Here all 6 logics are compared. It comes from Patrick Callahan's semincal book, "Logics of American Foreign Policy, Theories of America’s World Role"

1. Comparing the Logics of the US
Foreign Policy
based on Patick Kallahan’s book, titled: Logics of American Foreign Policy,
Theories of America’s World Role
Presented by: @issa_adeli

2. Different Ways to Study US Foreign Policy
• Historical approach
• Sociological approach
• Decision Making Procedures
• Theoretical approach

3. Items for Studying Logics of Foreign Policy
• National interests
• National Power
• Moral Obligations
• History

4. What is “logic”?
• A worldview consisting of:
• Basic purposes or strategies, or world role
• National interests
• Nature and amount of power
• Substance and importance of ethical obligations
• Logics, like all belief systems, tend toward internal consistency.
But its coherence is not hierarchical
• Competition among foreign policy logics wanes if the US operates
under a foreign policy consensus.

5. Why we study logics of foreign policy
• Identify and evaluate the assumptions of specific foreign policy
• Place FP in a context of historical development
• Raw material for thinking through one’s own views on FP

6. Foreign Policy Strategy
• Level of engagement
• Priorities
• Geographic scope
• Unilateralism, Multilateralism, or Leadership
• Militarization
• Interventionist or Non-interventionist
• Globalization

7. National Interest
• Conflict or cooperation?
• Conditions that mitigate or amplify the threat of war?
• International events: tightly linked or decomposable?
• Who are the key actors?
• Value of prosperity and its relation to global prosperity?

8. Power
• What is power? Resource or influence?
• To what extent is power dependent on military might?
• What factors other than material resources?
• How much does the US needs? How much does it have?
• How does America’s international role enhance or degrade its
power?

9. Morality
• What roles morality play?
• What are the US obligations?

10. Six Logics Of American Foreign Policy
• Realist tradition
• Hegemonism = leadership role
• Realism = maintain balance of power
• Isolationism = secure from traditional military threats
• Idealist tradition
• Liberalism = promoting liberty
• Liberal Internationalism = power + interdependence + national interest
(they differ in their assumption about power, range of international interdependence, and
American national interest)
• Radical Anti-imperialism = liberate from capitalism to protect world more than
the US

11. Method
• Each chapter has 5 parts: strategy – interest – power – morality –
history
• No one individual or group completely adhere to any single logic
• Voice started from a strongest adherent to an objective observer.

12. Themes of Different Logics
• Hegemonism = leadership to stabilize
• Realism = preserve balance of power
• Isolationism = avoid entangling abroad
• Liberalism = expansion of free market, democracy, and human
rights
• Liberal internationalism = collaborate to solve common global
problems
• Radical Anti-Imperialism = cease exploitative empire

13. 8 Dimensions
• Five dimensions cut across the logics’ foreign policy strategies:
• Unilateralism versus Multilateralism
• Accept or oppose the use of military force
• Favor or oppose intervening into the domestic affairs of other countries
• The degree of leadership
• Favor or oppose promoting corporate globalization
• Three causal variables that dictate foreign policy strategy:
• The degree they perceive the US as being powerful
• The degree the US have interests affected by international affairs
• The degree the US have moral obligation

14. Unilateralism-Multilateralism
• Unilateralism
• Isolationism – sometimes false multilateralism, when the US is so powerful that it could
dictate the coalition’s strategy (unilateralism disguised as multilateralism)
• Hegemonism – 2 consideration draw it from multilateralism: temptation to act alone
when its power allows it or when action is urgent, leadership could easily turn into false
multilateralism
• Realism – it has a bias toward multilateralism because of its diagnoses of the limitations
of US influence
• Liberal internationalism – collective efforts are necessary because of the limits on US
power and the nature of new issues, and it is intrinsically worthwhile
• Radical anti-imperialism
• Multilateralism
• Liberalism is compatible with any position on the spectrum. It depends on its perspective on the power of the US
and its capacity to promote freedom alone.

15. Militarism
• Militarism
• Realism – it is inevitable consequences of the nature of world politics,
• Hegemonism – military might is a critical resource
• Liberalism – it contains no argument either opposing or favoring the use of
military power.
• Isolationism – like realism, it recognizes the importance of military might, but
only for national defense.
• Liberal internationalism – unlike radical anti-imperialism, it is not opposed to
the use of military power in principle. It is pragmatic and support it in right
circumstances.
• Radical anti-imperialism
• Antimilitarism

16. Interventionism
• Interventionism
• Liberalism – its total purpose is to transform the internal structure of other
countries.
• Hegemonism – exporting American domestic structure and values, necessary for
hegemons extensive purposes
• Realism – intervention is irrelevant and alienate countries whose membership in
a power-balancing coalition might be needed.
• Isolationism – intervention is unnecessary and also harmful
• Liberal internationalism – intervention alienates states whose cooperation is
necessary for addressing new problems.
• Radical Anti-Imperialism – intervention is unjust
• Noninterventionism

17. Leadership Role
• Strong
• Hegemonism – the essence of the logic of Hegemonism is to provide leadership
• Liberal internationalism – the US is well placed to lead, but claiming a leadership role
would tend to alienate other participants in the system.
• Liberalism – it contains no argument either opposing or favoring leadership role. Both
Hegemonism and liberalism insist that the US take a leadership role in the spreading of
freedom.
• Realism – the US may have to play a leadership role to organize a coalition to
counterbalance a rising hegemon. But claiming a general leadership role will provoke
counterhegemonic balancing and is self-defeating.
• Isolationism – leadership role is a sustain, general commitment to international activism.
Leadership is exactly what the empire opposes.
• Radical Anti-Imperialism – leadership role is a sustained commitment to the preservation
and extension of empire. Leadership is exactly what the empire opposes.
• Weak

18. Capitalist Globalization
• Support
• Hegemonism – they support free trade.
• Liberalism – they support free trade.
• Isolationism – right in the middle: political isolationism opposes regulations that would impede
globalization. Protectionist isolationism opposes corporate globalization (indeed, all forms of
globalization) because of competition with foreign producers and workers and the harms to the
independence of the US political system.
• Liberal internationalism – more oppositional: market brings benefits, but also has problems
such as social disruption, inequality, and pollution. It supports strong regulations to mitigate
these harmful effects.
• Realism – maintain a global balance of power, but sanctions and protections are permissible.
• Radical Anti-Imperialism – capitalism is exploitative.
• Oppose
The framing of the issue is oversimplified and misleading. Globalization is
multidimensional the logic vary according to which dimension is under consideration.

19. The amount of US power
• Extensive
• Hegemonism – superior power of the US is a foundational premise of the
Hegemonism and it is good.
• Radical Anti-Imperialism – without great power there would be no empire and it
is bad.
• Realism – US is less than a superpower, but powerful enough to be decisive for
maintaining the balance of power. imperial overstretch is a trap. It needs to
focus on the global distribution of power and to leave alone all the other
problems.
• Liberal internationalism – US is less than a superpower and cannot be dominant.
it is the mirror image of realism. Military strength has limited value.
• Isolationism – US is powerful only to take care of itself.
• Limited
Liberalism does not address the question of US power.

20. National Interest in Global Affairs
• Most
• Hegemonism – US interests require that it should regulate the system
• Liberal internationalism – US interests require that it creates international institutions
• Liberalism – US interests require that it should promote freedom.
• Realism – it circumscribes national interests by subject area: only military arena and its
supporting economic arena. It restricts national interests geographically to areas that
controls resources that underwrite national power. it includes principle of avoiding
overcommitment.
• Isolationism – it prescribe to disconnect as much as possible from the affairs of the world.
• Least
• This dimension excludes radical anti-imperialism because it rejects the concept
of national interests in principle.

21. Moral Obligations Abroad
• High
• Radical Anti-Imperialism – the only logic whose moral principles are purely
altruistic
• Hegemonism – Altruism intertwines with self-interest.
• Liberal internationalism – Altruism intertwines with self-interest.
• Liberalism – Altruism intertwines with self-interest.
• Realism – Promotion of national interests is the only moral obligation.
• Isolationism – Promotion of national interests is the only moral obligation.
• Low

22. Follow me on twitter @issa_adeli