By: Stanley Renshon

Along with the excited good wishes of his supporters, advice will be the most plentiful commodity the new president receives. And in no area will suggestions be more plentiful than in foreign policy.

Few people understand economics, and therefore few people feel confident offering policy prescriptions for our economic troubles. However, no such inhibitions impede opinion when it comes to what we should do abroad.

The public has decided that it wants “change,” and the international community concurs. The latter wants the America it used to love: the one that listened to it, or at least seemed to; the one that used force only as a last resort and only when it had assembled a grand coalition to resist naked aggression; the one that asked for and received explicit U.N. approval for its actions; and the one that allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

Even those who don’t hate him have been emotionally exhausted by Bush’s presidency. It is not only Sept. 11, the war in Iraq, the harsh characterizations that began the moment he took office as a result of the Supreme Count’s split decision, but also the dramatic decline of America’s reputation abroad. This has been very hard on the American public. Even the earliest visitors to this republic like Alexis de Tocqueville commented on how much Americans want to be liked.

The impulse here, one enthusiastically seconded abroad, is to banish the Bush Doctrine to the dustbin of history so that America — and the world — can start fresh. The aftermath of the election is therefore likely to usher in an updated international version of the Era of Good Feeling. Yet, paradoxically, it will also be the beginning of a period of acute American national security vulnerability.

Why? Because while the world may be “flat” in some respects, it is still hierarchical when it comes to power and international troublemaking. The Saddam Husseins of the world are still very much with us — in Latin America, the Middle East, Russia, East Asia and Europe. Al Qaeda and its acolytes still long for a more destructive post-Sept. 11 encore. Meanwhile, our major European allies hope they will be able to help tame American national power while they try to reorient it toward international accommodation.

Our recent gains in Iraq gains are still fragile and reversible, Afghanistan and Pakistan teeter and will require our focus and military for years to come. We must somehow square the circle of reassurance and containment regarding a newly resurgent Russia. Iranian nuclear weapons are a foregone conclusion, barring an agreement that shows no signs of materializing. What then for the U.S. and our allies in the Middle East? North Korea, Syria, failed states such as Somalia, and minor but troublesome dictators such as Hugo Chavez and his imitators must still be dealt with.

All of these will require our attention and comfort with sometimes doing what’s necessary. But these requirements are in short supply at the end of the Bush presidency.

The brutal and bungled aftermath of Saddam’s removal has soured Americans on the use of force and reinforced a long historical desire to wash our hands of the world.

This peculiarly American tropism, evident since George Washington’s Farewell Address, has surged with the recent economic crises. First things first, and for many Americans the first thing is their jobs and 401(k) portfolios. This is understandable, but it is the job of presidents to think ahead.

Bush burnout, economic crisis, outcast anxiety and the siren call of inclusion will test the next president’s ability to know when to bend to these currents and when to be strong enough to stand against them.

This assumes, of course, that the new president is able to see the essential nature of the challenges he may confront and has the personal and political courage to act on what he sees.

But even if the new president realizes when America must act forcefully, he will still need to convince Americans and the rest of the world that some situations are urgent, cannot necessarily be resolved by accommodation or by unanimous committee consent, and must involve the threat or actual use of force.

Good luck with that.

Stanley Renshon is a professor of political science at the City University of New York and a certified psychoanalyst.

Copyright © 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC | Distributed by Noofangle Media