Michael Desch argues for the desirability and political viability of a grand strategy of restraint (May 2015)

On domestic politics, I think he may overestimate the ability of the Republican base to intellectually grasp, let alone politically embrace, a grand strategy of restraint. Likewise, I think he overestimates the ability of the Democratic base to understand and advocate a Trumanite foreign policy. He is essentially counterposing Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton. I think that Rand Paul's foreign policy views may be reflective of the libertarian movement within (and outside of) the GOP, and that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views are reflective of the Democratic political establishment. This does not necessarily account for the strength of the neoconservative Republican establishment, still very much holding sway, nor does it account for the quite hawkish if not intellectually refined views of the Republican base and many independents and Democrats as well. It pays off politically to be "tough on communism terrorism" and can be political suicide to earn a reputation of weakness. Barack Obama has ruined his foreign policy approval ratings over the last few years by pursuing a foreign policy of relative restraint. Many Americans, and especially Republicans, now favor reintroducing US ground troops into Iraq. My final point would be the overlap between the anti-war left within the Democratic Party and outside of it and a grand strategy of restraint. This is not a highly intellectual strain, and is antithetical to the Democratic establishment's foreign policy thinking since the Roosevelt and Truman administrations which emphasizes collective security. Yet, it has been prevalent in the Democratic Party at the grassroots level since the Vietnam era, and it is pretty universal among whatever remains of the radical left, who can be convinced to vote Democratic given the right candidate (Bernie Sanders for example).

/r/IRstudies Thread Link - youtu.be