Foreign Affairs at 70

William G. Hyland

From Foreign Affairs, Fall 1992

William G. Hyland leaves the editorship of Foreign Affairs with this issue.

As Foreign Affairs celebrates its seventieth anniversary we see some parallels between the 1920s, when the journal was founded, and the 1990s. The United States had participated in a great victory in 1918. Then the nation was challenged to redefine itself, both at home and abroad. Two horrendous choices were made: at home, the progressivism of Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and the elder LaFollette was rejected in the name of a new prosperity promised by Harding and Coolidge; abroad, the internationalism of Wilson was rejected in favor of a new isolationism.

The first mistake led inexorably to the Great Depression and, with it, untold misery. The second mistake led to World War II and the deaths of millions.

With the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, America is in the process of once again redefining itself. We are fortunate that in 1992 there are no Hardings, and that the outcome in this year?s presidential primaries routed any revival of isolationism. Yet, as in the 1920s, the desire to shift priorities from foreign to domestic affairs is also manifest. Finding a workable balance is one of the underlying issues of this presidential campaign.

Important differences distinguish these two periods: in the 1920s there was a superficial optimism; in 1992 there is a pessimism that seems to be more than a passing phase. In the 1920s the country was becoming more urban, more sophisticated, better fed, better educated and seemingly more prosperous. Now for the first time in American history it is an open question whether the next generation of Americans will in fact be better off than their parents.

Seventy years ago it seemed that the good times would never end. The editor of Foreign Affairs wrote in 1923: "The position of America among the nations was imposing. In power and wealth she stood first." Today we debate whether America is in "decline."

In 1924, when Calvin Coolidge carried 35 states to win the presidential election, it seemed that peace and prosperity were permanent conditions. Foreign policy was not even an issue. Just four years later the United States, along with other nations, agreed simply to outlaw war?the Kellogg?Briand pact, which Senator Carter Glass, Democrat of Virginia, called "worthless, but perfectly harmless."

In its determination to turn inward and exorcise the ghosts of the Great War, the United States virtually abandoned any pretense of a serious foreign policy. It cannot afford to do so again.

To be sure, the dangers of the 1990s do not even approximate the threats of the 1930s, or for that matter the more recent risks of the early 1980s. The challenges for American foreign policy may seem rather prosaic, albeit elusive and subtle. They range from places as familiar as Sarajevo, to subjects as novel as global warming. As the pages of this journal have indicated for the past several issues, defining what constitutes a "new world order" will not be as easy as it seemed after the victory in Desert Storm. Surely a crucial step continues to be a critical examination of the issues as the basis for genuine debate. That is where a journal such as this one can still play the role for which it was created.

As the eighth decade of Foreign Affairs begins, there will be another presidential election. It will be the first election since the end of the Cold War. It should be a moment for sober reflection about the nation?s new course, but also a time for some self?congratulation, by the candidates, by the parties, but above all by the American people. The dark age of the world that began on a Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, is finally over.