I spent part of the afternoon filling out a survey which included a number of interesting questions. Among them two made me really ponder the question for a moment, and I'd be interested to hear what ya'll would say about them (these aren't the precise questions, but this is the gist of 'em). First, since 1901 which 3 presidents have done the best job at foreign policy? Second, which 5 universities would you say would best train a graduate student for an academic career in IR?
As to the first question, well, FDR is the obvious #1 to me, given that his work designed so much of the (very successful from the US perspective) world that we live in today. I picked Eisenhower second, and for my 3rd pick I went with Theodore Roosevelt - though it was kind of a toss-up between him and Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.
As to my answers on the second question I picked Columbia, UCSD (or the UCSD of a few years ago at least - I'm not up on its ins and outs just lately), Ohio State, the University of Washington , and ... I forget my 5th school. Minnesota maybe?
Anyway, to some degree those were top-of-the-head responses. But I thought they were interesting questions. So what do you think?
Posted by armand at October 9, 2006 04:24 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Quiz-o-ramaFor Prez, you do have to give the nod to FDR as #1. If for no other reason, than for longevity. He was right about the Nazi's, less so about the Japanese, but still more-or-less right (although, I'd like to see some sort of analysis of what he did in the 1930s before really annointing him).
For #2 and #3, I'm not sure. Teddy did some fairly imperialist things that worked out well for us years later, but at the time, I'm not sure you could call him great. Truman did the Marshall Plan, NSC-68, and Containment; all policies that served us well for decades (you could almost argue putting him above FDR on those alone). Eisenhower for talking to the Soviets I suppose, but I'm dinging him for Vietnam, "massive retaliation," and the Powers/U2 thing. No to Johnson (Vietnam), Carter (tried, but didn't really work), Reagan (he didn't originate anything original, just kept up the plan), or Clinton (he managed the post-cold war era alright, but not brilliantly). And I'm ignoring everyone between Teddy and FDR because (a) Wilson wasn't that good, and (b) I can't remember any of the rest (which means they likely didn't do anything important).
That leaves Nixon (out of Vietnam, China) and George "HW" Bush (Gulf War I, managed actual collapse of Communism without any fighting). A tossup for me.
As for grad schools, you need to explain the criteria better. Trains them for jobs? Trains them to know the literature? For jobs, it's Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford and Duke (the South likes their local boys). For actual knowledge? Harder. Dartmouth? Rochester is supposed to have a kick-ass formal theory program. Michigan is still the home for quantitative conflict studies (though Penn State is moving up). Not sure.
Posted by: baltar at October 10, 2006 11:29 PM | PERMALINKThe question was just which programs were the best ones if your goal was to be a successful IR professor. Or something like that. Which are the 5 best if ... I mean it was about your ability to succeed as an IR academic.
As to thoughts on your list - they had a separate category for best place to get a bachelors in IR - and that's where I put Dartmouth. Rochester will get you a job, and a good one, but how plugged in are those folks with the discipline? In terms of academically-oriented IR training, I tend to think that Harvard and Yale's reputations exceed their actual quality (now in American politics or theory or law ...), though sure, having a degree from there will get you hired.
And Nixon and H W Bush are entirely reasonable choices (though I dinged Bush heavily in my rating for ending the Gulf/Kuwait war about 48 hours too early - if he'd kept going a little bit longer I think we might all have ended up vastly better off in 2006). And I don't necessarily approve of what TR did - but I think a lot of it worked out very well for US interests later, hence my rating of him.
As to your thoughts on Ike and Truman - I have no problem with Ike on Vietnam or massive retaliation, and I don't think the Powers thing is a big deal in the grand scope of things so I don't ding him on any of that. I think he managed things extraordinarily well with Western Europe, the USSR and East Asia, hence my rating. Some of his Middle East policies (Lebanon, especially Iran) are more problematic - but personally I don't think that's nearly as bad as the good he did elsewhere.
And I am one of the Truman is overrated crowd. NSC 68 was twisted Kennanism and responsoble for lots and lots of bad policies (as well as good), and his running of the Korean war was ... is disasterous too strong a term?
And as to Clinton - everything you've listed as specifically affecting your choices looks like a security matter. I think if you throw in normative and economic matters (as well as what he did on security) Clinton ranks above most of the 20th century's presidents. And I say that as someone who was far from a Clinton fan when he was president.
Posted by: Armand at October 11, 2006 08:43 AM | PERMALINKI think it really helps to be from a school that can offer you a "mafia." I say this as part of the "Pitt mafia" of Latin Americanists... a network can be really key to success.
Posted by: binky at October 11, 2006 09:49 AM | PERMALINKWell yeah I'd agree - but a lot of the bigger schools offer that possibility.
I guess what I was thinking of when I was making my list was who's got faculty that's doing influential work now - and who's research programs might still be flying along in important ways 10 years from now. That's part of why I was thinking about schools like Ohio State and Minnesota that might not be the obvious choices to those outside the discipline, and a reason why I think Columbia's more interesting than the other Ivies at the moment (well, more so than Harvard and Yale).
Posted by: Armand at October 11, 2006 10:10 AM | PERMALINK