and Walter Russell Mead at the Hudson Institute, 2018 in March 2019 Mead is a Global View Columnist for
Wall Street Journal, and a regular and influential contributor to
Foreign Affairs. In the early 1990s, Mead advocated for a "grand bargain" with the Russian Federation, suggesting that the "United States buy about 3.5 million square miles of Eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East and pay Russia $3 trillion -- half of which would be used to purchase goods produced in the United States". Although the proposal was made "tongue in cheek", Mead maintained that the United States should give "Russia the money it needs in exchange for some tangible quid pro quo", offering "the highest possible price for the largest possible concession". From 2009 until August 2017, Mead oversaw a popular daily blog, "Via Meadia", on the website of the journal
American Interest.
Via media is a Latin phrase meaning "the middle road" and is a philosophical maxim for life which advocates moderation in all thoughts and actions. In frequent posts throughout the day, he and
Via Meadias staff wrote about two primary areas: America's foreign policy and how well it is working in various situations throughout the world and America's domestic state of affairs, particularly the decline of what he terms the Blue Social Model of governing following World War II.
Via Meadia was read regularly by U.S. congressmen, foreign dignitaries, and high-level government officials in the State Department and the White House.
The Return of Geopolitics Mead published an influential piece in the 2014 May/June issue of
Foreign Affairs titled "The Return of Geopolitics." Writing in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea, ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, and rising tensions in East Asia, Mead argued that much of the foreign policy consensus among Western elites since the end of the Cold War had been naïve in assuming that traditional questions of geopolitics would no longer dictate international affairs. Mistaking the fall of the USSR as the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism over alternative systems of government, Mead argued that the US and EU subsequently turned their attention to transnational issues of trade liberalization, climate change, and human rights while foolishly neglecting the dynamics of great-power politics. "China, Iran, and Russia never bought into the geopolitical settlement that followed the Cold War," Mead warned, "and they are making increasingly forceful attempts to overturn it. That process will not be peaceful, and whether or not the revisionists succeed, their efforts have already shaken the balance of power and changed the dynamics of international politics." In many of his Via Meadia blog posts for American Interest, Mead alluded to Game of Thrones to describe the actions of revisionist powers.
Positions on interventions in recent conflicts In 2003, he argued that an
Iraq War was preferable to continuing
UN sanctions against Iraq, because "Each year of containment is a new Gulf War", and that "The existence of
al Qaeda, and the
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain
Saddam Hussein." Mead was critical of the Obama administration's failure to contain the fallout from the "reckless and thoughtless"
2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Noting that while the administration had trumpeted the intervention as a humanitarian one, "NATO didn't so much prevent massacres as move them offstage" to places like neighboring
Mali where
Tuareg mercenaries formerly on
Qaddafi’s payroll returned home following the intervention in order to begin
their own insurgency. Mead was also critical of President
Barack Obama's decision not to launch a military strike against Syria in retaliation for Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad's
use of chemical weapons against civilians. He argued that Obama made an "empty statement" by condemning the attacks without accompanying military force, had damaged American credibility, and encouraged Russia and Iran to ramp up their direct support for al-Assad's regime. Mead supported arming certain elements in the Syrian resistance as a stop-gap measure, but was realistic about the character of most rebel groups as well as the prospects for a post-conflict Syria. Mead suggested that supporting Syrian rebels who may be unsavory but are not openly antagonistic to the US could shorten the conflict, weaken Iran's influence in the region, increase the relative power of non-jihadist rebels post-conflict, and decrease the likelihood of a more robust American intervention being required in the future.
Decline of the "Blue Social Model" Mead has written extensively about the decline of the "Blue Social Model," which refers to the political and economic status quo of the United States following the New Deal and the Second World War. Under this Model, a small group of American corporations such as AT&T and the Big Three auto manufacturers faced little competition, either domestically or internationally. These corporations felt little pressure to change, while regulation by the federal government kept their prices down. Jobs were stable and a high school diploma sufficed for a stable career and income. Labor unions were large and membership affordable. The Blue Social Model was able to sustain a faith that American quality of life would steadily improve and that no major disruptions in the domestic or global order would come. Mead sees the transition from an industrial economy to an information economy since 1970 as a fundamental challenge to the Blue Model, causing greater global competition due to automation and low-wage labor in developing nations. Government, meanwhile, has had greater difficulty departing from the Blue Model due to the size of the federal bureaucracy and of benefits that originated under the Model, such as Social Security.
Dispute with Walt and Mearsheimer Mead has been a strong critic of the "Israel Lobby" hypothesis advanced by political scientists
Stephen Walt and
John Mearsheimer. In a review of their book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in
Foreign Affairs, Mead raised concerns about Walt and Mearsheimer's methodology and conclusions, as well as their theoretical consistency, pointing out that the
structural realist view of international relations that Walt and Mearsheimer advance elsewhere insists that domestic factors are generally irrelevant to foreign policy, while the "Israel Lobby" hypothesis strongly insists on the opposite. Mead also notes that, contrary to Walt and Mearsheimer's claim that pro-Israel groups exert influence through campaign finance, pro-Israel groups contributed less than one percent of PAC contributions in the 2006 election cycle. Mead agreed that pro-Israel political advocacy is a topic worthy of study, but argued that the United States' policy on Israel grows out of more diverse and complicated historical reasons than described in
The Israel Lobby.
Transatlantic relations at a Hudson Institute event, 2019 Mead has been a strong supporter of Transatlantic relations. As one of America's leading analysts of international affairs, Mead has had a belief that global prosperity, the defense of human rights, and the establishment of a secure and peaceful order in Transatlantic relations require a foreign policy that places a robust America at the center of a vigorous network of allies. In his article "What Truman Can Teach Trump" for
The Wall Street Journal, Mead compares a foreign policy of Truman and Trump and states that "The U.S. needed to take on the global role that the British Empire had played at its zenith" and "A Trumanist approach would start by showing some trust in the foreign policy instincts of the American People." Mead is currently a Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow at the Bosch Stiftung.
"China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia" controversy In February 2020, Mead published an opinion piece in
The Wall Street Journal titled "
China Is the Real
Sick Man of Asia". The title, chosen by the
Journals editors, was criticized by a Chinese foreign spokesperson and some professors in the United States as
racist; the article was defended by the CEO of
Dow Jones, the company that publishes the Journal. 53 reporters and editors of the
Wall Street Journal signed an open letter criticizing the headline and urging the newspaper's leaders "to consider correcting the headline and apologizing to our readers, sources, colleagues and anyone else who was offended" by it. Arguing against such an apology was former U.S. diplomat
Susan L. Shirk who, according to an article in
The New York Times, argued that the newspaper should refrain from making an apology because the Chinese government had demanded one. In March 2020, the Chinese government expelled three
Wall Street Journal reporters from China over the article, the first such expulsion since 1998. This decision drew criticism from the State Department, the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China, and an article in
USA Today. ==Personal life==