leaders to invest whatever it took to prevent the Soviet Union from
winning the arms race. Downplaying the possibility of mutually assured
destruction (then known for its telling acronym: MAD), they con-
sidered it essential for the free world to maintain the technological
advantage it had always held in the military sphere. As for contain-
ment, its purpose was “to confront the Russians with unalterable
counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching
upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world.”^55 Conceived as a
way of thwarting Soviet expansionism and a potential domino effect,
the doctrine of containment relied more on military force than on
political means. Yet for some, this doctrine did not go far enough.
John Foster Dulles, for instance, who was President Eisenhower’s
Secretary of State, would have preferred to replace the containment of
communism by a policy to actually liberate Eastern Europe from
Soviet despotism.^56 In general, however, the right’s realist view of
international relations tempered its forceful opposition to communism.
Throughout the postwar period, conservatives defended capitalism
and private property as institutions consistent with liberal principles
and therefore morally superior. They also laid great stress on the
unparalleled prosperity brought about by capitalism. The right
attributed the remarkable growth of this “golden age” as much to the
new arrangements of the mixed economies as to the spectacular rise of
international trade. The expansion of trade was itself seen as a direct
result of the liberalization orchestrated by the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT), three economic organizations established in the
wake of the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. It was pointed out
that the Bretton Woods system, which the socialist countries had not
joined, had made possible the reduction of tariffs and the convertibility
of currencies that were necessary for the international development of
business. Highly favorable to the opening of markets promoted by the
GATT and the IMF, conservative politicians portrayed the economic
approach of socialist governments as a lamentable failure. A repeated
diagnosis put the blame for the poor productivity of East European
(^55) George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,”Foreign Affairs, vol. 25,
July 1947, 566–82, p. 581.
(^56) John Foster Dulles, “A Policy of Boldness,”Life, vol. 32, no. 20, May 19, 1952,
146–60; Michael A. Guhin,John Foster Dulles: A Statesman and His Times,
New York, Columbia University Press, 1972, p. 175.
124 Left and Right in Global Politics