Talk:Foreign Policy

Ideological leanings

Can someone provide a rough description of FP's ideological leanings? Thanks. Instr 05:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The article states "Its topics include global politics, economics, integration and ideas", so it's a no brainer, must be left leaning. 202.155.245.32 09:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's by no means true. Making such assumptions is not conducive to ensuring validity in WP content. "No brainers" are mostly used by people with no brains :). Does anyone have any actual facts, such as positions or independant and impartial analysis, to actually establish some kind of objective conclusion about efvevefqvefvthe ideological leanings (if any) of FP? Thelastemperor 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Muravchik wrote a defense of neoconservatism for a recent issue. Co-founder Samuel Huntington is also widely read among neoconservatives. That's probably closer to what the magazine is, although I'm sure you could find exceptions.Bjones 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I read FP off and on at the office, and in my very humble opinion, the magazine is not necessarily anti-american, but seems to angle much of their material to accentuate shortcomings (both trivial and serious) of the United States and her allies. I definately would not describe FP as an objective or neutral magazine.64.173.240.130 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In my (German) knowledge Foreign Policy is more or less the left-leaning counterpart to the more right-wing Foreign Affairs. --Kricket (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Related information on FP's views on the Mideast conflict would also be welcome. ADM (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the views presented by FP would best be characterized as 'orthodox' - they reflect the prevailing ideologies of the elite. --147.9.201.86 (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of FP, most of the views expressed are liberal, in the more traditional sense of the word (not to be confused with the American left).

Putting aside the fact that 1) “objectivity” and “neutrality” are subjective concepts, and 2) both left-wingers and right-wingers can be and are critical of the United States and its allies from diametrically opposed perspectives; I would describe FP as reporting views that are within the two dominant ideologies of the American Establishment: neoliberalism and neoconservatism. It should go without saying that none of these ideologies are left-wing. --Loremaster (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Policy magazine advocates official US policy and "conventional wisdom", which of course is not to be confused with truth. It is not right or left in an american political sense 68.188.25.170 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous Ideologies

"Free Money" right now redirects to United States Public Debt. Doesn't make much sense to me. Do you maybe mean Freigeld? --Kricket (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Alice Rivlin argues that government deficit spending is often treated as "free money" while forgetting that it contributes to an unsustainable public debt. --Loremaster (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Dangerous Ideologies section. If this one story is notable then it should have its own article. Putting it here gives undue weight to one story in this publication's entire history. WP should not have an article on every list published by every magazine there is, as easy as these articles are to write. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. I will explain why it is noteworthy before as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed - no explanation forthcoming. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed again per above The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that "Spreading Democracy" is linked to a wiki page about a book that actually argues the opposite of what Hobsbawn says in his article? Especially since the article itself is available in it's entirety and could be linked to? For example: http://www.eigenauer.com/criticalthinking/SpreadingDemocracy.pdf I am asking before editing in case there is some reason I am missing. 203.2.133.74 (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In the book The Case for Democracy, Sharansky and Dermer argue that the primary goal of American foreign policy, as well as that of the free world, should be the expansion of democracy. Hobsbawn counters that this is a dangerous idea. So we are linking to the very book Hobsbawn is critical of. --Loremaster (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)