Leading in Lean Times:
Assuring Accountability and Assessing American Priorities in an Age of Austerity
Précis and Outline
17 July 2012
Austerity focuses the mind. In times of plenty states can afford to pursue diffuse goals; in lean
times, however, statesmen must discern from among a nation’s countless preferences its most pressing
and abiding priorities. Since this task requires restraint and sometimes sacrifice, it can appear daunting
and dour. But it can also be bracing – even restorative. Today the slow wane of a decade of war frees
foreign policymakers to reassess the nation’s vital interests, and the gradual ebb of an economic downturn
empowers domestic policymakers to reconceive long-standing entitlement programs. How American
government relates to its citizens, and how America relates to the wider world, are alike open for
reconsideration. Rarely do such promising opportunities for bold thinking and innovative policymaking
present themselves.
Lean times need not occasion pessimism. Rather, it is in times of penury rather than plenty that a
nation’s priorities become clear, radical reapportionment of resources in light of these priorities becomes
possible, and the foundations of future strength and accountability can be secured. Lean times demand
and enable leadership. Delegates of SCUSA 64 are charged to consider what form US leadership,
however austere it may be, can and should take across a range of policy areas. Which US interests are
vital and which peripheral? What ways and means can the United States afford in pursuit of its interests?
Which institutions and alliances augment these ways and means, and which (if any) unduly constrain or
overextend US power? And what modes of engagement with its peers will enable the United States to
address both the root causes of the crisis that ushered in the present age of austerity and the emerging,
global threats destined to afflict ages of austerity and prosperity alike?
The following paper aims to defend a modest, but perhaps counterintuitive, claim: austerity offers
an opportunity for US leadership as much as a challenge to it. It frames the central questions in a number
of policy areas accordingly. These areas fall into five main groups:
1. Grand Strategy: What is “grand strategy”? What are the alternative “grand strategies”? What
should US grand strategy be, and how do limited means influence its formulation? This section
frames the table on grand strategy.
2. Ways and Means: Given that the means available to US policymakers will be more limited than
before, how should policymakers ensure that they have means appropriate to the nation’s grand
strategic ends? This section frames the tables on civil-military relations, insurgency, and
diplomacy, democracy, and development (3D).
3. Global Challenges to Accountability: How should US policymakers act to promote accountability
in policy areas that exceed the purview of any single nation? This section frames the tables on
international political economy, global climate change, cyberspace, nuclear proliferation, and
humanitarian crises (R2P).
4. Regional Issues: Given that austerity seems destined to restrain US engagement abroad, which
regions are vital to US interests and which are peripheral? This section frames the tables on the
Middle East, Southeast Asia, China, Europe, Russia, and Africa.
5. Domestic Source of US Foreign Policy: How does US homeland security policy reflect the
nation’s place in the larger world? How can it better promote the nation’s strategic interests,
while reflecting the United States’ tradition of divided sovereignty? This section frames the
paper on homeland security and federalism.