Do Morals Matter?: Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump

by Joseph S. Nye Jr.

A concise yet penetrating analysis of how modern American presidents have--and have not--incorporated ethics into their foreign policy.Americans constantly make moral judgments about presidents and foreign policy. Unfortunately, many of these assessments are poorly thought through. In Do Morals Matter?, Joseph S. Nye, Jr. provides a concise yet penetrating analysis of the role of ethics in US foreign policy since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency onward. Nye works through each presidency from FDR to Trump and scores their foreign policy on three ethical their intentions, the means they used, and the consequences of their decisions. He also evaluates their leadership qualities, elaborating on which approaches work and which ones do not. Regardless of a president's policy preference, Nye shows that each one was not fully constrained by the structure of the system and actually had choices. Since we so often apply moral reasoning to foreign policy, Nye suggests how to do it better. Most importantly, he shows that presidents need to factor in both the political context and the availability of resources when deciding how to implement an ethical policy-especially in a future international system that presents not only great power competition from China and Russia, but a host of additional transnational threats.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, International Relations, American History, Political Science

268 pages, Kindle Edition

Published December 2, 2019

About the author

Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. was an American political scientist. He and Robert Keohane co-founded the international relations theory of neoliberalism, which they developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. Together with Keohane, he developed the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence. They also explored transnational relations and world politics in an edited volume in the 1970s. More recently, he pioneered the theory of soft power. His notion of "smart power" ("the ability to combine hard and soft power into a successful strategy") became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration. These theories from Nye are very commonly seen in courses across the U.S., such as I.B. D.P. Global Politics.
Nye was the Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he later held the position of University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus. In October 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Nye to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. He was also a member of the Defense Policy Board. He was a Harvard faculty member since 1964. He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, a foreign fellow of the British Academy, and a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy.
The 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of over 1,700 international relations scholars ranked Nye as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the past 20 years. He was also ranked as one of the most influential figures in American foreign policy. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine included him on its list of top global thinkers. In September 2014, Foreign Policy reported that international relations scholars and policymakers ranked Nye as one of the field's most influential scholars.

Reviews

[TG Lin · Rating 1 out of 5]

不是很喜歡這本書。
或許我年紀已經老了，耐性不足。這本《強權者的道德：從小羅斯福到川普，十四位美國總統如何影響世界》，我覺得書名與內容是「名不符實」。可以說，本書只是作者用來進行「月旦評」的作品︰把二戰以來的十四位美國總統一個個拿來品評罷了。跟他總論中的「倫理／道德（Ethic/ Moral）」，一點關連都沒有。
如果這本書的書名只有後面的副標題，也就是《Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump（從羅斯福到川普的總統外交政策）》，應該是恰如其份的。只不過這種書名，應該是吸引不了我從書架上取下來翻閱的。因為本書用了《Do Morals Matter?（道德有用嗎？）》這種吸睛的問句，才會讓我想瞭解，本書作者究竟研究出哪種切入角度，可以把總統本人的道德觀與他領導的政府外交結合起來？無論是正相關或負相關，只要有好的理論，我都非常樂意瞭解接納。然而，作者拉拉雜雜講了一大堆話，讀到後來，腦筋被工程師思考所框架的我，我只得出本書主標題的結論︰
美國總統的個人道德與他領導政府的外交，相關係數（correlation coefficient）是趨近於「零」的。換句話說，本書的主標題「Do Morals Matters?」，答案是「Nearly NO」。
不過，我一直很清楚地知道，搞政治學的人，通常不太跟我們這種理工科的想法雷同。本書作者會去定義什麼叫道德、什麼是個人道德與他的外在表現，也提到相當多的政治學、心理學和歷史理論，而本書也似乎很科學化地弄了個「計分表」來把「目的」、「手段」、「結果」的道德評鑑，但在講了一大堆之後，作者似乎也忘了再將主題拉回「道德有用嗎？」的答案。
好比說，今天的命題是「天氣晴雨濕度與小明在考試的成績高低」。無論中間的申論有多麼豐富精彩，我永遠不會忘記等待該命題的真偽結論。結果厚厚一疊報告卻在講每天的天氣、與分析小明每一題的作答。偶爾講一下哪天下雨小明考得不好，但另外一天下雨時小明還考得不錯。
簡單說來，這本書的價值只在於「整理資料」︰幫讀者重點回顧某位總統所遇到的國際局勢與外交決策。至於當中有沒有什麼可以歸結出來的「定律」，也就是道德與外交政策關連性，完全沒有。
---
在翻閱這本書之前，我對本書（假裝）想談的主題，道德與外交決策的相關性，基本上是持否定的想法——但並不是完全無關，而是要看各種不同的情況。誠然，國際之間的互動，基本上不會存在於我們生活環境中所熟悉的「道德」；把這兩件事給綁在一起，並不是非常有意義的作法。但是，在真實的世界中，即使是假的，執政者永遠都要有一套「道德觀」，用來說服自己與別人。人類畢竟是人類，是生物學當中的一個物種；既然要談強權政府（美國總統）這種糾合起大量人力與資源的行為，即使是搞雙重標準，執政人員在思想上的驅動力（化粧成所謂的「道德」）是永遠不會缺少的。「不要臉的大魔王」是不存在於真實世界的。
因此本書前二章總論時，作者提到的「電車問題」，我以為正是這種思想上的準備︰我幹或不幹什麼事，都有道德方面的代價。我猜測作者是要以這種道德兩難的方式，辛苦地裁剪出每位總統在每項外交決策上的道德高低計分，好來套入他那貫通全書的理論架構。但開始一位接著一位總統的評論，呃……不知道我是不是有閱讀障礙，怎麼愈讀愈感覺不到「道德」跑去哪兒了？沒錯，作者夾敘夾論講到書中的每個總統的事蹟，還是有不斷地講到「道德」，並安置其獲得這項分數的好壞？但既然開了計分表，最後好像也沒給個總評價，比如羅斯福是 A+、尼克森是 B-……那搞出這張計分表，究竟有什麼作用呢？羅斯福道德低劣而贏了大戰，詹森道德高而陷入越戰泥淖，這種論述直接把道德一詞，用更易懂的局勢、潮流、國家總體力量來取代，不更言之成理嗎？
---
最後，是關於中譯本的問題了。本書的宣傳文案中，有明確地將這十四位總統分成三組道德有效性的高低評價︰沒這回事！這純粹是中譯導讀者自己的解讀。因為內文當中，原作者可沒這樣作高低排列的。或者說，原作者自己也沒法從他自己的文章脈絡中弄出個排行榜高低……

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nye is pretty clear minded which makes for a refreshingly easy read for an international relations scholar. His arguments are often interesting and insightful. His takes on the future of US power is quite interesting [final chapter] in comparison to other perspectives on China, if perhaps too naive about his reverence for American liberal institutionalism. Not to mention his account of the rise of populism as endowed from purely nativistic rhetoric in response to economic conditions, seems to be turning a blind eye to the role of those very institutions Nye admires so much, that people like Trump dismantle. Trump's influence [as well as sources of "sharp power"], one may say, came out of distrust of those liberal institutions he holds dear.

[Jacob Liston · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book, I especially liked that I couldn't tell if the author was liberal or conservative in his worldview. Would recommend to those interested in politics and foreign policy.

[Stephen Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting book about evaluating the morality of US foreign policy since WWII, giving each president a score card. While it is generally assumed that foreign policy has no morals, Nye argues that morality is clearly a factor in some decisions. In addition, morality can be to America's advantage in creating soft power (a term the author coined a few decades ago). He uses three criteria for his evaluations: intentions, means and consequences. For instance, Truman scores well in all three criteria for the Marshall plan while Johnson scores very poorly for all three with Vietnam. Eisenhower got mixed marks for his containment policy because he avoided war with the Soviets but allowed Hungarians to continue under communist rule. Carter scored well for his intentions, but less well for his consequences.

Overall, this was a new perspective on looking at these presidents, but it wasn't exactly earth shaking. It is short and an easy read, so it doesn't take much commitment to get through. If you are a history buff, especially for American foreign policy, it is worth a read.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book. Did I like this book 4-stars much? Meh, probably not. Nonfiction can only do so much for me. But I kinda want to give it 4 stars so here it is.

I thought about writing a paragraph here that would seemingly diverge into a soliloquy about rating books on goodreads (personal enjoyment vs ‘quality’, value of consistent rating framework) then cleverly reveal I was also in fact talking about Nye’s framework of judging ethical foreign policy. But it is early, coffee has refused to rouse me, and I’d honestly rather just write these inanities to keep my many many followers on their toes. Maybe caprice is in fact the virtue that will keep my reviews relevant...

and maybe Trump’s foreign policy didn’t alienate our allies and seriously damage countless liberal institutions, amirite!? Lol. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. knows what I’m talking about

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

awesome book

[Sanjay Banerjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author raises the question about the extent to which ethics should shape foreign policy. He provides a sweeping review of how past US Presidents (Franklin Roosevelt onwards) have embraced or rejected ethical imperatives. He has also constructed a scorecard for judging future presidents. This book is especially relevant in today’s times as a growing number of nations - including the US - nakedly put self interest first.

[Hanena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing new or in-depth, especially now under the circumstance of deteriorating Chinese-American relationship. But I enjoyed reading it as a history book (though the author specifically said that he didn't intend to make it a history book).

[Dennis Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump by Joseph Nye is one of the more serious attempts to consider the role of morality in shaping foreign policy outcomes through a series of brief essays into 14 presidents, with some lessons meant to inform future presidents. That matters because, typically, the study of politics and states tend to emphasize incentives and consequences depending on where one sits in a power hierarchy. Some discount the very notion of morality and ethics, while others give it a secondary consideration. Here, we get the impression that morals matter. All of the presidents are scored according to a moral matrix, which is then paired with some summary judgments on their presidency. Nye himself notes that the individual scores he gives are up to interpretation and dispute, and instead wants the reader simply to get used to thinking in those terms. I'm uncertain about the extent to which this book will impress, especially since I'm not sure he really offers much that is new in his concluding chapter, but its an interesting attempt to try to bring the moral dimension back into the analysis of some of the most powerful political figures' foreign policy.

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eminent Harvard International Relations professor and expert Joseph Nye advances and clarifies the debate on presidential ethical leadership since 1945. Though a liberal ideological thinker, Nye provides a very balanced scorecard assessment of each president, caveated by Trump’s as a halftime result. “Nye works through each presidency from Truman to Trump and scores their foreign policy on three ethical dimensions of their intentions, the means they used, and the consequences of their decisions. Alongside this, he also evaluates their leadership qualities, elaborating on which approaches work and which ones do not.” Nye makes distinctions between both statements of morality and demonstrated ethical action and whether they line up or not, and analysis as to why or why not. Moral reasoning as a basis for implementing foreign policy is a common yardstick and Nye surmises that such proclamations and the political context and resources a president brings to bear will factor prominently in ongoing great power competition.

[Ajay · Rating 2 out of 5]

An American-centric analysis of the morality of American presidents post-1945 leadership and choices.

I appreciated that the book clearly lays out it's moral philosophy and framework for analyzing leaders and their choices. It's a definite contribution to my own thinking on the subject, but the methodology and analysis is fundamentally meaningless - the outputs are simplified judgements of "Good" or "Mixed". Never is a leader or their choices "Bad", and the threshold for when "Good" becomes "Mixed" is highly subjective.

And as "one of the world's leading scholars of international relations", I was surprised that Joseph has a shallow understanding of world history filled with both historical inaccuracy and opinions masquerading as fact. In many cases, he is simply parroting the US propagandized narrative of the Cold War.

[Stephen King · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a relatively unchallenging assessment of the ‘morality’ of the foreign policy records of all postwar US presidents, based on a nominal ‘scorecard’. It’s not a particularly objective measure (and doesn’t pretend to be) and Nye is somewhat conflicted in his assessments due to his service in the Clinton administration. He does however set partisan affiliation aside and provide generous assessments of George HW Bush (Bush 41, as he calls him). The real value is to be found in the final comparative chapters which assess the value of a ‘moral’ stance versus one based more on realpolitik, and in its excellent assessments of the challenges facing future presidents as they face a world with a rising China.

[Helene · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having heard Joseph Nye speak at the Lyceum, I expected the book to be just as coherent and down-to-earth. What I found and read was so much more esoteric, political, and totally related to international thought and foreign affairs rather than domestic progress. For example, "Realists who trace ancestry to such classic thinkers as Thucydides, Hobbes, and Machiavelli argue that in an archaic world, foreign policy is largely amoral." (p.12) Whew, no small feat. He does explain, but what a start. And again, "Moral reasoning is a skill we humans evolved to further our social agenda - to justify our actions and to defend the teams we belong to."

I did really like one of the JFK quotes he has in the book. "If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet." (p.74) We have not ended our differences and we are becoming more hostile of diversity since the Trump presidency. A difficult, yet powerful quote.

In the end: "International order has depended on the ability of a leading state to combine power and legitimacy. Morals matter, when seen in all three dimensions, because they are part of the secret of a successful international order." (p.217)

[Andrew Sternisha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps the most important part of this book is the scorecard that Nye has created to evaluate the foreign policy of presidents. One can quibble with Nye’s ratings, but he makes sound arguments for where he stands and admits his own biases. The book does move quickly through complex historical events, so a reader who is less familiar with U.S. foreign policy history may struggle with this book, but to the well informed reader, this will be an enjoyable read. The other problematic issue is that Nye’s scorecard is created using the western liberal mindset. He does a nice job of balancing this by evaluating the “harm to others/respect for national sovereignty” category in his scorecard though.

[Inge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of course, the answer is yes. The author constructs metrics to compare the morality of public policies of US presidents from WWII onward. He also describes how private morality has influenced public policy. The work is fair and scholarly, though as the author notes the effects of more recent policies may not be known for some years to come. The author finishes by making the case that the US is a global player whether we want to be or not: cyberattacks, climate change, and pandemics do not respect borders, and how a president chooses to address these is a moral issue with global consequences.

[Maggie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite enjoyed this foreign policy exploration, an oft less focused on topic in our national political zeitgeist generally speaking. There were times where the subject matter was a bit dense for a layman like me, but I appreciated the very multi-layered approach to what ethical foreign policy even means and the even-handed approach to presidents of different political stripes (even as the author made sure to fully disclose his own potential biases). I especially liked the score card he developed to summarize each president. I felt like this was a good semi-intro book into foreign policy for a novice like myself.

[Deepto Chakraborty · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am very fortunate to read this book which is written by Professor Joseph S. Nye Jr. I have been thoroughly mesmerized by how he describes the moral dimensions of American Foreign Policy and the concepts of soft power and hard power. I got the golden opportunity to meet this erudite person during Harvard National Model United Nations Virtual Conference 2021. He is now serving as the Emeritus Professor of Harvard Kennedy School of Government. I would highly recommend my readers who are fond of world politics.

[Cuteboy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Although Nye wrote that the book is not a history book in the preface, it's quite like a brief history on the comments about the 14 presidents and their foreign policies. The first two chapters cannot be linked well with the following 7 chapters, and they are highly seperated. "Morals” is not integrated in the book. Nye's arguement cannot support his point. From my humble perspective, the title of the book should be A Brief Review of US Presidents and Their Foreign Policies from FDR to Trump, and the first two chapters should be deleted.

[Zhenyao Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

意图 手段 结果的积分卡显得基本上没什么说服力，中间部分的叙述非常不精彩，流水账背后的无非是对美国现在政治的抨击。但是作者对问题界定的能力和对理论综述的能力无疑是一流的。尤其是把美国例外主义归纳为建国领袖的自由主义启蒙，圣经天选之人的宗教根源和美国的体量，很ambitious的归纳。

他强调全球治理以及制度的作用，拒绝将生存第一的现实主义事做价值清单的唯一项，甚至是常客。换句话说制度的作用可以把短期的零和博弈变成长期的正和博弈。但是多大程度上对短期零和博弈的批评站得住脚呢？康德的自由主义和修昔底德平淡但有力的叙述似乎都是同样有说服力的。威尔逊主义因此在这里具有不可替代的意义，一个基于共同抵御侵略者的集体安全条约的国际联盟要比为了balance of power而缔结见利忘义联盟更具和平性。他开启了美国“推广自由民主”以及“建立更好的国际制度”两个长期的趋势。这是一种对美国例外主义的“激发”。

另外比较有趣的一点是他认为道德形式取决于对形势的正确评估，这被他叫做是情景智力。这是一个很难量化的指标，主观意味过强了。在他强调“大多数美国的总统都同时具有现实主义、世界主义和自由主义这三个心理地图的时候”，高下的判断就显得很难做出。

[Melinda M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Do Morals Matter?: Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump by Joseph S. Nye Jr is an interesting look at morals and foreign policy. Joseph S. Nye Jr is a well known scholar who make s this work easy for most people to read and understand. As a student of history , this is this first work that looks at foreign policy , presidents and morals.

I received a copy thru a Goodreads giveaway.

[Ryan Corl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall, a very enjoyable read. Apart from equivocating Trump’s use of Twitter with FDR’s Fireside Chats, I thought Nye’s evaluation of the each case was fair and measured. I imagine this book read differently prior to the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in violation of Ford’s E.O., the abandonment of the Kurds, and the January 6th insurrection. I would be interested to see him finish his evaluation of the last two years of the previous administration.

[Mehmet Koç · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the developer of “soft and smart power” concepts, Nye’s book presents a good assessment of morals and ethics in international politics within the context of the US foreign policy since 1945. Nye’s contribution on the “rise of China” question is also precious in this manner. A good-read for scholars and IR students

[Xin Wang · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Soft power" advocate re-interprets the history of the U.S. foreign policies through the lens of moral judgement. It provides some fresh view points on historical events and figures, nothing radical though. The arguments of the book will fall on deaf ears of a transactional president and his voter base. For them, MAGA is the new moral standard.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Nye offers a three-dimensional score card for rating presidents’ morality on foreign policy. Though any reader is likely to quibble with the particulars of the grades he gives each president, I think his score card is quite useful.

[Gabriel Stein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting

An interesting overview of post-war American Presidents from a moral perspective. Agree or disagree with the author’s judgements, they are certainly worth reading and thinking about.

[Michael Kenan Baldwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Joseph Nye is arguably the most influential foreign policy wonk in the world. He is very knowledgeable, and this book is obviously well-informed with many details and tidbits. But the analytic schema of this book is disappointingly thin.

[Nikki · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoy Nye as a commentator and value his thoughts on foreign policy and international relations. However, I don't care for his writing. Very repetitive, very dry. This was not as concrete as I thought Nye would be in answering the title question.

[Avery · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was extremely interesting and almost like a breath of fresh air due to the lack of overwhelming bias clouding the truth that is found far too often in the modern world.

[W · Rating 2 out of 5]

Globalist garbage

[Yunling · Rating 4 out of 5]

美國總統的外交政策和手段是否與美國價值觀主張的自由及總統個人的道德有關？內容分享了不動與動的後果，以及未來該何去何從。

亞洲和資訊戰是重點，但美國卻花很多力氣在處理中東和以阿戰爭。