of course, I am completely out of my lane here, and probably have no idea what I am talking about).
I’m just restating Baker’s claim. I’m hoping to do a serious read and maybe even write a review. I am particularly intrigued by his emphasis on foreign policy bureaucracy. It does seem to align with Carney’s analysis. It’s also interesting the Baker focused on the English speaking Dominions, not India. South Africa is discussed as the outlier because they failed to build a foreign policy bureaucracy.