Rating: 
Summary: An Historical Account
Review: Mead's book provides an outstanding historical perspective of U.S. foreign policy but lacks rigourous analysis. Mead divides U.S. foreign policy into four schools. Despite his disclaimers, he simply renames realism, idealism, libertarianism, and populism as Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian, respectively. His contention is that all four schools represent unique U.S. foreign policy strategies; however, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian schools simply are not convincing as strategies but as schools of thought that temper realism and idealism. Get this book for the historical account.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating. What does it say about the post-9/11 world?
Review: Mead's Special Providence is at its best in describing the four historical schools of American foreign policy. His framework is apt at explaining the motivations and actions of the major political figures and movements and applies in many cases to domestic policy debates as well. It also rings true with my gut feeling that binary classifications - isolationist/internationalist, hawk/dove, right/left, Democrat/Republican - do not really have a lot of explanatory or predictive power, at least since the end of the Cold War.His conclusions are also thought provoking though not terribly well developed or convincing. Is the American foreign policy elite really much more out of touch with the American "folk" than it was fifty years ago? Have "Jeffersonian" - constitutionalist, small government - voices really been marginalized since the collapse of the Soviet Union? Does the US democratic system still provide a key advantage over Europe in formulating and executing successful policy? These are all really important questions, but I wish Mead had either left them as such or spent more time arguing his conclusions. The last two chapters are the only weak part of the book. And, although he can't be faulted for it, I found myself wishing that the book were published later in the George W. Bush administration and, particularly, after September 11. He makes the conventional point that there are different voices in the Bush administration. But, is Bush himself a Hamiltonian (commercialist) in Jacksonian (populist) clothing or the opposite? Also, is our reaction to September 11 the key event that points the way forward for America's post-Cold War role in the world or simply a manifestation of the Jacksonian impulse to fight a total war once provoked? Despite the weaknesses I noted, the fact that Mead has me thinking about these issues and caring what he would have to say about them shows what a really good bock Special Providence is. I highly recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Chang
Review: Mead's study of American foreign policy is a very understandable look at what can be a complex subject. His analysis shows how U.S. foreign policy is developed, or in some cases stumbled into, and also compares our system with the more traditional European approaches. Along the way Mead debunks the myth that America had no effective foreign policy before the cold war, and then explains why this myth persists. Special Providence breaks down our foreign policy into four groups: the Hamiltonians who base actions on economic interests; the Wilsonians and their goals of exporting American morality and ideology; the Jeffersonians emphasizing individual liberties and isolationism; and the very patriotic Jacksonians with their suspicions of federal power. Mead illustrates how these four schools of thought are dominant at different times, depending on issues and circumstances, and how the necessity of forming coalitions with others often leads to compromises, thus diluting the original objectives. Special Providence allows us to understand why the U.S. seems to be "ineffective and divided in the absence of danger, united in the face of it." It is an excellent book for students of American government as well as for others who simply want to know how the process works.
Rating:
Summary: Many new and interesting insights on U.S. foreign policy
Review: Most discussions of the history of U.S. foreign policy revolve around vague labels like 'idealism' and 'realism,' or 'isolationism' vs. 'internationalism.' Walter Russel Mead shows us a new way of looking at the history of the U.S. in the world. Mead contends, convincingly to me, that there are four traditional schools of U.S. foreign policy, which he names for their best known practitioners. These are the 'Hamiltonian,' which aims to make the country prosperous and powerful; the 'Wilsonian,' which believes our duty and interest lie in spreading our values overseas; the 'Jeffersonian,' which aims to keep USAmerica free, limit the govt., and avoid war at almost any cost; and the 'Jacksonian,' which is a bunch of barbarians whose motto is "Don't tread on me!" As a thoroughgoing Jacksonian myself, I was surprised at the insight and sympathy the Jeffersonian Mead uses in describing all four schools. More importantly, he has a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the four approaches, of how they complement and contradict one another, the way they sometimes ally with and sometimes oppose each other, and how USAmerican foreign policy has usually been a blend of ideas from different schools. The book it has its flaws (e.g., Mead doesn't realize the continuing presence of the Marxist school in shaping the debate; he also fails to see that most of the debate about missile defense is not about technical feasibility, but whether the making it harder to nuke the U.S. is a good or bad idea), and it was published just before the Sept. 11th atrocities changed everything. Still, I think this work will change the way USAmerica thinks about foreign affairs. And it should. Highly Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Many new and interesting insights on U.S. foreign policy
Review: Most discussions of the history of U.S. foreign policy revolve around vague labels like 'idealism' and 'realism,' or 'isolationism' vs. 'internationalism.' Walter Russel Mead shows us a new way of looking at the history of the U.S. in the world. Mead contends, convincingly to me, that there are four traditional schools of U.S. foreign policy, which he names for their best known practitioners. These are the 'Hamiltonian,' which aims to make the country prosperous and powerful; the 'Wilsonian,' which believes our duty and interest lie in spreading our values overseas; the 'Jeffersonian,' which aims to keep USAmerica free, limit the govt., and avoid war at almost any cost; and the 'Jacksonian,' which is a bunch of barbarians whose motto is "Don't tread on me!" As a thoroughgoing Jacksonian myself, I was surprised at the insight and sympathy the Jeffersonian Mead uses in describing all four schools. More importantly, he has a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the four approaches, of how they complement and contradict one another, the way they sometimes ally with and sometimes oppose each other, and how USAmerican foreign policy has usually been a blend of ideas from different schools. The book it has its flaws (e.g., Mead doesn't realize the continuing presence of the Marxist school in shaping the debate; he also fails to see that most of the debate about missile defense is not about technical feasibility, but whether the making it harder to nuke the U.S. is a good or bad idea), and it was published just before the Sept. 11th atrocities changed everything. Still, I think this work will change the way USAmerica thinks about foreign affairs. And it should. Highly Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read primer on foreign policy
Review: Special Providence is a must-read, excellent primer on foreign policy. I can't really add much to the fine reviews already written, but to say this book should be appreciated by both the "Right" and the "Left". Mead's text provides well-balanced descriptions and historical applications of what he views as four forms of foreign policy- Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian. The writing is devoid of arcane jargon and each strategy is evenly critiqued. Unlike a lot of the popular poli-sci/current events one finds on the shelves (for example, from the Right- Hannity, Rush, Coulter; and the Left- Moore, Chomsky, Ivins), which try to tell you "what" to think, Special Providence will teach you "how" to think and analyze what is being reported the media today. While I personally subscribe to one of Mead's strategies, I now better appreciate the complexity of foreign policy and the difficult issues facing our leaders.
Rating:
Summary: Thoroughly non-partisan; much predictive power
Review: The four "schools" Mead presents have compelling narratives that resonate in all of us yet are somewhat in conflict with each other: are we free traders? do we agitate for a better world? should we keep ourselves to ourselves? if we fight do we utterly destroy our enemies?
Mead has helped me understand the "other side", and be much more sympathetic to these points of view. Whenever I ponder US foreign policy questions, I now begin by asking myself how Mead's schools align on the question. Further, I find Mead's schools are quite relevant and interesting when applied to domestic issues.
Rating:
Summary: Special Providence
Review: The USA is often portrayed as not having a comprehensive foreign policy. Detractors from every quarter denounce the lack of cohesiveness when compared to other country's foreign policies. The author's main points are;
1) That in spite of this stumbling and bumbling, historically the USA has had one of the most successful foreign policies of any country, especially when the country was developing in a world of powerful meddling European states. The success of the US foreign policy may have been successful just because as the Author alludes to a analogy of many countries having a foreign policy like a ship, it sails in one direction, with speed, but if it hits a rock it sinks, The US foreign policy is likened to a raft, everybody gets their feet wet, but a raft doesn't sink when it hits an obstruction.
2) The book examines the history of the four main viewpoints of American foreign policy that are still active today. The author incorporates numerous examples of why certain actions were taken throughout the history of America. The final foreign policy action is actually a resultant of the clash of beliefs within various segments of the USA.
This book is highly recommended as an overview of the history and present state of American foreign policy. The book is well written and unbiased. If the reader wants a better understanding of the foreign policy of the USA, this book is the answer. It dissects and explains the various forces in American policy making.
Rating:
Summary: excellent analysis of the history of American policy making
Review: The USA is often portrayed as not having a comprehensive foreign policy. Detractors from every quarter denounce the lack of cohesiveness when compared to other country's foreign policies. The author's main points are;
1) That in spite of this stumbling and bumbling, historically the USA has had one of the most successful foreign policies of any country, especially when the country was developing in a world of powerful meddling European states. The success of the US foreign policy may have been successful just because as the Author alludes to a analogy of many countries having a foreign policy like a ship, it sails in one direction, with speed, but if it hits a rock it sinks, The US foreign policy is likened to a raft, everybody gets their feet wet, but a raft doesn't sink when it hits an obstruction.
2) The book examines the history of the four main viewpoints of American foreign policy that are still active today. The author incorporates numerous examples of why certain actions were taken throughout the history of America. The final foreign policy action is actually a resultant of the clash of beliefs within various segments of the USA.
This book is highly recommended as an overview of the history and present state of American foreign policy. The book is well written and unbiased. If the reader wants a better understanding of the foreign policy of the USA, this book is the answer. It dissects and explains the various forces in American policy making.
Rating:
Summary: great book
Review: This is a wonderful book for anyone interested in America's foreign policy who is willing to accept that there is not one right answer for a very difficult problem. I learned alot.
| 
