Wright on Progressive Realism

Robert Wright has an interesting op-ed in the New York Times on “Progressive Realism.” He attempts to argue for a new foreign policy that embraces both neo-con realism and liberal idealism. He calls it progressive realism. The gist of it is to redefine American self-interest broadly enough to morph national interest into concern for global human welfare. This approach also favors multilateral institutions. Wright sharply criticizes the Bush Administration for flunking realism’s self-interested concern about free riders. Here is a key excerpt:

[T]he president, in his aversion to multilateralism, flunks Realism 101. He has let America fall prey to what economists call the “free rider” problem. Even if we grant the mistaken premise that the Iraq war would make the whole world safer from terrorism, why should America pay so much blood and treasure? Why let the rest of civilization be a free rider?

The high cost of free riders matters all the more in light of how many problems beyond America’s borders threaten America’s interests. The slaughter in Darfur, though a humanitarian crisis, is also a security issue, given how hospitable collapsed states can be to terrorists. But if addressing the Darfur problem will indeed help thwart terrorism internationally, then the costs of the mission should be shared.

President Bush’s belated diplomatic involvement in Darfur suggests growing enlightenment, but sluggish ad hoc multilateralism isn’t enough. We need multilateral structures capable of decisively forceful intervention and nation building — ideally under the auspices of the United Nations, which has more global legitimacy than other candidates. America should lead in building these structures and thereafter contribute its share, but only its share. To some extent, the nurturing of international institutions and solid international law is simple thrift.

Wright hints at something that is quite interesting. Although he minces words, one of his key arguments is that other nations are free riding from our unilateralism. On issues such as defense spending, this is well known. But he suggests that Americans should be more concerned about free-rider nations in other contexts as well. The solution to this, he argues, is for the United States to embrace multilateralism.

Just a few thoughts on Wright’s progressive realism. First, how is this different from à la carte multilateralism? Leaders in the Bush Administration have long indicated that they will embrace multilateralism when it is in their interest to do so.

Second, the United States is not adverse to the use of multilateral institutions that have proven their mettle, as with the World Trade Organization. But Wright seems to think that we should be acting in our self-interest by being more multilateral in our approach to avoid free rider nations. That would assume that these multilateral institutions are up to their assigned tasks. Is this true? On matters of international security, for example, there is little doubt that a realist would say that the United Nations has yet to prove its capacity for success. How is it flunking realism 101 to refuse to cede control to ineffective multilateral institutions?

Another problem with his approach is that it assumes that nations agree on a result, but disagree on the agents to carry out the collective will. But often this may not be the case. Is there a free rider problem in Iraq? Far more likely Iraq represents a disagreement about the appropriate ends of foreign policy.

Finally, Wright’s argument for progressive realism may require less multilateralism, not more. If nations are free riding, then realism 101 may argue that the United States fails to seize enough opportunities to become a free rider. Does his theory suggest we should become free riders where possible? That is what our European allies accuse the United States of doing with global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. We enjoy the benefits of a treaty without the sacrifices.

I rather like Wright’s argument for a broader understanding of self-interest. It is hard to argue against his position that “the classic realist indifference to the interiors of nations is untenable.” But I doubt that he will convince the realists that this broader conception favors a move toward multilateralism to avoid the problems of free rider nations.