IR program rankings are out in Foreign Policy. Discuss.

Steve Walt has a provocative column in the same issue that I’m sure he didn’t title that suggests “America’s IR Schools Are Broken.” The argument isn’t strictly the familiar one from him about methods but that scholars seeking influence in policy circles have rallied around conformist consensus positions:

But perhaps the biggest limitation in today’s schools of international affairs — at least here in the United States — is their tendency to reinforce the stale bipartisan consensus behind “liberal hegemony” and the necessity for “U.S. leadership…”

Instead of doing what academic institutions are ideally suited for — that is, taking an independent, critical look at contemporary issues and trying to figure out what is working, what is failing, and how we could do better — the desire to be closely tied to the policy world inevitably tempts most schools of international affairs to gravitate toward a familiar mainstream consensus.

I have a series of tweets that I’ve embedded below that are in the same vein of Frank Gavin and Jim Steinberg’s podcast with War on the Rocks in defense of the Blob (Gavin is also in this issue of Foreign Policy with a piece that bemoans past ways of teaching international relations but with more optimism about the future).

In my thread below, I make the argument that conformity in US foreign policy is hardly the fault of IR programs where there is considerable disquiet about US foreign policy adventurism of late but also a recognition that the liberal order is worth defending.

Agree on the title, but I’m not sure how much excessive Blob-ism and conformity there really is in IR schools. Maybe I know too many realists & progressives who worry about excessive elevation of counter-terrorism and are concerned about great power rivalry. 1/ https://t.co/ba1p9hhFZJ

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

As Ikenberry student, I’m probably as acculturated as anyone to the bipartisan foreign policy consensus (I write about it a lot), but I think many of us recognize the virtues of the liberal order but also deeply ambivalent where the US and its leaders made bad choices. 3/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

I just don’t see the excessive timidity by the policy community to reassess goals in the Middle East and Afghanistan as a function of IR school conformity. Obama wanted to pivot to Asia and extricate the US from Iraq/Afghanistan but those moves had strategic consequences. 5/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

People trained to believe in and support the liberal order like my Georgetown colleague @thomaswright08 have been worried for years about return of great power politics. And they were right. 7/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

The US at moments of perceived high threat has deviated from defense of democratic norms, practices to support authoritarians, anti-communists, but are those compromises a hallmark of a fundamentally coercive hegemon? 9/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

Certainly, Libya and Iraq show that regime change from above is least likely to achieve such outcomes in countries that have not been thoroughly defeated in war and where institutions are weak. 11/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

But that doesn’t make the project of supporting the extension of liberal democracy a bad one. It means a more sober effort to defend liberal core in Europe from disintegration and support for liberal norms and practices where they can flourish. 13/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

But, we also have seen robust support for democratic institutions in South Korea whose people rejected corruption. The US foreign policy community needs to nurture and support liberal norms and practices in large economies. Elections yes but more than that, tolerance. 15/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018

For me, the project going forward has to be about encouraging support for liberal norms, respect for differences, compromise, peaceful resolution of disputes, and a balance between freedom of commerce and domestic stability. 16/

— Josh Busby (@busbyj2) February 21, 2018