Join the new world

It has been a while since I published my war writing guide and retired as a war reporter, but this does not mean I’ve detached myself from reviewing foreign affairs and military strategy entirely-- far from it.
A special topic I wanted to explore today concerns eUS foreign policy and the various schools of thought which seem to influence it. Topics similar to this constitute a large part of my real life (RL) work and academic background, so I figured why not apply some logical arguments to eRepublik behavior. For international readers as well as domestic, I hope these findings-- while far from authoritative-- may spur some thought-provoking discussions. I will bring other looks into military and policy matters in the weeks ahead, as well. Anywho, here goes.

While this is a lulzy characterization, it brings up an important point for foreign readers to understan😛 USA foreign policy is often best explained by looking at its domestic politics and self-perception, which can obscure how the US sees the outside world

Laying the Groundwork
A common division which many foreign policy theorists make in RL to explain US foreign policy is that of “Exceptionalism” versus “Vindicationalism.” In both cases, the US considers itself to be exceptional and different for one reason or another (being the first country to revolt and establish a long-lasting democracy, being a power in the “New World” which resisted Old World Europe, etc.); the difference between the two is that exceptionalists will generally view the rest of the world with suspicion and approach foreign policy timidly, hoping to instead change the world by its example, while vindicationalists will try to impose an American way of life on foreign nations. I personally do not see a prominence in eUS political traditions to justify using these terms exclusively, but keeping this in mind will help to explain eUS attitudes abroad in some instances.

The Six Subdivisions of eUSA Foreign Policy
Combining eUS motives and historical behavior, I suggest a division of eUS foreign policy approaches into one of six ‘schools’ or ‘traditions,’ which I will talk about below: Isolationism, Moralism, Loyalism, Realism (with two variants), and Primacism. These traditions vary in their exceptionalist and vindicationalist rhetoric, as well as their prevalence and effectiveness. It is often difficult to firmly categorize one person or one administration’s policy, but I will try to provide examples of each as we go along.

Isolationism
Isolationism in eRepublik means just that: a country willingly isolates itself from world conflict to the maximum extent possible. Alliances are viewed with skepticism as the isolationist fears becoming a lackey for larger countries, while the isolationist will often consider domestic issues and improving the eUSA at home are far more important preoccupations. Gaming mechanics often prevents this from ever influencing an eUSA presidency, but it does hold some weight among lower-level politicians and newer citizens. These citizens staunchly oppose wars of conquest and supporting allies, and for that reason, generally would prefer to see training wars as their source of military involvement. This tradition has largely died in the eUSA, although smaller nations may attempt isolationism to remain neutral and reduce the chance of invasion.

Moralism
The school of moralism in foreign policy offers flexibility to policymaking, as the action becomes subordinate to a systemic process of acting based on a set of values on right and wrong. Foreign policy must embody eAmerican values, or else the eUSA will change in a terrible way, as a moralist’s argument may go. Moralists may opt to join alliances, but will seldom support any ally bent on conquering a nation for resources or outright imperialism; relatedly, eUS moralists abhor the idea of the eUSA pursuing its own expansion and material conquest. The moralist would also object to any form of political takeover (PTO) of a foreign government, and consider this to be an entirely unacceptable exercise in foreign policy. However, moralists will support allies who are in danger, and call on the eUSA to use its military to defend allies under invasion. The first example of a moralist that comes to mind is the legendary Astra Kat G, who loathed exercises of eUS power in eMexico but supported the eUSA going to war “only to liberate oppressed countries,” When the latter appeared to fall in importance to the former, she departed the game, and with her went the most vocal advocate of moralism. Moralism as a tradition is not dead, but its voice is often drowned out by other traditions.

Loyalism
Loyalism builds on the foundations of moralism by assuming that the actions of a select group of friends are moral if they maximize the power of the alliance, either for an individual or the whole; in doing so, power politics begin to take on a greater role. Abandoning the alliance or refusing to help an ally, either in conquest or defense, is unthinkable. Loyalists assume that their friends are their friends and will remain that way, and they remain equally critical of the opposing alliance and members who constitute it. In this vein, the interests of the alliance become the paramount goal, and advancing the alliance and its individual members at the expense of their enemies must be achieved at all costs. PTOs either to save an ally or to target an adversary become acceptable, unlike in the moralist’s view, because they secure the alliance’s standing. Gaius Julius best represents this tradition, through his unwavering support of EDEN and his relentless efforts to advance the alliance. Loyalism is still present in the eUSA, as debates over PanAm inevitably boil over into questions concerning the country’s future relationships with EDEN friends who may not join the new alliance, as well as the risk or benefits of allying with former enemies such as eBrazil. Briefly looking away from the eUSA, eCroatia fits the bill as a country who takes a a very loyalist approach.

The transition from acting by values, to acting for power and advancement, begins with Realism

Realism
Realists tend to view the game through the lens of game mechanics, and see foreign policy as a process which must be managed by elites. Ideals decline in importance here, as any spirit of eUS exceptionalism is subordinate to the eUSA’s power and prestige-- in many ways, the eUS becomes exceptional because of its power. Alliances are seen as necessary, but realists will be reluctant to ally with everyone because of cost effectiveness and the risk of being abandoned or entrapped in undesirable conflict. However, as I mentioned in the beginning, there are two splits in eUS realism: those who advocate aggressive offensives to maximize power and achieve hegemony, and those who argue for coalitions and fighting abroad as a defensive maneuver to protect the homeland.

Offensive Realists in eRepublik are those who advocate intense expansion and wars of conquest for self-interest and, if for no other reason, the assumption that the eUSA has the power to do so; “might makes right,” or the Athenian concept from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, which states that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” both come into play. In this divergence of realism, the eUSA recognizes its power and uses it to maximize its international standing by acquiring resources which weaker states can neither utilize nor protect-- this quest may come directly against the host state, or could result in negotiation after some form of liberation of a region from a foe. Offensive-minded realists also argue that keeping their adversaries on the defensive will maximize the eUSA’s security standing and that of its allies. In this vein, PTOs can be an effective tool on Election Day if an adversary state looks weak and can be exploited. From a fun standpoint, offensive realists will consider conflict to be a way to keep the game interesting and boost activity, which in return, increases the country’s power.
This tradition has been repeated in eUS foreign policy and is a favorite of Presidents such as Jewitt, whose execution of the Three Pillar Strategy denied Phoenix of valuable resources and granted the eUSA a hold on iron; St. Krems, who carved resource-laden eRussia amongst EDEN powers; and Josh Frost, who most recently advanced the eUSA into eMexico and gained new resources for the country. It remains a very persuasive approach to eUS foreign policy today.

Both realist schools realize a role in foreign policy, but go about it differently

On the other side, Defensive Realists do not seek monsters to destroy or any indefinite offensive campaign without end. While a defensive realist may argue for conquest of a necessary resource, the campaign will generally end there, and the priority will be shifted towards securing the new eUSA position. Defensive realists see a definite limit to world power, and are most interested in making sure that power is balanced such that no one power becomes too strong. A defensive realist will acknowledge that alliances are necessary for preserving security and maintaining stability, but they fear the upset balance which can occur in the world system when one state or group becomes too dominant. Similar to isolationists, defensive realists also worry about becoming too betrothed or obligated to any alliance, and may opt to remain on cordial terms with some states while coming short of a full out partnership. Former President PigInZen best epitomizes this school of thought, as his withdrawal from EDEN and his concern of an EDEN-dominated system underscore a defensive realist’s focus with maintaining order and keeping power from becoming concentrated. A statement on eUS foreign policy may well become the doctrine for defensive realism in eRepublik, and represents a cogent summary of the main points outlined here. The eUSA has unquestionably become more offensive-minded in recent months, but the potential for a defensive shift could come as new alliances emerge and seek parity-- indeed, PanAm appears to be entirely defensive in nature.

Primacism assumes a level of eUS power and confidence
abroad which may rub many the wrong way

Primacism
In a blend of offensive realism and vindicationalism comes Primacism, a tradition which maintains that the eUSA is an exceptional and powerful country, and should use its power to influence the world. Alliances are acceptable for a primacist, but the eUSA should be sure to avoid any stipulations which may bind its ability to act unilaterally. Primacists vary in their drive for conquest; some may advocate a limited advance abroad to satisfy basic goals and then assume a more defensive posture, while others assert that the eUSA and select partners should form an imperialist system as far as possible. It differs from outright offensive realism because maximum security and hegemony is not a goal-- instead, the eUSA already holds primacy and acts on it. There is a moral component involved, whether the perception that the eUSA is great, or that adversaries are for some reason terrible and must be conquered. In either case, increasing involvement is key for a primacist, who views these campaigns as a means of leveraging nationalistic pride and enthusiasm for the game.
Three recent presidencies appear to be eUS primacists in their actions: the current President, Haliman, best demonstrates this notion by seeking to invade eIran using a combination of RL vigor and in-game material and strategic ambitions, while Colin Lantrip and Alexander Hamilton also articulated this tradition in maneuvers against eSerbian-occupied Southeast Asia and seeking to deal payback to mainland eIndonesia. However, these examples show the divergence in intent that primacism allows. While Colin Lantrip removed eSerbia from the region and met his main objective, he did not pursue eIndonesia ad nauseam and eventually assumed a quieter posture. Hamilton continued the quest to pop eIndo's cherry, and made the eUS' presence in the world well-known during his term. Haliman’s placement will ultimately depend on the long-term objectives of his campaign, and whether he pursues other countries or indefinite expansion.

So, which tradition is best for navigating the ship of state through international waters?

Which Tradition is Best?
If you expected me to strongly support any of these traditions, you will be disappointed. Each one has its obvious flaws-- isolationism can breed boredom, while moralism may not have any relevance in an online game. Loyalism puts too much faith in other countries, whose own domestic allegiances may change drastically and result in abandonment, while brazen partners could cause the eUSA to enter a war it does not understand and cannot support. Offensive realism and primacism may both cause overextension and constant resistance wars (RWs) which wear down the eUSA or distract its focus, while defensive realism could leave the eUSA exposed and cause it to miss opportunities to gain power at its opponents’ expense.

My biggest insistence in the foreign sphere is pragmatic management of eUSA policy. Too much arrogance or reckless attacks will breed enemies abroad, who with alliances in place, could repeat World War 3 and reduce the eUSA to one region. Too much neutrality will breed boredom, cause the country to lag behind the rest of the world, and will prompt many to jump ship, while too much reliance on alliances could cause the ship to sink under the weight of commitments abroad. What is needed, then, is flexibility. The eUSA is right to pursue opportunities to maximize its economic power and to exploit the weaknesses of other states, and to reasonably support its allies; that being said, the eUSA should not exhaust its resources and paint itself the world’s enemy. In a world where the eUSA is less than 10% of the world’s population and the rest of the world is fully capable of attacking it, this could be the most foolish option of all.

Closing
It felt great writing about eRepublik again, after my short break. I hope you’ve enjoyed my exploration of eUS policy, and will provide new ideas for me to investigate. Special thanks are due to Trent Lawrence, who gave me this idea. I also hope that this article may spark some lively and tasteful debate in the coming days. Stick around for more!

God Bless America,

Lt. Scheisskopf
Join the eUS Cavalry!
Click the logo and apply today!