Jingoism entwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influence policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 The European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently criticizes American foreign policy, while advocating for a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate evidence for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler …show more content…
Core values usually fuse self-interest with more fundamental goals like the defense of the state’s organizing ideology, such as liberal capitalism, the protection of political institutions, and the safeguarding to its physical base or territorial integrity.”14 Leffler continues with a detour about power, specifically how power derives from economic capability and the wielding of power for the protection of core values.15 Then, approaching the conclusion, Leffler restates the thesis, “National security is about the protection of core values, that is, the identification of threats, and the adoption of policies to protect core values.”16 The article struggles to prove the thesis because core values are not specifically defined and Leffler’s position on national security policy is unclear. The closest opinion expressed by Leffler is the concluding sentence, “If threats are exaggerated and commitments overextended, if one’s credibility is vested in the achievement of too many goals, one’s relative power will erode and one’s core values may become imperiled. There is an ominous dynamic influencing the behavior powers of great powers. Whether or not the United States will succumb to it will depend on whether groups, bureaucracies, and individual policymakers can find a means of restoring a viable equilibrium among threats, core values, and the exercise of power.”17 This infers Leffler’s criticism of exerting national security policy on unmitigated threats, and the effect of core values on the policies; overall, the opinions remain