WWII ended over 70 years ago, and the Cold war ended nearly 30 years ago. Exactly why are we still footing the bill for Europe and Canada's security? Especially considering they can't even be bothered to say "Thank You".
3
Oh the irony. Democrats would be screaming "McCarthyism" if a Democratic President were the target of the Russia investigation. And the Republicans would be portraying themselves as Guardians of the Republic. To the detriment of the national interest foreign policy arguments continue to be motivated mainly by partisan politics, Such is the hypocritical, self-serving Weaselocracy we have chosen to govern us.
1
Evidence, Mr. Kagan, evidence?
Before attempting to scare the bajeezus out of this paper’s readers, perhaps some evidence—if there is any—should be proffered for your many far-reaching and presumptuous contentions?
I, for one—and for example—am simply not going to take your word for what Democratic voters like me are supposed to believe at this moment in time.
4
This is typical neoliberal propaganda from the Brookings Institute, blaming economic insecurity on immigration and China rather than acknowledging the long term war on labor that has been waged by the US Chamber of Commerce, the Kochs and their billionaire crony capitalist cabal. Trump's antics provide cover for their efforts to rewrite both state & US constitutions so they can maximize and make permanent the massive transfer of wealth from working Americans and the poor to elite shareholders and billionaires. This exploitation is in full bloom in NC, with Chinese owners treating the state like a third world undeveloped country. Contract farmers take on huge loans to build and own the operations (and the risk) while the Chinese retain ownership of the hogs (the profit), paying the contractors just enough to get by. Thanks to deregulation by the Koch owned GOP that controls the state legislature, the huge amounts of toxic biowaste that even the Chinese don't want, is left for the people of NC to deal with while the profits all go to Chinese capitalists. The Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions found in our existing trade agreements make it possible for China to challenge, via corporate arbitration, any US and NC state law if it hurts their profits, thereby weaponizing their exploitation of our country and our people. Opposing ISDS and trade agreements that are openly hostile to our environment and labor is not isolationism, it is justice for working Americans.
5
The phrase "America First" has very little to do with actual foreign policy. It is purely aimed at stirring up racism and anti-Semitism. It sounds so innocuous, but look at who has been using it.
5
You wrote "Americans today don’t want to die for Taipei or Riga, never mind Kiev or Tbilisi". Please add Israel to this list.
14
you will never really know what "most" Americans or "average" Americans think about things like global trade or foreign policy because "most" Americans don't think about these things at all.
what Americans do think about and take seriously is a fit subject for a different essay, but the antics of the Kardashians or exploits of football players spring immediately to mind as a place to start.
bread and circuses.
5
I just love all of the "internationalists" who wax ecstatic over the USA sending its young people to ever Third World rathole to get shot at, to spend our treasure overseas while neglecting our own domestic needs, and having the USA be the world's policeman while other capable countries sit on the sidelines. Enough already. We're broke, we're tired of doing all the heavy lifting, and we're tired of the not-very-subtle ingratitude. Anti-immigrant? Describe it correctly - we aren't interested in having this country's European heritage flushed away in a sea of non-caucasian johnny-come-latelys. Europe is more than rich enough to defend itself instead of pouring money into their social welfare schemes. The UN is a joke and nothing more than a current forum for the Third World to denigrate the West. There is nothing wrong with practicing national self-interest, especially when it is to benefit the majority of this country's residents rather than just a miniscule foreign policy and corporate elite.
3
The slogan is silly but the extent to which has convinced people that Trump is truly advancing American interests by his combative isolationism is disheartening. The isolationism of the 30s and the anti-internationalism of today disregards America's interest in advancing the international rule of law. Hiding from the world in the 30s gave us WWII. Is that really America First?
I know it's hard to cover so much ground as 30 plus years of American electoral politics vis a vis foreign policy but even so, Mr. Kagan oversimplifies.
1) Presidents don't "expand NATO", countries beg to join. This doesn't happen in a vacuum but in the contexts of centuries of Russian aggression.
2) Yes, Hillary "had to disown" TPP during the election because both Bernie in the primaries and Trump in the general successfully vilified previous trade agreements. You see, the WTO was purposefully designed without minimum labor standards so when China was allowed membership, it was a no-brainer for companies, large and small, to shove all their financial and human capital into that one nation. This depressed wages in the US and other developed economies.
So, even though TPP had labor standards, this was lost on the "once bitten, twice shy" electorate.
Mr. Kagan should be well aware of this since his venerable institution was one of the biggest cheerleaders for "economic engagement" with China.
Under the Brookings Instituion's reckoning, China was supposed to be well on its way to democracy by now.
Whoops!
3
God forbid that any of these tendencies lasts past Trump. This is literally the difference between hope and darkness.
1
It's Trump and gamily first, the rest of the world's population and the planet itself last.
Yeah, nice story.
We'll see in November, however, how badly Mr Kagan is off.
And why am I confident in this?
Article after article in Midwestern papers like the Des Moines Register that point out how patriotism doesn't pay the bills.
2
"Mr. Trump’s narrower, more unilateralist and nationalist approach to the world is probably closer to where the general public is than Mr. Obama’s more cosmopolitan sensibility." When Mr. Gorbachev pulled back and began to face the reality that the glorious USSR had turned into nothing more than a Brazil with nukes, the world celebrated. Any American who has been through Memphis, St. Louis, Gary, Detroit, Toledo, Erie, Buffalo or any number of American cities knows that we need a little perestroika, too. We are all proud of Mr. Obama and proud of ourselves for having voted for him, but we clearly cannot go on trying to improve the world with or without its support. We are bushed.
1
Trump brands his ideas as "America first" but really advocates white nationalist racist ideas that would have been right at home in the KKK exclusively, until recently.
What is actually in America's interest is a robust international development program to lift potential economic refugees out of abject poverty. Similarly, a foreign policy that supports democratic state development decreases refugees from failing states and their ensuing violence. International trade goes a long way toward this goal too as long as developing countries are pulled into a regulatory environment compatible with outs. All of this suggests a very robust foreign policy involvement with similarly robust spending. It leads to a safer and better functioning world which is very good for America.
What we have instead is the ragged hangover from the binge of racism that got Trump elected.
3
What a shame we cannot have a national referendum on protecting Taipei and Riga; on being the world's policeman and destroyer of countries.
“America First” was a slogan used by Charles Lindberg (awarded the Iron Cross by Hitler) and his fascist-style political movement before WW2. So if the fascists won, we lost.
1
It's not isolationism or America First that got Trump elected.
It's that old saying my grandmother used to repeat, "Save your Confederate money, boys, because the South will rise again."
The beliefs of the old Confederate States of America are now mainstream in the GOP, and much of white, trailer park America.
4
The triumph of “America First”, as the “Triumph of the Will” are propaganda works. The latter met a bad ending, the former will follow suit. Kagan’s stars in-his-eyes self delusion seems to have missed or clouded the lessons of history.
Kagan assumes that polls are revealing true public sentiment. They’re not. The fact is that this country does not worship the culture of greed and inhuman treatment of others. Never has as a country.
American blue and white collar families are suffering, notwithstanding the low unemployment rate: salaries are a fraction of pre-2008. Jobs are fragile. Witness the rate of young
women postponing starting a family due to economic reasons. Pseudo Fascism seems within reach, according to Kagan.
The impact of the trade wars haven’t been felt yet. Once it hits working families, fury will hit the fan. Hint: it won’t be against asylum seekers. Kagan is doing a false celebratory dance, not realizing he’s so doing in quick sand.
There’s no appetite for war with Iran, and approval of Palestinian land grab and Jerusalem will crash. The Triumph of the Neocons will spell the launching of WW III. Who wants that?
The US wastes and squanders its power.
Isolationism would produce a ton of benefits for the average citizen- today.
Perhaps the reason why militarism and fascism did not win the world was because the United States stood apart and was not involved until it was necessary?
Wars are a complete waste of resources.
1
American foreign policy is all about military threats, nuclear power, and sanctions against nations that have done nothing to the USA. NK is no threat to the USA, neither is Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Europe, Lybia, Syria or China. But they will fight back to defend their interests. Grenada was not a threat and not Panama. None of these nations is about to attack the USA. Why in Gods name does Trump want to destroy the economies of the EU and China/ Why did Obama do regime change in Ukraine, in Lybia, in Syria and Bush in Iraq, and Eisenhower in Iran and Bush Sr in invaded Panama just to get Noriega, a dictator they liked until he worked for himself. Why does the United States invade and destroy the nations in the ME, it may take decades or centuries to rebuild the societies?
What about Vietnam, what did the Vietnamese people do to the Americans? Americans bombed Korea to dust and killed millions of people, civilians, no Korean or Chinese or Russsian soldier ever set foot on American soil.
There is so much more, we need to look in our mirror and be honest about what we see.
3
I have far longer experience than Mr. Kagan; it leads me to endorse his insistance that the major themes of Trump and America Firstism of the 1930s are identical, isolationism, protectionism and anti-immigrant sentiment.
As I child, I heard isolationist Upton Close tell listeners reports about Pearl Harbor were unlikely to be true because Japan wouldn’t do such a thing. In 1957, as a green Foreign Service Officer I issued visas in Tokyo under a racist Mc-Carran-Walters Act, vetoed unsuccessfully byTruman.
On the good side, professors and mentors knew the now forgotten Smoot-Hawley tariffs were a huge error. Favorable winds of internationalism enabled my wife, a naturalized Latina, to honestly help me represent America in Asia, Latin America and Europe. Now, we worry about Hispanic officers and spouses trying to showcase the U.S. for a bigoted Trump administration.
Just as WWII unified us, so did the Cold War, except for Vietnam. Now that “we have met the enemy and they are us” (Pogo) to put humpty back together is harder.
I never met anything resembling the “liberal world order” which neo-conservatives like Kagan and the liberal “responsibility to protect” crowd say Trump has overturned. What the Greatest Generation built were European and Pacific alliances which kept us safe from all but self-inflicted wounds, Vietnam and Iraq. A post Trump foreign policy must aim to restore a stable balance of power, a concept foreign to the President's personality.
38
I believe Donald Trump is correct and Mr. Kagan is wrong in terms of what path America should follow.
It is time to put an end to the endless wars that have cost us so much in blood and treasure. Are we better off for our interventions in Iraq and Libya?
It is time to put an end to the type of free trade that has seen our factories and jobs shipped off to other countries. I would rather pay higher prices at Wal Mart so an American farmer or worker can keep his job than pay higher taxes to subsidize bread and circuses for the unemployed.
It is time to secure our borders. A nation without borders is not a nation, but a piece of real estate.
39
@Eric The endless wars the US fights are a byproduct of the lack of a draft and the corrupting influence of the military industrial complex on congress. Wars are a welfare program for a politically favored industrial sector.
There are aspects of free trade that are unfair to US workers, such as the failure to apply uniform rules for labor rights and pollution in different countries, but in general, trade helps everyone. It’s easy to forget how bad US cars were before foreign competition raised the game. It’s also easy to forget that when you apply tariffs to protect US automakers, other countries apply tariffs that wipe out jobs at Boeing.
The problems the US has are mostly self inflicted: poor primary education systems, a health care system that is an extortion racket, and grossly excessive spending on the military. As the old Pogo cartoon said: I’ve seen the enemy and it’s us.
1
@Eric
As the trade war escalates, we'll soon see how Americans like the de facto sales tax of tariffs. Wages have been stagnant during and after The Great Recession. If prices rise and wages remain the same, we'll see how people like reduced buying power and how long the Trump approach and Mr. Trump last. The large numbers of people retiring and going on a fixed income may well ponder this as they make do with less.
1
@Eric The military is eating up the nation s wealth, see the military budget the bi-partisan Senate just past. About 80% for weapons and nothing for schools and health care and yes, our poor. Our wars are eating the nation's wealth. Who made the nation invade Iraq and Afghanistan, bring regime change to Lybia and Syria?
We did it on our own, no one made us do it. Why sanctions against Iran, economic warfare and the real goal is regime change, OUR man again in Teheran?
I refuse to accept this. I believe it, but I refuse to accept it. I’ll go to my grave believing we are better than that.
4
Obama was praised for hitting the "reset button" with Russia when it seemed a more benign entity. Now that Russia has actively attacked the U.S. through cyber means as a way of undermining our democracy (and appears to be doing it again), the LAST thing Trump should be doing is extending a hand. We are rewarding them for attacking us. Same is true for North Korea.
I am in support of the trade wars with China, but it will most likely end up hurting our economy. Trump will likely seek a convenient scapegoat, denying truths and facts as he is wont to do, when the pain begins to be felt at home. My hope is that he will carry the blame.
2
The problem with evaluating the opinion of the average American on this topic is the question of why we have billions to give away to foreign countries but we haven't achieved the desired level of financial security. We seem to think that those billion dollar giveaways when ended will somehow end up in our own pockets. This country has a pattern of giving and giving around the world while believing that no hard working American or one living in poverty deserves a free lunch. You know, like a national system of healthcare or cash benefits to all Americans. When seen this way it's really crazy how the US spends its money.
5
Mr. Kagan gives us his opinion of the U.S. returning to the "good old days" of U.S. global leadership.
Mr. Kagan ignores all the costs to the U.S. since WW II: military lives, military subsidizing of Europe and other allies, trade deals that were unfair signed under the banner of "leadership". He also ignores most of our "allies" demand as a right at any time to seek their own paths on policy issues, leaving the U.S. in the lurch, especially when there is a profitable trade deal they can sign. Each of our allies over the last few years, or last few days in Europe, insist on being able to act in their own self interest before that of the U.S.
Mr. Kagan, the world is changing. Convince us that keeping the policies and global organizations of the past makes sense for the U.S.
3
If we really want to put America first, we need to get rid of dual citizenship. My cousins whose father was Portugese while their mother was American were all born in Switzerland and lived in France and Belgium growing up. At age 21, under then rules, they had to decide whether to be European or American. They all chose to be Portugese citizens. I've never figured out how and when the rule changed although I could look it up on line and I'm sure it was to benefit Israelis mostly as they seem to be the most with dual citizenship. So we end up with people with perhaps more loyalty to another country too involved in running this one. When citizens of another country are allowed to be in our Federal Government or even mayor of a major city (Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago for example) I find it troubling. When some Australians I knew in South Carolina became American citizens they were required to give up their Australian citizenship. I find that totally appropriate.
8
The global order that is now disintegrating benefited US and the West and was created by them. It's probably time for it to change because of historic trends. US and the West stand to lose the most whichever way this disintegration happens. Obama was trying to manage the process and limit its effects, Trump is reinforcing the trends (not talking here about obvious differences between the two, another issue). Anyone reasonable would try to slow the process down to preserve and prolong as many advantages as possible. The general public lacks in depth understanding of how global economy works and wealth of nations is accumulated and blames worsening inequality, job losses and other issues on abstract "globalism" with the help of some politicians taking advantage... At the same time neither democrats nor republicans proposed good policies to address these underlying issues leading to the discontent of voters....
3
Post WWII world order was built by putting America first, USSR second and UK, France and China as a distant third.
20th century became the American Century, the dollar the international currency, English the language of diplomacy and trade. American cultural influence helped the exportation of made-in-America goods and values. The global institutions that many Americans dislike today were set in the first place to protect the endurance of their interests.
What happened next was out of America’s control or envision. USSR and with it the Post WWII global system collapsed. We are now in a state of global chaos similar to 1789-1815 or 1914-1945. Until the next stable global order is shaped and defined, we cannot predict what kind of organic developments will take place to establish it.
This uncertainty feeds the zero-sum worldviews and boosts the popularity of populism. If we want to fight this short-sighted populism, we need to stop producing answers with yesterday’s vocabulary. Relying on institutions that were set to sustain an order that is gone by now won’t be able to answer the demands of this chaos.
The new order will have new rules and likely new hegemons. The thinking shall be forward. The question shall be how to lay a new path for the next stable global order, and not how to get America back to its old path.
5
You mistake this current circus of an administration for a ongoing “trend.” But you conveniently forget that millions more people voted for HRC and international cooperation not conquest. This current administrations emphasis on white supremacy, reprehensible racial division and insane fear of the rest of the world, including our long term allies,is a blot on America’s history brought about by Russian hacking and an outmoded electoral system-not a “trend.” Go peddle your dogwhistle racism and divisiveness somewhere else-you’re all washed up here.
6
"In retrospect it’s pretty clear that Mr. Obama was too internationalist for his party base."
Patently false. Where do these writes get some of this guff.
6
The paradigm of an American: Sitting with a gun on the front porch in a dilapidated shack in a remote and inaccessible backwoods location, surrounded by a fence with "GO AWAY! Trespassers will be shot!" signs every few feet.
That may be how many Americans really want to live, and how they want their entire country to be. That may be what they want, but frankly it is an incredibly STUPID way to live, and about as unproductive a waste of a life and a country as could be imagined. America and its people hold so much more promise than that. We could be making ourselves better, but instead we are making ourselves worse.
11
Most Americans disagree with Trump's idiotic fascist foreign and domestic policies. Most Americans hate Putin's attempts at Russian domination of Europe. Most Americans appreciate immigration. The author doesn't understand the perspective of most Americans.
8
So much "globalony". China is a mercantilist country. NATO members let the U.S. pay 70% of the bills. Immigration and trade policy have NOT been tied to domestic unemployment. Winning elections means keeping the locals employed. This is just common sense, not "America First". We need to bring back centrist politics. Western democracy is based on compromise.
3
Bob Kagan is correct. American voters have repeatedly done their best to repudiate the intervention-first, regime change nonsense versus countries that never attacked US soil.
Mr. Kagan, a neo-con who cheered the Iraq War, should be commended for engaging in some self-reflection here. It has sadly seemed irrelevant which party has been in power. Whether it was LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin lies to expand Vietnam; Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and Iran-Contra; G.W. Bush and the obscenity of Iraq; or Obama, the Constitutional Law Professor who ran against the wars and national security state abuses, only to end his presidency with the shameful distinction of longest wartime president in US history (and someone who doubled and tripled down on neo-con interventionism in Libya and Syria). And Obama brought zero accountability versus John Brennan after CIA violated agreement with Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, spying on them, and brazenly lying about it; & zero accountability vs. Clapper for lying about NSA mass warrantless surveillance under oath.
A lot of things can justifiably be said about Trump but he deserves credit for calling out Jeb Bush and his brother regarding Iraq; and calling out Hillary for her cynical vote to authorize Iraq (she knew far better). Would have much preferred Rand Paul & I expect he would not have been such an embarrassment as Trump but people are fed up after 50+ years of military-industrial & national security state abuse.
7
"...the kind that kept us on the sidelines while fascism and militarism almost conquered the world." The key word being "almost". We responded when it mattered, not before. The phrase: "Don't make me come over there..." comes to mind.
4
Fascism and militarism seem to have conquered the USA.
Articles like this begin with a presumption that the opinions of Americans follow the scripts of political pundits. Meaning that pundits and the reporters who appear on their shows/articles never actually feel the need to ask Americans to really answer "why".
Left and Right alike feel taken advantage of by an endlessly corrupt national government, but neither side has ever had it explained to them why, for instance, why drones kill people with no congressional oversight, or why immigrants were ever let into this country. These are two complicated issues and neither politicians, pundits nor reporters ever try to explain why anything done in our name and by our government, is a good idea.
What this does is to create a seeming class of ignorant citizens who respond not with a depth of understanding, but with an emotional immediacy and their "sense" of what is right.
This article is of the same ilk as the rest produced by the pundit-ocracy and the result is unenlightening. The idea that americans no longer want other nations to be "free-riders" is a red herring because so few americans have any idea what our money is actually spent on that gave other nations a leg up on us (giving them a free-ride). Is Tbilisi getting something great from us? Are we losing out because they don't do something for us?
People know enough to give more expansive opinions than "free riders", but you have to ask them the question and deal with the actually complicated reality of their answers.
7
For many of us (I'm a 64 white hispanic and have been an American citizen for 55 years) America first is NOT about isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration. America first is about what makes all Americans live better, fulfill their dreams and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
America has always grown, been a better country, had more wealth to share when we traded with all other countries freely, when we welcomed everyone, knowing that you can never tell who might be the next super genius. We've always been at our best when we take the center stage based not on bullying but in the moral superiority of knowing we try to do the right thing.
Look at Nixon and Kissinger... they opened the door to China and to one of the greatest moments our country has known.
Look at Clinton... erased debt and we had a superavit for the first time in decades.
America first is not about partisanship it is about getting the right people with the right vision.
3
It continues to amaze me how many people continue to repeat the falsehood that unfair trade deals allowed China to grow to its current state. One need, only, go back to the Reagan presidency when the administration paved the way for American corporations to shutter production in America and bring in those same products from Mexico or Asia with minimal tariffs. That is not a deficient trade deal. It is the American government helping the top 5% to partner with low cost producers and shaft the American worker. Trump gets things wrong because he is ignorant by choice. Why are so many Americans continuing to get it wrong, as well.
6
It is really worth pointing out that Robert Kagan is a neo-conservative interventionist and avid supporter of the Iraq war.
His sole concern is that Americans might be getting weary of fighting wars and bombing people so that Kagan can strut around feeling tough. It's always 1939 as far as Kagan is concerned. And he's always in favor of shedding American blood for "credibility".
12
Hmm… did anything else take place in America between 1921 and 1936 that might've prompted a greater desire for focus on "domestic issues"?
Anyone remember the recession of the early 90s, or the Great Recession in 2008?
Kagan's blatant disregard for any sort of materialist explanation for lack of interest in preserving the "liberal world order" is galling.
8
Rarely has an esteemed journalistic personage gotten it so wrong.
There was, and may be still, a remnant of "America first" left over from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but everything Trump has done internationally can and will be undone by the stroke of a democratic president's pen.
Sooner if the looming harmful effects of tariffs and deficits continue to require government bail outs of failing industries in the midst of the greatest economy in history, ever, ever, ever, ever!
1
Seriously, "no popular outcry against Mr. Trump’s trade battles with Canada, Mexico and the European allies"? That's your metric? The visibility and vociferousness of opposition by average people working multiple jobs and struggling to pay rent and medical bills and somehow afford healthy food? How privileged your perspective is, and how out of touch with the fact that people abhor EVERYTHING about this mercenary administration – except any promise (no matter how bald a lie) that the one in charge is going to somehow make things better for them. That's the lie of all his work – it's benefitting no one at the bottom. "If people didn't like it, they'd complain more." I'd sugguest that you go get your hands dirty, and meet some non-academics.
2
Every president has put America first .... until Trump, ironically, as he has kowtowed to Putin and whom ever he owes billions to among the oligarchs. He fights a trade war with China and Canada - our 2 biggest trading partners - that hurt Americans more than their citizens. THIS is America First, Trump style? More like a new variation on Blame America First - Trump always does ....
3
Impressive cherry pick of economic data to support your position, you are not the first person and won’t be the last to do so. That being said, it is a global economy and has been for some time.
2
Mr. Kagan, you glaringly skip over 9/11 and the neoconservative agenda in the 2000s, which haunt us to today. Americans are indeed weary of war, but they value the moral principles that have guided our foreign policy at important times. The idiocy of the current administration clouds our ability to pursue reasoned and principled policy. Our leadership in the world is needed now more than ever and the liberal world order has sustained growth and prosperity since the end of WWII. I see no other clear path for us to return to once this aberration is finally gone.
3
If WW1 and 2 are anything to go by, then global wars found the US (generally in a state of unpreparedness I might add) despite furious and persistent attempts at pursuing isolationism by many Americans.
The evil actors in the world seem to prefer those times when America becomes insular as perfect times to carve up the globe in their favour. Funny, that.
As every defunct ostrich should know, sticking your head in the sand doesn’t really make the hungry predator go away.
And as Americans ought to know, it costs a heckuva lot more blood and treasure to fight for their freedom in a world run amok than it does to prevent the world from running amok in the first place.
3
Internationalism works when military back up enforces the rules. Given that the US spends as much as the next 5 nations combined, that's the US
Mr. Xi, on the step of the White House promised Mr Obama not to militarize the South China Sea.
No action
Mr. Assad crossed the red line
No action
Putin annexed Crimea
No action
Not Mr. Obama's fault. His inaction correctly reflected that the American public is in no longer in the mood to spend the blood and money required to enforce international order
2
Hillary Clinton didn't struggle to hold off Bernie Sanders. She wiped the floor with him if you actually count votes. She also won a huge popular vote victory over Trump.
You're also discounting the fact that the House and Senate majorities were both elected with a minority of US voters
More Americans voted for Democrats in the House, the Senate and for President in the last election.
There's a very good reason to believe that "America First" is only supported because of the unequal representation of Americans because we are a Republic, not a democracy.
There is no consensus. There is apathy and minority representation over the majority because of our Republic.
The other point which, is absurd is that liberals support more military confrontation. The sequester was broken by "America First" Republicans to increase our military presence both here and abroad.
The Liberal world order is supported by law, standards and the results. It's been the greatest wealth producer in the history of the World.
5
You got your title wrong, it should be:
"Incredibly Rich Americans First" has won.
8
Beware of theorists, of all persuasions, who place maximum emphasis on back-or-white propositions.
Good governance is about practical, pragmatic solutions. This is what American's really want. Neither internationalist, nor isolationist, Americans want their political leadership to truly represent their interests.
In trade economics, Americans desire policies that foster broad-based benefits for Americans. This is not anti-free trade, but it does demand that our leaders honestly confront exactly how truly "free" the trade deals they commit us to really are.
In international relations, it is not that Americans seek to withdraw from the world and the network of alliances we have built. Rather, we desire that our leaders continuously and honestly evaluate how our precious treasure and blood is used. This does not require a withdrawal from NATO, but it does require actual results when we speak about all players keeping the defense commitments.
The broad range of Americans knows that we are an immigrant nation and that continued immigration is important to our national health. Concurrently, we expect that our leaders will write and enforce reasonable rules and laws that subject immigration to the same types of logical controls that some much else in life is subject to.
This is practical. This is pragmatic. This is good governance. This is why we periodically vote to throw one set of "bums" out, and try another.
3
Americans desire policies that foster broad-based benefits for Americans.
Which is why it's a good thing that America is folding inwards and the rest of the world will be forced to stand up.
Mickey Mouse is no longer global.
1
The USA needs more consumers to maintain a healthy economy in isolationist times. We need to bring in about 300 million more consumers to become self sustaining.
1
@Told you so, haha! Spoken like a true Chamber of Commerce Democrat or real estate developer! It has been astonishing & counter-intuitive that Trump the real estate developer has actually been the one to help protect the environment and fight against sprawl by helping to reduce turbo-charged population growth via unlimited immigration. Now if only the GOP would support family planning more, both globally and domestically, because lack of access to same presumably hurts & slows the development of other nations and creates more migrant pressures.
What we need now is not an either-or choice between globalism and isolationism, but a realignment of our tactics in how we engage the world. We continue to spend vast sums on conventional military engagements (not to mention the lives and limbs of our people). It is fair to ask what results those engagements have had, lest the classic definition of insanity apply. We need to focus on cyberwarfare and fight terrorism by cutting off their money supply and isolating regimes that support it (that includes Saudi Arabia and the UAE as much as Iran).
We need to pass legislation that constrains businesses (hello Facebook, Twitter, et. al.) that give our enemies an open door. We need to strengthen protections for intellectual property, which in some cases may mean blocking American firms from doing business with firms known to engage in IP theft, counterfeiting, etc. We need to rebuild our State Department (which Trump is doing his best to destroy), so that diplomatic solutions become a real possibility.
We need to focus on soft power abroad, while at the same time, we need to direct our spending to giving Americans a New Deal at home.
5
If Trump doesn't want us to interfere in other countries' affairs, why doesn't he order all the troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. We have been there so long it's starting to look like a tradition, and we will always be there.
I don't believe in open borders, but I believe in immigration. I also believe in America having a humane policy of taking care of refugees. If we hadn't meddled so much in Central America we most likely wouldn't have the hoards of refugees heading for our border now. We should take this as a lesson of what happens when we meddle where we don't belong. There's always a blowback.
Instead of expanding the military and giving huge tax cuts to the rich and the big corporations, we should be spending on our crumbling infrastructure and making use of renewable energy in a big way. It would not only make us more like a first-world country; it would create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.
I'm so tired of seeing this country going downhill and going against all that is reasonable and pragmatic.
6
In not so subtle ways, Kagan reminds us that the complacency which has gripped America since the end of the Cold War bears uncanny resemblances to our national optimism for lasting international peace after the end of the Great War. The League of Nations was intended to ensure that peace, yet steady withdrawal into an atmosphere of isolationism and protectionism, exacerbated by the Great Depression, ensured our unwilling and unwanted ensnarement into WWII instead.
America would do well to remember that, at a time when vast oceans no longer serve to protect our shores as they once did, and globalization, abetted by transformative technological advances, has blurred once clearly delineated lines between nations and societies as never before, the conditions which fostered the frightening growth of Nazism and Fascism following the Great War exhibit alarming similarities to those which have facilitated the rapid recovery of Russia and China via strategic expansion of their spheres of influence.
If we allow ourselves to continue along the path which Kagan plausibly suggests that we are on, we should expect it to lead to similar results. While we certainly must address and halt the Trump and Republican juggernauts if we hope to retain our democracy that, in itself, is not enough. We must recalibrate our attitudes toward isolationism, nationalism, immigration, exclusivity, racism, justice, income distortion, and America First. Anything less is incompatible with the world of today.
1
It would be comforting to blame America’s current posture on Mr. Trump. But while he may be a special kind of president, even he can’t create a public mood out of nothing.
2
I am not sure I completely agree with this largely because Trump's policies have given us a glaring view of what the future would look like if the U.S. withdraws into an isolationist country. I used to say the U.S. should not be the policeman of the world but now that we are withdrawing from that role, I have changed my view. If it not us, then the vacuum is filled with everything we stand against. We have a role to play and we have to accept it. The bigger issue is that we need to play that role pragmatically.
Should we protect Macedonia if necessary? Yes, because the goal is to prevent aggressive incursions. Should we have done more about Crimea? Absolutely. And our allies should have joined us. That is something I think Obama was trying to highlight. We cannot let the rest of the world just sit back and let us handle it. We need to act as a group and the US should not have to shoulder the entire burden. On the other hand, should we have attacked Iraq? Absolutely not. There was no reason for us to act in that country. None. But we broke it and now we are stuck fixing it. I think Americans resent that more than anything. Going into a place where we had no business being and staying there on the premise that if we just wait it out long enough, do a surge, do Nation building, it will be fixed. No one believes that and that causes a great deal of resentment in the average American. in sum, it depends on the situation.
3
In the past, the US globalism served primarily to mitigate two strategic threats: losing the foreign commodity resources (particularly oil) and expansion of the communist ideology, which could lead to nationalization of the US corporations abroad. Nation building looked like fun after successful transition of the western Europe to democracy after the 2nd World War. Now, the aforementioned threats have dissipated and it's clear that nation building outside Europe doesn't work. So it's not surprising that Americans have 2nd thoughts about global involvement.
4
I am for TPP mostly because it is another series of economic links with other countries, which would also have the advantage of keeping China more in check.
Granted that it would be nice not to have the parameters of the deal worked out by private-sector lobbyists. I am sure the government could call on experts in universities the way NASA did with the Moon Landing program.
I also hope that the European Union goes through as well.
All of these "arrangements would serve as guardrails against the "belligerent" approaches used by the military-complex apparatus, their lobbyists and the "paid for" politicians.
It is fascinating to read this article and the comments for so many reasons. It is all promise one thing and do something totally different. Kagan writes that George W. Bush ran on the promise to reduce global involvement but then started the Iraq War and continuing the one in Afghanistan. And while Trump is trying to build a wall which will stop nothing unless we put in guard towers every 100 feet or so with orders to shoot to kill, and he has put on billions of dollars of tariffs which are actually paid by American businesses and consumers, raising everyones cost of living, he has actually increased foreign involvement in Syria, Afghanistan, Africa and Iraq, applied for more visas for foreign workers for his golf courses, still manufactures his clothing including the MAGA hats abroad and has imported two out of three of his wives! I guess he does eat American food to some extent although I hear he imports his steaks from that greedy Canada! Inflation is up and has eaten up any increased wages that ordinary workers may have gotten and only 20 % of Americans have had any benefit from the overheated stock market. At least here in New England we have lots of water of the right sort in lakes and ponds rather than flooding rivers. And we are close to Canada should we need to emigrate north as the climate warms.
5
We seem to have forgotten the perception, real or imagined, that the new world order we have established and cultivated since World War II, has provided us with the markets and resultant prosperity that we enjoy today.
Are we willing to give all that up? Or is it even at risk with an emergent China and a desperate Russia staking territorial claims and imposing their wills upon their neighbors?
Seems to me that as the poor and middle class in our country get more and more pinched, they find themselves looking inward rather than outward. I'm not convinced that the isolationist route will make things any better for people here in the U.S.
1
Opposing open borders is not isolationist. Opposing birth tourism, and other laws originally ment to protect freed slaves being gamed isn't isolationist.
Opposing trade agreements that allow China a huge surplus is not Islationist.
Opposing Internationalism, globalism European style is not isolationist.
9
Americans have thought for decades that Americans were spending too much to support international order and others should bear most of the load. But at the same time, there has been a consensus contrary to that among foreign policy elites including most of the Senate with some considerable dissent on military adventures. What has broken down in this administration is the deference to foreign policy elites and a willingness of Senators to support that old consensus.
1
Call it want you want but America First is a necessary approach. For too long we've overextended ourselves internationally (and in the process we've created as many problems as we've solved). And in the meanwhile all we've done is waste blood and treasure while problems at home mount.
Furthermore, we have very little to show either for ourselves or for the residents of countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Vietnam. Will it might seem like a "good" thing to overthrow Sadam Hussein or cast off the the Taliban, the reality is that those political realities were symptoms not causes of the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. These places are not culturally ready for liberal democracy (and frankly may never be).
Similarly, immigration is a fractious issue that divides the country twice over. Not only does the issue of immigration policy polarize us politically, but an influx of foreign-born people who do not share the same values, goals, cultural references, or even language can only serve to further divide us. Democracy cannot function when a populace shares nothing in common. The idea of multiculturalism is a misnomer. The overwhelming majority of Americans are still monocultural - it's just different cultures that have little in common with each other.
7
@JP
On the contrary, most Americans, even if they are not aware of it, adopt many things brought by other cultures.
There is no such thing as a pure "American culture."
1
Bernie Sanders is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. This is an artificial dichotomy. There is a broad center, which advocates US involvement in the world, but not CIA coups and forever wars.
You know this.
9
Mr. Kagan is simply another in a long list of so-called "pundits" to intentionally conflate "isolationism" with "non-interventionism". The two are NOT the same.
The non-interventionist shares only ONE characteristic with the isolationist: to not involve oneself in what Jefferson called "entangling alliances" to not, in the words of John Quincy Adams, "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy". The non-interventionist believes it to be immoral, dangerous and unaffordable to engage militarily in multiple conflicts that have no direct bearing on US national security. We concur with the Constitution's provision that the Congress provide for military DEFENSE, not unsustainable empire-building.
The non-interventionist REJECTS the isolationist's views on trade and diplomacy: non-interventionists embrace free trade and open dialog with all nations. Isolationists restrict trade via quotas, bans and tariffs, and discourage diplomatic relations with potential adversaries.
In our current environment, we have a President who is isolationist with respect to trade, and who falsely projects isolationism on military interventions. And when he demonstrates a willingness to engage in diplomacy, he finds himself attacked by those who reject such dialog: the quasi-isolationists in the opposition party, the neoconservative wing of his own party, and the majority of the "mainstream" media, including this paper.
6
The statistics cited by Mr. Kagan are not accurate. A distinct majority of Americans support free trade, immigration, and participation in NATO. Those are facts. The positions supported by Mr. Kagan do not represent the majority of Americans.
3
Spot on from my less specialized understanding. Trump beat Clinton by siphoning off just enough Sanders voters in the rust belt who economically are often American Firsters. Clinton's global trade to increase the wealth pie and offset losing industries like coal with reeducation had no chance against the protectionism of Trump. People resist change even as doing so makes them poorer.
2
Much of American liberalism is based upon false premises. And writers in the NY TImes as well as US academics tend to make faulty assumptions.
There is a tendency in the social sciences to take a conclusion that one wants to prove, then assemble the facts to support it. This has become more prevalent as departments of sociology and political science have been supplemented by departments of black studies and chicano studies, which see advocacy as part or their mission.
The result is that liberals do not see why one of the pillars of the America first policy gains support among the poor. Particularly the poor whites, who are often characterized in political discourse as the "unworthy poor."
These poor often fall through the cracks of a health care system that was once promised by liberals to tend towards universal health care. They wait in line behind Spanish speakers, where they receive their only meaningful health care.
Unskilled American laborers compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. The illegal immigrants are willing to work for less, and perhaps under the table.
Many cities in California, for example, have a population that is mostly white English speakers, but the schools are filled with Spanish speaking students. This is because illegal immigrants have higher fertility.
But nobody can talk about these issues without being labeled racist.
In voting however the poor whites have the say which liberals try to deny them.
That's why Trump gained power.
7
"But while he may be a special kind of president" An understatement, Trump is mentally unstable, essentially unhinged with potential to lead to a catastrophic end. Yes, Trump is a culmination of Republican policies and strategies since Reagan and Reganomics relying especially on racism to win elections. It is not "America First" it is America at its end state, a downward spiral of decline with Trump unleashing a darkness of hatred and division, a tribal state. View Trump's rallies, MAGA Trump supporters are distorted in hatred for
Trump hates the same people they do and they celebrate their hatred with and through Trump! Remember, Sinclair Lewis said: "Fascism will come to America wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross!"
3
Mr.Kagan forgot to mention Racism along with isolationism, protectionism and anti-immigration. Racism has gained much more popularity among Trump Voters than any other agenda. Trump voters had fear that they were loosing after Obama won the election. Now they see a savior in him. They respect him more than Jesus Christ. Donald Trump did not start these agendas, he is not an aberration . He is the ultimate result of the extreme right wing Republican party and the right wing talk radio. He is the culmination or may worst is coming in near future. Make America Great Again or MAGA is anti-American. America is much better than MAGA agendas. Hopefully good majority silent people will wake up and will take America back again before it is too late. Damage is done.
3
When that "rules-based international order" has evolved into nothing more than a rubber stamp for elite power and enrichment, it needs to change. Trump gets it.
7
It is pretty clear that during Lincoln's tenure the abolition movement was a small, radical group among those Northerners who at best, were wary of disrupting the status quo and at worst were sympathetic to the Southerners cause, if not their methods. It is pure folly to believe that any dependable government will truly represent the selfish and unrealistic wishes of the aggregate population.
America First is nothing more than an extension of Me First, which is generally the human condition. Me First would steal from weaker neighbors, if not for the imposed consequences. Me First will lie and cheat with impunity were it not for punitive elements in the community. Having a Chief Executive who lies and cheats with impunity and can scarcely condescend to act like he isn't simply removes the stigma of appealing to the lesser angels of our nature.
Any idiot can appeal to mankind's selfish side, and mankind has repeatedly fallen into this trap, convinced somehow that the aforementioned idiot is acting on their behalf. It results in government set on novice level, like little children having ice cream for every meal.
The most difficult feat in a democratic society is to find a leader who can run a smart tight ship without appearing smarter than the governed, someone who can inspire the populace to look beyond their own precious skin. In the absence of inspiration comes resignation.
2
Re "the rank and file": Education is the cure for ignorance. There is, however, no known cure for wilful ignorance and/or stupidity.
“As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” H.L. Mencken, 1920
“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” H.L. Mencken, 1926
Mencken was correct then, and would be equally correct today...
1
Our past few presidents have failed to adjust to 2 very international and domestic national trends. They are:
(1) The relative strength of the U.S. versus other nations has decreased, although our military prowess remain unchallenged giving our presidents a false sense of security. In realty, we can’t afford to emphasize consumer interests via free trade as much as before, while enriching export-focused nations like China, Germany, and Japan.
(2) Our population density has increased so much that America cannot remain a "Nation of immigrants” any longer. Instead, we need to admit high quality immigrants only, while permitting seasonal needs of manual laboring forces.
We think short-term, although deep in the consciousness of an average American, we know some changes must come. President Trump didn’t actually facilitate these change. His style tends only to slow the needed changes. Beating Pres. Trump in 2020 should be easy, if we have presidential candidate from either party, advocating the same policies but using the right words to respectfully express America’s genuine needs to the American people and to the international community.
6
I see no mention of George W. Bush or the Iraq war.....?
4
Another ridiculous slogan. Just as stupid a "Make America Great Again"....America is great and has always been great until it selected trump as president. "America First" only has meaning to people who feel threatened and are fearful of other human beings who are not white...White America is not a race. .. America includes all people, all colors, all religions, and is an ongoing experiment in ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. Slogans are buzz words for people with simple minds.
5
If foreign involvement is not practiced wisely, then it may result in terrible decisions such as the Iraq war. In such cases, "isolation" leading to restraint would have been a better outcome. So in truly wise governance, it is case by case, and not a categorical decision. Isolationism vs. active involvement speaks to one or the other being the default position, which must be overcome by facts and reason to act otherwise. (And watch out for corrupt or impulsive motives.) So, which is the best practice ?
1
This is so absurd, a US President should put the US and not the globe first.
We have had enough of globalists presidents. Americans voted for an American President for a change.
And the US is still a most reliable ally to Israel - the only true friend that Israel genuinely has. The US is still allies with the Europeans, but Trump just wants them to honor their commitments. If Germany can pay for all of the migrants, they can pay for their own defense.
45
@Philly
So, it's us and Israel against the world? That's promising. And we can't even defend our elections from being hacked.
We live in the world, bubba. Shutting the door doesn't make it go away.
13
@Philly
Wrong. The U.S. is a financial supporter to Israel than anything else.
And by supporting that country's right-wing nationalist interests at the expense of being a neutral negotiator for peace in the region, it has become nothing more than a political tool.
5
@Philly What does the US get for being an Israeli Ally? More entangled in the cesspool of historical grievances that plague the region.
By the way, Germany is overrun with migrants because the US destroyed what had been a semi-stable Mideast. The defense agreements the US had in place with Europe were intended to “keep the Russians out and the Germans down.” If the Germans doubt the reliability of US backing, they will simply start a nuclear weapons program, as will the Japanese and South Koreans.
The US built the post WW2 international order to be good for America, and good for American business. Abandoning the structure does not make the US better off.
8
This isn't just a U.S. phenomena, it's happening in the E.U. too. What woke me up was when I heard immigrants in France, of all places, live in their own enclaves, and seem to have not blended into the French society. This is to me, is a major failing of the past West's friendly immigration stance.
2
This column gives Americans too much credit. Mr. Kagan assumes that vast swaths of the populace give serious issues (immigration, health care, economic policy) serious thought. Such is manifestly not the case; America's biggest problem is ignorance. Uninformed voters are a cancer on representative democracy, and in Trump we see the pinnacle (well, actually the nadir). The reason I have little to no optimism about this country's chances to right itself is that this country is determined to worsen the anti-intellectualism inherent in its DNA. Every day, cynicism and derision grow when it comes to education and development of intellect. Spend 10 minutes in the UK or Europe and you'll notice the stark difference in this regard. Sure, there are ignorant people everywhere, but in Europe or England, people still accept as doctrine the notion that ignorance or being poorly educated is detrimental and embarrassing. Not here, where millions upon millions of people wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. Mr. Kagan, like Mr. Obama, probably doesn't really grasp the extent to which the American public is its own worst enemy because neither of them spend time among this crowd. No, America's best days are almost certainly behind her. Populism et al. are just symptoms of the terminal disease of ignorance that is slowly killing us as a once-great nation.
5
"Now as always, presidents reflect public opinion at least as much as they shape it."
The problem is that Trump represents a distinct minority of Americans. He lost the popular vote by a large margin. The ONLY reason he is in office is due to an antiquated electoral system that is heavily biased towards low-population ultra right wing states. As is the Senate - of which the "majority" represents and even smaller minority than Trump. We are now in the position of being dominated by a small ultra right wing minority with no quick recourse to stop their idiotic policies due to the structural bias of our political system.
5
You are quite right with your view of the Trump "America First" policy. I venture that Trump is not, really, an isolationist. Rather, he is more of a "bilateralist", if such a term exists. He doesn't like the US being forced into fights, whether military or economic, that were not of their own making (this Paris Climate Accord, Iran deal, TPP, even NAFTA).
Further, I contend that Trump didn't start the trade war with China, they already won (as proven by their $500B+ trade surplus and unchecked theft of US intellectual property). Trump is trying to turn the economic Titanic before we get to the iceberg (although some may say we hit it some time ago).
The Trumpian economic actions and foreign policy are actually doing quite well. I mean, look at the numbers (GDP growth, consumer confidence, unemployment). Also, how many articles are out there warning us of the Islamic State (remember them?). While NK may not be making rapid progress in the promised denuclearization, we aren't worrying about them lobbing nukes.
I genuinely think the hatred for Trump comes not from his actual policies, but from his rather abrasive personality. Why is it the left cannot see past the jerk of a man for the benefit his policies have for this country? Maybe they genuinely believe in liberal big government, high-tax, open border policies?
3
As a proud democrat, I can assure our distaste comes from his shortsighted ineffective harmful policies.
4
"Most Democratic politicians railing against Mr. Trump’s “appeasement” of Moscow hailed Obama’s “reset” a few years ago and chastised Republicans for seeking a new Cold War."
Another equivalency that doesn't make sense. Just stop it! Trump's behavior in front of Putin was just despicable.
Trump's foreign policy is a huge mess, nothing makes sense, everything is just a morning whim. Just don't try to rationalize it!
3
One more Neocon - the geniuses who gave us the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam and remain unrepentant and now want a war with Iran - now cleverly becoming darlings of liberal (the establishment/corporate version) media as Never-Trumpers instead of their previous perches at Fox “News” and other right-wing propaganda outlets, where they routinely/constantly attacked liberal media outlets and “naive” and dangerous liberals. Kristol, Podhoretz, Frum, Boot, Rubin, Stephens, Weiss et al now make MSNBC and NYT their home, now shunning Foxes News which has become fully Trump Propaganda Network. The Neocons are apparently Never-Trumpers, but love Trump’s positions on Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States. Neocons were the original group attacking the UN, NATO, EU, post-WWII US-led international order - just like Trump does now. Bolton is an interesting Never-Trumper that is now Trump’s National Security Advisor.
Most Americans support the US-led international world order - most recognize that changes are needed to that 75 years old world order - that America is no longer the only hegemon, that we live in a multilateral world, but American leadership remains the best option along with partnerships with democratic allies.
Kagan and his Weekly Standard and Commentary crowd need to do a full mea culpa on Iraq and stop wanting a war with Iran where they will again fight with other people’s sons and daughters dying. We should never listen to Kagan and company again.
11
As a former student of the author’s father I mean no disrespect by this, but it’s striking how these neoconservative hawks so seldom join the military or serve in the militaries they encourage the rest of us to fund, man, and deploy with.
And I think this is worth exploring. Personally, I think the author and members of his immediate family - and let’s just be honest here, most Jewish neoconservatives whose families fled war zones in Europe - are struggling with some nasty personal demons. They probably carry a lot of guilt about being runners and victims vs. fighters. And so they pen statements, they pen essays and columns on the need to intervene.
But they never put any of their own skin into the game, do they? I suspect this eats them up. And so, like the rich white progressives who advocate for Black Lives Matter on one hand while fighting so their children can attend nearly all white exclusive schools on the other, neoconservatives like the Kagans wind up projecting. They write and write, but expect others to do and fight.
Instead of doing this, maybe they should seek therapy. Why not accept being a runner and not a fighter? Why all of the guilt? I’m sure people would be happy to crowd source the funding for their therapy. And if they want to have another go at intervening in the Middle East, we could even get them a one way ticket to Israel. Let them be settlers, let them pursue their dreams!
Ultimately, they need to live THEIR lives, and leave U.S. out of it.
12
Misguided you are. Of the things that Trump is right about, trade and international policing of the rest of the world are included.
2
I have to point out that Kagan on one hand compares Obama to Trump's Russia appeasement by noting Obama's "reset", and then a few paragraphs later talks about Obama being too internationalist and citing "Russian sanctions" as an example.
Pretty sloppy to so totally contradict yourself in the same article.
7
This was interesting right up to "— the kind that kept us on the sidelines while fascism and militarism almost conquered the world." And suddenly I saw endless wars on foreign shores.
3
Kagan is correct. Donald Trump didn’t go from reality TV huckster to president because he invented isolationism, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiments. He saw those sentiments, tapped into them, and magnified them through twitter rants and screaming rallies.
All these sentinments are based on fears and sense of grievance against all things foreign. Where a real statesman might have tried to assuage America of its fears, a demagogue stokes those flames. And so we have Donald Trump.
5
Obama administration's misadventures in Libya have been one of the biggest disasters for the middle east. Scores of refugees from Libya and sub-Sahara headed toward Europe. Democrat's obsession with one sided treaties such as NAFTA and their support for China's entry into WTO have created havoc for the working class in the weakened industrial Mid-West. The nation did not need another bigger version of NAFTA in the form of TPP. The Democrats have forsaken the interests of the working class.
We all know that the Republicans are the proxy for the donor class. The Democrats have become the Trojan horse for the Wall Street.
It is time the Democrats realign their interests with that of the working class by putting their interests first. Down with one sided trade deals that have hollowed out the nation. That is what America first means to many ordinary Americans.
4
The division of America is based on race, and that is the root of all the ideologies which promote isolationism, protectionism and reduced immigration. White Americans choose to ignore the fact that most of the top leadership of business and industry in this country is run by whites and they are the ones who want to reduce costs and improve profits. They find areas in the world which offer low costs for manufacturing and production. The revolt should have been against these people who are rich and are almost all white. Instead they voted for trump, who is supporting all his white friends in ravaging the American public even more.
The fact that the leaders in this country cannot promote unity and get rid of people who divide this country shows that this division is not going to end anytime soon.
2
Oh, I don' know Mr. Kagan
I suspect Americans would be in favor of robust trade deals if deals like NAFTA and TPP was not engineered by insiders in Washington and lobbyists. The same is probably true for Internationalism but for a different sort of insiders, i.e. warmongers like Cheney, Rumsfeld and his cabal of incompetents including the egregious Bolton finding wars where there are none. No nation can patiently wait for its leaders to extricate America's involvement from then never ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And at what cost! Now we want more with Syria, Yemen, Iran and China? seriously.
This is an age old model for politicians in most countries around the world to keep its population anxious, fearful, on edge and now poor. There has to be a reset and if that is what is happening now its going to be ugly for a while till all this is worked out of our system.
But I fear our current occupant and his advisers do not have that much brainpower or sense. The same set of insiders are dreaming up more wars, more financial collapses, ruinous trade wars. Different set of, shall I say, goons? repeating past mistakes. We never learn.
8
@Gary Valan I know lots of Trump supporters who seriously believe that Trump actually *is* the so-called "re-set" that is said to be needed. They refer to him as a "change agent." I give up.
The author's suggestion that the U.S. remain the Enforcer, and expand its presence internationally, both militarily and economically, reminds me of the parents who devote their time and energy to their jobs and outside charity work, and take in foster children, all while ignoring their own children and homes. They seem not to see that the house in disrepair, their children are running wild, and unable to get jobs to keep them occupied and productive.
We have spent trillions of dollars on international endeavors, from wars to foreign aid, not to mention incentives and tax breaks to companies to invest offshore. Meanwhile what's happening HERE? Jobs and wages have been eliminated, sent to foreign countries; wars have been waged to help the military-industrial complex, that have cost blood and lives, along with trillions of dollars, while inflaming hatred and spawning new cadres of terrorists. Americans aren't blind or stupid. Regardless of political leaning, most of us can see that America's focus outward has weakened us domestically. Even so, most intelligent people aren't calling for complete isolation, but rather a large scaling back, and investing that expense and energy at home, creating decent, sustainable jobs for Americans, and rebuilding our decrepit infrastructure, while ending interference in sovereign nations' affairs.
We need to be strong at home before we expend any more blood and treasure abroad.
4
I think Kagan underestimates the dems' commitment to cosmopolitanism and the international system. I also think he underestimates what an aberration Trump is, how he is pulling the (unwilling) GOP away from globalism because its leader are fearful of his base and feckless. We must go much farther before we are at the collapse point of the system as we've know it since WWII. What appears most likely, to me, is that the stability we've enjoyed these last 70 years is evaporating before our eyes.
4
This is thoroughly unconvincing. The oversimplifications and false-correlations abound. I wonder if it occurred to the author that there was no "popular outcry against Mr. Trump's trade battles," because the public is a) exhausted with all the things there are to cry-out about, and b) largely uninformed about the abstract world of global economics? We are to believe that Bernie Sander's resonant message to voters was perceived as protectionist isolationism, rather than a welcome acknowledgment of the widespread income inequality directed at domestic corporations. Then there is the bizarre assertion that Republicans have not consistently favored military spending, and, more bizarre, the implication that increased military spending would act as a deterrent to "real war." We are told that democrats are hypocritical for supporting Obama's "reset" while being against Trump's appeasement of Russia, as if we hadn't just lived through a targeted, successful, and thoroughly documented attack on our democracy at Putin's direction.
If the author would like to convince me that Donald Trump's political machinations and fever-dreams reflect a wide-spread disposition of the electorate towards protectionism, isolationism, and xenophobia, perhaps he should conduct a poll to ask citizens' opinions on these topics, and quit wasting my time. Opinion without data is just that.
5
@Marty I would love to see such a poll. People would first have to ask what those words mean.
Robert Kagan should be standing in the dock on war crimes charges, not trumpeting his vile chauvinism and militarism from the pages of the NY Times. He was one of the founders of the infamous neoconservative "Project for the New American Century" and a leading promoter of the illegal U.S. war of aggression against Iraq.
Kagan uses the high-sounding word "internationalism" to describe the American pursuit of global hegemony through the promotion of regime change in unfriendly countries. To one degree or another, this policy has been pursued by every American president in living memory. It is still being aggressively pursued by the Trump administration against Iran, Syria, Venezuela and other countries.
But Kagan wants more: more military spending, more regime-change interventions, more threats against Russia and China. He invokes the immigration debate in a cynical and perverse way to rally "liberals" to his neocon crusade, ignoring the fact that the waves of Central American migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. are fleeing violent oppression at the hands of U.S.-imposed dictatorships.
Kagan even dares to compare anti-interventionists to appeasers of fascism and militarism in the run-up to the Second World War. But the main threat to world peace today comes not from outside the United States but from the U.S. itself, and in particular from the chauvinism (or "exceptionalism", as some call it) of the military-industrial complex and foreign policy establishment.
10
The concept that the United States can live in a vacuum within the world is ridiculous, as is the resultant isolation and egotism of MAGA. America (or our piece of it ) was made great by our willingness to accept what was good from the world and build on it with our ingenuity and freedom. The tragedy of 9/11 should have been a wake up call to us all that more needed to be done to help the world throw off the ignorance, bigotry and suppression that creates such violence. Instead, we went to war....something that has no lasting result. The things that will have lasting impact are our generous nature, our respect for all people and a willingness to show and still learn about the true parameters of freedom and its responsibilities. We will never be loved by all but that is not the goal. Our goal and responsibility is to protect our way of life by being just and an example of the strength of democracy to overcome the “messiness” of bad decisions such as Trump.
1
The victory of 'America First' is part of a larger defeat for democracy, inasmuch as politicians have failed to resist Americans' worst instincts, failed to educate them toward our best ones. Our worst instincts include ego-centrist patriotism that puts us on a competitive basis with other nations, as if only Americans matter. Our best instincts are toward multi-lateralism that provides mutually beneficially generosity, because all people matter.
Donald Trump will never get a clue about America's best instincts because he completely embodies our worst, led partly by the more morally corrupt party he represents, the Republicans. Democrats have to live with the results of Republican corruption, and they don't seem to be up to the job. Talking and acting on America's forgotten values doesn't seem to be a talent of any of our pols.
1
Robert Kagan is a committed neoconservative who shares his worldview - and blame - with Dick Cheney, George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and other architects of our current state of global political instability. It is notable that he did not mention the last 18 years' worth of interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. in his essay. Kagan, like other supposed "former Republicans", refuses to acknowledge that these costly, expensive, credibility-destroying military misadventures laid the foundation for the current state of malaise and total distrust of government that has opened a door to the type of fascism he so decries. Trump is very much the neocons' fault.
10
I'm a democrat.
I support: more immigration, international trade agreements, international diplomatic ties, gun control, universal healthcare, diversity, equality and freedom for all, positive peace through moral reasoning.
I denounce: isolationism, military spending, overseas military presence, racism, sexism, discrimination, negative peace through threats and wars.
I hope that's supported by many fellow Americans.
3
I doubt many Americans would lament the victory of the "America First" crowd of it were to be proclaimed officially. In fact, most Americans would probably celebrate. For "America First" and the isolationist, trade protectionist, and anti-immigrant policies it advocates are a reflection of the selfishness, greed, narcissism, profound ignorance and racism that combined to make this country the wealthiest, most powerful nation on this planet.
Yet among the facts most Americans seem willfully and blissfully ignorant of, due to the pitiful quality of their education and complicity of the media, is that most of the wealth generated in and by this country is held and enjoyed by a small fraction of the people. And that most of those people have always been white males who have never known poverty, or discrimination other than as practiced by them or on their behalf.
The truly lamentable fact is that most America Firsters are dupes of an ideology (and of those who promote it) that will continue to fail in making America first in what should matter much more than things like our obscene defense spending: providing every American his or her equal and unalienable right "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There can be no meaningful life or liberty, much less happiness, whenever the few benefit at the expense of the many, whether it is a few wealthy Americans who benefit at the expense of the rest of us, or America at the expense of the rest of the world.
3
Immigrants grow the economy, pay billions in taxes and make us stronger. Immigration has always been America's "secret sauce." Restricting immigration WEAKENS America.
2
Solitude is good for you. Doors without locks are pointless. Everyone can't get into the ballroom together. Rules to regulate our behavior and reign in our natural good will towards others have a purpose. The universe has limits; human societies do, as well.
2
The other day Trump threatened to stop defending Arab states if OPEC didn't drop the price of oil. 'War for oil' has been a consistent criticism of our foreign engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along comes Trump and all but verifies that this has been the policy all along. Maybe America was too internationalist in the past. Or is becoming too nationalist, with World chaos the result. But Donald Trump is in a class all his own, in international affairs, as illustrated by his bald attempt at Mideast policy via hostage-taking: the clown class.
"America First " is the death roll of the middle class. We have been systematically sliced, diced and brainwashed down to an ineffective political force and a docile workforce. We consistently vote against our own interests and meekly accept that passing a few trillion in tax cuts up to the wealthiest while passing down a few trillion of national debt on to our children and grandchildren is just a "business" decision from our wise political leaders... I mean the GOP wouldn't do something that would hurt the nation...or the people... right??
2
You are looking at the late 1930's, with much unemployment, failure to recover fully from the deep recession, and a depressed economy world-wide.
Russia is in the Ukraine as Japan was in China. Iran is in Syria as Japan was in China. Russia has re-armed, cheating on arms -control treaties, as Germany re-armed. Fascist nationalism is rampant world-wide.
Either we step up and prevent the war or with isolationism we watch the world destroy itself.
1
Professor Kagan, I don't doubt for one minute the rationality and accuracy of your analysis. That said, any article that treats Donald Trump's administration as anything less than an excruciatingly ugly blot on the history of this country is missing a much more important point.
1
The public's conflicted political stance is born from its gross ignorance of history. And now we have a president with no understanding or appreciation of history whatsoever.
I once had a very learned young lad, doing a doctorate in biology, make fun of anyone with an interest in history, which included me, of course. He asked: "What good is history?"
My wife winced as she saw me stand up (she's seen this trick before), walk over to the lad and give him a swift kick in the shin. "Want to ask me that again?" I asked him.
"Not likely," he said, rubbing his shin and rather put out that anyone would do that.
"Well, there you are," I said. "You learned something from history. How'bout that!"
2
I'm certain this question has been asked by others in the 486 posts before me but, as an interested observer of American politics and foreign policy over the last five decades, when has it ever NOT been America first?
4
Fair warning. Thanks, Robert.
"They place their hopes on the 2020 elections to get America back on its old path. But they may have to start facing the fact that what we’re seeing today is not a spasm but a new direction in American foreign policy, or rather a return to older traditions — the kind that kept us on the sidelines while fascism and militarism almost conquered the world."
History has been distorted many years, until finally the gullible and short sighted are doomed to repeat it.
3
In the USA we have big , dirty cities, rotting away.
Old and dilapidated schools.
Citizens struggling in general , in life.
While all that goes on we are protecting other countries with an expensive military.
And Democrats want open borders so these folks can come in and start collecting benefits?
I thought now that a Republican is in the White House Democrats cared about the national debt?
Trump has many fought, be he is right on so many subjects.
Obama?
He slid around for 8 years not ruffling any feathers.
Make no enemies and we all love you.
4
I think the problem is overly simplistic points of view. If a person is entirely anti-trade or entirely anti-war/conflict intervention, then that person is likely not taking into consideration all of the different scenarios where trade and military supported intervention or war make sense. Maybe a correction was needed in the US's level of involvement in international trade and conflicts, but this doesn't necessarily equate to a die-hard America first agenda as promulgated by Trump and his most fervent supporters. I think most people are in the middle. With complicated matters such as these, I think most people rely on the expertise of their elected leaders and advisers to make the best decisions. The one-sided point of view does a disservice to the American people by proposing that there is some simple answer to these problems. It is a cheap way to drum up support. I will always have the utmost respect for Obama, because he never treated Americans like we were stupid. I do not believe Trump shows the same respect.
4
This article makes me think back years ago when polls and focus groups kept showing most of the American public thought (non-military) "foreign aid" is a high percentage of the U.S. federal budget even though it has historically been a very low percentage--less than that of many other developed countries. People seemed to think that we can save so much to spend on ourselves or lower taxes if only we weren't so profligate in helping other undeserving countries, even though this was never the case.
When there is so little understanding of even the most basic information about our relationship with the rest of the world, it is easy for politicians pushing false, simplistic solutions to win people over to a view of withdrawing America from the world.
3
The Marshall plan is over. We are past time when the US will bail out other countries, or take a disadvantaged trade position. Also, the falsely held drug prices for US only must be eliminated.
The system can only support so much. Government needs to start real reforms in spending cuts, or the system will crash.
Like trump or not, some of these agenda items are real world.
3
This just in: the Marshall Plan was a gorgeous example of what they usedta call, “enlightened self-interest,” echoed by Mac Arthur and Truman’s wise policy in Japan.
Here’s how this works, okay?
On the theory that trade beats wars every time, that we wanted healthy partners, that we wa ted to oppose Stalin, we helped rebuild Europe and Japan and lush them towards democracies.
Guess what? It worked. And it ushered in peace, and it ushered in the greatest era of prosperity we’ve ever known.
Cripes, learn the basics. Our only real mistake here is that we didn’t do the same three generations ago throughout Central America, and haven’t the brains to do the same in Africa now.
2
What Trump is pushing for is not so much isolationism but a form of go-it-alone attitude. Trump is not withdrawing the US from the international stage like the US was in the perod between world wars. Rather, Trump is simply replacing partnerships with confrontation.
For everybody else, there is a world of difference between “isolationism” and a more balanced approach to participation in the international order. Being aggressively militant on the world stage is not the opposite of isolationism. For example, is the US really participating in the international community when it went against the advice of many allies in invading Iraq? Or, when it uses its security council veto to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Also, it’s not isolationism to recognize that Germany is a lot closer to the Baltic States than the US, or that the US can’t be committed to the South China Sea and the Baltic all at once. We’ll still be working with our partners, but they just need to take a more active role in their own backyards. This is a position that is very different from Trump going to Europe to insult our NATO allies. It shouldn’t be lumped with Trump’s “isolationism,” or whatever it really is.
This analysis is wrong on several counts: 1) It is a focus on the short term and does not think through the longer term implications. 2) If resist analyzing the interactions of the three core ideas and there are many and they are complex. 3) It oversimplifies ideas that on closer examination are far more nuanced and complex. This article is for light-weight thinkers who want simple-minded analyses and conclusion. Real thinking is not helped by it at all.
1
The author's ideas on which "game" to play, avoid the 800 pound gorilla in the room we have thus far luckily avoided. The chance of miscalculation in a nuclear prolific world. Let's hope our luck continues.
Just as history did not end in 1989 when Francis Fukuyama published his famous essay, 'The End of History?", isn't it a bit premature to declare "'America First' Has Won?" There is no end to history, and there is nothing permanent in any government policy or American attitude about isolationism, protectionism, and immigration. No question that there are deep divisions between red and blue states, but, after all, Clinton did win the popular vote by 3 million in 2016, suggesting that a majority of Americans did not (and do not) buy the traditional 'America First' banner. This, too, shall pass -- hopefully beginning in November and no later than 2020.
1
All empires eventually decline. Mr. Trump is not the root cause of that decline, but he's certainly speeding it up, and making the decline deeper.
6
Regardless of one's position on the political spectrum, immigration will be a greater problem for developed economies in coming years as the economic, social and climate-induced pressures increase on less developed countries. People in those countries, with great motivation and determination, will risk a lot to seek a better life, or a life at all. The internet and general freedom of information have made the destination more reachable. Though I despise the demonization of immigrants, I can understand the fear of those struggling to make ends meet that immigrants would take their poor paying job for even less. Open borders with great economic disparity are as naive as walls. As a society, we are failing to discuss how to protect our people and our creed in a changing world. Isolationism is sticking our collective head in the sand which will only work until we are forced to pull it out and wonder what we should have done.
4
Americans might be more willing to support our interventions if we were honest about where we intervened and why we were intervening, if we admitted when our interventions ended badly, and if we tried to learn from our mistakes and misadventures instead of covering them up, pretending they ended well, or ignoring bad consequences.
We dont know whether interventions in the world based on American ideals of democracy, support for the underdog and oppressed, fairness, openness and generosity (our ostensible reasons for interventions) would be successful or not, because our interventions have usually involved or been motivated by other factors (money, business interests and opportunities, power politics). In Vietnam, we repeated the French mistakes and had the French experience, except larger, and we kept on until it was obvious that victory was only possible if it cost so much and required a subsequent occupation, so that it would be defeat (which meant that it was impossible). In Afghanistan, we defeated the Soviets but our allies in the fight made sure the Soviets were replaced by something worse. Our second Iraq adventure was only necessary to distract the country from asking how come our president ignored CIA warnings, so he would not be a one-term president. Our coup in Iran had results that still haunt us. Our coups in Central America got us governments whose policies flood us with refugees.
If we lived our values, our foreign policy would have been different.
2
Both parties missed the reality that talk of 'rules based international affairs' is interesting only to the elites. The average American is much more pragmatic seeing that the free trade chorus of both parties from the 1980's on only cost economic power and jobs for them. Yes, the avoidance of another WWII is compelling, but only if the average citizen perceives that's a real risk. Elites banging that doom and gloom drum are rightly ignored. Instead find a way to make globalism work for the average American in a tangible way if you want support
4
You cannot demand higher wages for low skilled labor in the US AND demand a global economy at the same time. So, which is it?
6
Isolation, Protectionism, Restricting Immigration versus Cell Phones and Jet Planes. Guess who is going to win.
2
Like most demagogues, Trump reduced complex issues like globalism and immigration to slogans, used fear as a divisive strategy, and offered simplistic solutions like walls and tariffs. The fake populism of demagogues is like a brush fire that spreads quickly but then burns itself out.
5
This article reeks of the bubble inside Washington, both Republican and Establishment Democrat. Consider the paragraph talking about presidential candidates talking down U.S. interventions. Obama (who received my vote twice) promised to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to close Guantanamo. None of those things happened, and we have conducted military operations in dozens of countries since, without any meaningful debate in Congress. Mr. Kagan conflates American engagement with military spending, something which is increased with the connivance of almost all Republicans and almost all Democrats. Most recently, of the senators who caucus with the Democrats, only Bernie Sanders opposed the increase. This article must have been sponsored by Boeing and Halliburton.
9
The world is changing faster thanks to economic growth and technological advances. People in many countries have found it convenient to blame immigrants and minorities for the upheaval and concentration of wealth that has resulted - we are not alone in doing so. The increased rate of social change has brought a similar increase in social anxiety. Those who grow up in the internet age will be used to it, not full of distorted nostalgia.
The idea that 2018 America is somehow fundamentally isolationist seems silly. It is almost impossible to buy a car or many other common items made entirely here. Many colleges have a large number of foreign students.
We have an enormous military built to operate an ocean away from home for the long-term. Fighting ill-advised wars for far too long might promote isolationism, but we keep doing it. I would hardly say that a fundamental shift has occurred. The overdue shift towards near-peer conflict and towards air and sea power at the expense of the army are signs of decreasing, not increasing, isolationism.
Mr. Trump has no real policy except self-preservation and self-enrichment. This seems to include pandering to racism and bitterness at home and to Putin abroad. Analyzing anything he does as an attempt to address deep-rooted feelings of a majority of Americans is very likely to lead to faulty conclusions.
The business cycle has been declared dead many times until it proved otherwise. It is easy to confuse cyclical attitudes for trends.
1
"America Firsters" want to make America small and mean.
A dangerous selfishness which will eventually be avenged by our hospitable home, planet earth, as it rejects predatory and exclusionary behavior.
Kids learn to share.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
....
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
THOSE TO WHOM EVIL IS DONE
DO EVIL IN RETURN.
[caps intentional] W.H. Auden, September 1, 1939
https://m.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/september-1-1939
3
@Susan Anderson Which countries have the highest quality of life for the largest percentage of their population? Norway, Australia and Canada. How did they achieve this? Answer: By putting their own citizens first and by spending their resources on their own people. And no one bashes THEM for it.
3
Mr. Kagan is right, but this attitude can be put at the feet of the Republican Party, which decided back in the days of Newt Gingrich et al, to put the breaks on social change of any kind and roll back the clock as far as possible. It will take a catastrophe similar to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor to turn the tide.
4
What good is internationalism to Democrats if they don't win presidential elections in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other parts of the rust belt. The failure to match immigration and trade policy to the unemployment rate is the real culprit here. The public is tired of the economic cycle that is thrust upon us once or twice every decade. Any con-artist who offers them a way out has a huge advantage. They want to believe.
6
In my lifetime I have read about this sort of nationalist reaction to economic distress in other eras and other countries, and saw it in the 70's and 80's with the anti-foreign car manufacturer debates. But that pales to the reaction over the near-depression the Repubs brought on with their outdated and largely false economic "strategy" that favored only the richest people in America. History does repeat when the most greedy among us choose to ignore it.
7
Don't pretend those consumer choices for imports or even transplants haven't helped kill the middle class jobs machine. Consumers have a right to purchase products they want and not be coerced to purchase products they find inferior for the sake of someone's security.
But there will be a loss of middle class wealth which began in 1973.
However blaming that loss entirely on Republicans does make for a better polemic.
1
The tenets of neoliberalism and globalism preached by both American political parties for the last 3 decades have prove ruinous for the American middle class. Open borders, free trade, global interventionism, etcetera, have not led to a measurable increase in prosperity for a majority of Americans. It has not resulted in widespread poverty either, though. The average American has been stuck in limbo, hoping things will eventually get better, praying they don't get worse, living on a knife's edge teetering on the brink of financial disaster.
It is no surprise to me that even Democrats are starting to mirror some of Trump's "America First' rhetoric. My generation grew up with no concept of financial security, in an age of free trade and mass immigration. I have never known the good times my parents talk about, I don't know what it means to "make American great again", all I know is I don't want America to be what it is right now. It hasn't worked out well for me, or for anyone my own age that I know personally. I have yet to meet a person under 35 that wants America to stay the course its been on for the last 20 years. To be sure there's lots of disagreement about where we ought to be headed, but everybody's agreed the course has got to change.
13
Mr. Kagan's assertion that the Trump administration's actions constitute a return to traditions that "...kept us on the sidelines while fascism and militarism almost conquered the world" disregards both this administration's request for an increased military budget and the reality that Trump has not withdrawn from so much as a single military committment since taking office. This is not the first time that leading neo-conservatives who endorsed the disaster that was the 2003 Iraq War mischaracterized their opponents and this probably will not be last time either.
6
You talk about Al Gore as if he lost. He received more votes, and actually won Florida, but the intervention of the politicized Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.
Both Obama and Hillary received more votes than their opponents, but only Obama won.
This America First has not won, when the majority still prefers a cooperative world. Kagan is pretty much a go to war about most anything type.
8
Most Americans, including a plurality of Democrats, want reduced immigration, and strict enforcement of immigration laws according to a Harvard (University)-Harris poll earlier this year. It's not surprising. Immigration has added nearly 80 million people to the US population over the last 45 years, according to Pew (this includes both immigrants and their progeny). That's equivalent to four times New York State's population.
This has caused a redistribution of nearly half a trillion dollars annually from workers to business owners.
http://cis.org/NAS-Study-Workers-and-Taxpayers-Lose-Businesses-Benefit
Additionally, it has aggravated global warming, because the average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise fourfold after arrival here, as most of them come from developing nations with low per capita emissions. (CIS, 2008)
9
This stream of thought is nothing new. George Washington, in his farewell address warned us to "resist foreign entanglements." If Putin and Russia are the interference in the politics and opinions of our time, Washington expelled French Ambassador Edmond-Charles Genet for doing much the same in his.
Yes, we have an interest in the rest of the world. But an America bankrupted by overextension as a pseudo-empire won't be any good to anybody. It is a balance. If we've been too overcommitted on the internationalist-globalist-elite side of looking at the world, some time spent taking care of our own is very much in order.
6
"Mr. Trump’s narrower, more unilateralist and nationalist approach to the world is probably closer to where the general public is than Mr. Obama’s more cosmopolitan sensibility."
Of course, the residents of Springfield are convinced that the residents of Shelbyville are pirates and thieves, until they visit the place.
Trump's world view is called provincialism. Let's keep the insular village the same, can't have no steam wagons scaring the horses and all.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on.
The general public seems aware of having to exist in a wide world with issues that affect us all. The narrow public, those who never leave home, don't think about it
1
''...that President Obama was too internationalist for his party base. '' - sorry, you lost me here.
President Obama wound down the wars (at least from ridiculous levels that were started and continued by republicans), and at the same time outreached to the Muslim world. (with caveats)
He, and Democrats also contained Russia with sanctions (treating them as the foe they are), contained North Korea much the same way, and also contained Iran with a workable treaty that could be expanded and strengthened.
This republican administration/President has thrown away all of that because of (yet to be proven by the Mueller inquiry) because of ''kompromat'' to the Russian Czar. - not because of any political ideology, other than to money.
There are two sets of rules being set up - one for republicans and their backers, and one for all of us.
Even for pundit pieces.
4
"America First" won't last.
1
Well, I for one hope it is an aberration not a culmination. The things in life that are the hardest usually reap the highest rewards. Multinationalism is hard, but it the best way to maintain a peaceful prosperous world. Unfortunately, I think we are witnessing a backlash from the lies and deceit that got us into the Iraq war, and which unleashed mass migration due to the conflicts that were unleashed by that misguided decision. It will take generations to overcome.
4
We’re in the initial stages of the emergence of a new world order. I am shocked daily how quickly change is coming. Ok, so this is how history happens. As the author remarks in several places, Trumps the messenger, not the message.
The pendulum swings both ways. Back and forth, forever on the clock that marks time passing.
When military spending grows to more than 60% of every tax dollar the Democrats want to reverse that. Same as when SNAP dollars going to feed out-of-work families skyrocketed when millions were laid off. Republicans wanted to reverse that.
When deficit spending rises under Democratic administration the R's want to reverse that. Until a Republican administration takes control.
That doesn't mean that D's are anti military or that R's are anti safety net. Or that D's are spendthrifts and R's are fiscal conservatives. Each party has their own value system when it comes to resource allocation.
Of course those value systems include disparities when considering "appropriate amounts" of isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration. Or how much debt is acceptable.
1
There is a glaring omission in this analysis, to wit, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which began 15.5 years ago, based upon mistake, or deceit (as to Iraq), depending upon who you believe, and which have cost in excess of $2.4 trillion, 5,000 US combat deaths, 32,000 wounded, and hundreds of thousands dead and maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians. And for what? These wounds are real, they will never fully heal, they have strengthened our real adversary, Iran, have suffused the country with a nauseatingly simplistic view of patriotism, bred terrorism and its subsequent zenophobia, polarized our politics, and debased whatever moral standing remained after our incomplete recovery from Vietnam. And now we are learning the wrong lesson. As horrible as the recent past has been, the world will get worse, and America less safe, if the "rules based" international order is destroyed by our President, his base and enablers, who if memory serves, were usually the first to pin yellow ribbons to their trees and chests.
5
You can have an America First isolationist ideology without antagonizing our allies.
You can have an America First isolationist ideology without starting a trade war.
You can have an America First isolationist ideology without stopping immigration.
But can you have an America First isolationist ideology while threatening war on N Korea, Iran, bombing Syria and expanding our military?
2
Somehow lost in the conversation about "America First" is that America is not some monolithic abstraction that equally shares in whatever benefits result from Trump's policies. America is, first and foremost, it's people, (and not just Trump's base), it's institutions, traditions, constitutional guarantees, it's reputation, international obligations as the worlds richest and most powerful nation, and last but not least, it's land and resources. Trumps policies obviously don't favor everyone equally. The rich and well connected are his real base, and beneficiaries. He may entertain his other base with his anti liberal riffs, but he isn't promoting higher wages, fighting for better health care access, respecting the rule of law and it's institutions, and certainly not preserving the natural bounty most Americans cherish and almost take for granted.
5
"Hillary Clinton struggled to hold off Bernie Sanders, a progressive isolationist, and it was certainly not because of her foreign policy views."
Total doublespeak.
As a voting Democrat, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views were PRECISELY why I went for Sanders in the primary. A no-fly zone over Syria? Sabre-rattling towards Russia? Abject craziness.
4
The author's claims that these presidents won or lost purely on their foreign policy stands is really an over-simplification. There is much more at involved than just that.
3
Is it globalist OR isolationist, or is there a more nuanced middle way? a place where americans can have explained to them why it behooves our nation to support certain countries, without resorting to trusting that we aren't going to war for oil profits.
There is an interesting point that successful politician for the last 30 years have run as isolationist.
It is obvious that being an internationalist or interventionist only hurts you. John McCain may be a current NYT idol, but he was pilloried for his interventionist stance by this paper. Ms Clinton was hammered by both Mr Obama and Sanders in the primaries for the Iraq War vote and the Libya debacle.
Can you see a Democratic candidate proposing sending troops to Syria, US tanks into Ukraine while the 80% of German tanks are non-functional or getting into a free trade deal with a country that has 1/20th the hourly wage of the US?
The tactical point about foreign intervention is it takes eyes off domestic issues and crisis that a president cannot control. Changes the subject where all eyes are on the commander in chief.
1
The whole thing (Americ First) is based on fear. Fear of change...ironically life is nothing but change...from the cradle to the grave. Americans are afraid of change and the longing to "return" to the old and familiar (which never happens) is the nation's death knell...Adapt (change) or die...Darwin's rules govern all...
5
@Time Passages. Ask the Germans (or French, or Norwegians, etc) how all that change and diversity is working out over the last few years.
Yes, and it was people like you Mr. Kagan and the rest of your neoconservative cabal that drove this shift to America first. Thank you.
6
Trump's Las Vegas declaration that he is "not president of the world," will be remembered as the first public declaration of isolationist triumph and American retreat and withdrawal from being the world's (imperfect) leader in almost every sphere: economic, moral, political, etc.
China stands ready to fill the vacuum created by American withdrawal. China as the new world leader will not end well for American business and industry or national security.
Congress needs to set aside its partisan squabbles and act to prevent a return to isolationism.
1
When Kagan writes that "President Trump may not enjoy majority support these days," it's not clear what he means by "these days." Trump failed to win majority support on Election Day 2016, and he has consistently failed to achieve majority support since then.
4
Culmination.
Donald Trump IS the reckoning America has needed for quite some time. His platform is the reality of America’s place in this world.
U.S. shale energy, a development of the last dozen years, has entirely changed America’s need to project our power into the Middle East. Free Trade has been a bust for working Americans and for the economic growth of this nation. The trade deals negotiated by the prior three presidents have produced anemic GDP growth that is 40% less than prior levels. These deals contributed to the wage stagnation, malaise and wealth inequality that have been forced upon American working people for the last twenty five years. Our embrace of the “invisible hand” as a reason for financial deregulation was the cause of the last recession.
Sanders and Trump pulled the mask off of all this and the current optimism and growth is the result. Trump however had the personality and raw courage to maintain speed and direction into the face of withering opposition, and you can bet that he has succeeded in changing the course of this nation.
EVERYTHING that has been thrown at him was intended to make Trump’s presidency about the man rather than the results. The people are seeing the results and he is slowly winning.
He was right, you’re going to see so much winning you’re going to be sick of it. The genie is out of the bottle and they’re never going to get it back in!
8
You’ve obviously been conned by a he Don. However, those of us with eyes and ears of our own can see through this shortsighted tomfoolery. What have we won? More expensive goods , explosion of national debt to give the oligarchs more money and power. That’s not winning.
@Steven:
I have been in opposition to these one sided trade deals for 25 years and I have watched their damage from every view. These trade deals CREATED the American oligarchs by allowing them to arbitrage American labor and maintain FREE access to American markets- increasing gross margins and taking almost all power to negotiate wages away from America’s workers.
The people who have been conned are those individuals who think trade has something to do with Pollyanna Econ 101 teachings that will never be able to predict or teach of the vast complexities that actually exist in the American and global marketplace. If trade worked as per our agreements and the politician’s promises that accompanied them, U.S. gdp growth should have maintained historical norms or even increased. It did not and so much for any other arguments in favor of the status quo.
Trump’s ideas are not new, Washington and Hamilton put them in place 229 years ago and they made this country rich. It was Clinton who sold us out- not Trump.
Vietnam left a bad taste for the baby boomers; Iraq did the same for gen. X. Unless we are directly attacked, the US is not in the mood for more war. Obama knew that and didn't pursue them. Give it some time. Those generations will die off soon, and the US men will eventually want to get their red badge of courage again.
China just opened up a new high-speed rail system connecting Hong Kong to the mainland. In the US our infrastructure isn't just failing, it's outdated. Wanting to invest more of our capital into our country and spending less on military engagement abroad is a reflection of the weariness caused by decades of decay that has been allowed to happen here at home.
The 90's was a great decade. President Clinton focused on downsizing the military at home and abroad and invested our resources into the internet revolution which created jobs and a thriving economy. We didn't just solve the Y2K problem here, we solved it by working with the rest of the world.
As always it's the economy stupid. Perception is reality and right now we want leaders who have a plan to make our lives better. When the focus is on the rest of the world the quality of life for Americans is sacrificed.
We can't be the world's police force forever. Doing so isn't sustainable economically or morally. So yes America first is here to stay.
3
We don’t have to be police to work with other countries on cooperative trade.
3
Instead of trying to parse the demographics of "America First," maybe we should test what a genuine America First could mean as an applied philosophy of government. Consider a widespread investment in America's aging infrastructure. How 'bout investing in America's people: modernize American vocational education to reflect the needs of the modern economy for this and next-generation skills (not steel manufacturing, but new modalities of fabrication, for example); similarly for retooling (esp. funding) American higher education, so more moderate and low income Americans can afford it. Immigration reform might be good to do from the standpoint of assuring that we have the employees needed to harvest our crops and meet our needs for technicians and software development. But any immigration reform needs a foreign policy boost applied to mitigating the disastrous state of Central Americas political economy. That would involve defining a continental Americas First approach. The same kind of North America First thinking would mend our relations and optimize our trade with Canada. America first could be a good thing, if it were a real thing.
3
Although the majority of voters disagreed, those in strategic states decided to put President Putin in charge of our government because they were very, very angry. It is understandable that those of us who are familiar with Russia's history of corruption and blatant cruelty should object. But until the year 2020, we must hold our tongues and give the Kremlin a chance to Make America Great Again. While I see nothing but disaster ahead, I could be wrong. I expected widespread market panic when Trump/Putin was elected. To the contrary, the markets have boomed and the economy has continued the expansion that began under President Obama. Maybe government "by the people" is not such a good idea!
1
It may be a short term tactical advantage, but strategically it is a giant loss.
Don't we all know what we think of people who think in the same way? We don't usually want anything to do with them.
It is nothing but returning to immature youth when you are only aware of yourself and think you can do everything alone.
I am profoundly sad at this emerging attitude. It is so, so ignorant, be it the US or any other nation.
3
Kagan uncritically accepts "America First" as an economic policy. Its not an economic policy. Its a self-serving culture war masquerading as economic policy.
Its also not for "America," its a swag bag of instant gratification for the minority of Americans predisposed to vote Trump in 2020.
There's no separate outcry for tariffs because liberals already see economic policy as integral to social justice. Its already an integral part of the conversation.
5
Having just read both this article and many of the comments I will add only this; the "horse race" format of the argument in the essay is part of the problem. Real solutions do not derive from one side of a reasonable argument losing and one winning. Real solutions derive from a collaborative effort to identify and then hew to the core values involved. The current trend of ever more belligerent polemic does everyone ill.
8
A lot of this is due to the lack of education about the importance of these international institutions in keeping us safe and making us wealthy.
2
Comparing the 'Russia reset' to current stances on Russia is just false equivalence, and painfully transparent at that. It preceded Crimea, Syria, and the election meddling -- all prime reasons for current feelings about our former FSB man. Such lazy thinking doesn't bode well for this piece.
3
" . . . what we’re seeing today is not a spasm but a new direction in American foreign policy, or rather a return to older traditions — the kind that kept us on the sidelines while fascism and militarism almost conquered the world."
No, Mr. Kagan.
What we're seeing is American citizens coming off the sidelines domestically, because domestic fascism and militarism have almost conquered the United States.
5
There is a difference between an internationalism that promotes liberal democracies through diplomacy (Obama) rather than through waging war (Bush). The Vietnam and Iraq Wars have convinced two generations that they don't want the later. The vast majority of Americans don't care about diplomacy one way or another - as long as it doesn't lead to more war.
Likewise, most Americans don't care about or understand free trade. What they do understand is bate and switch. The economists told us we would benefit from free trade while the lobbyists and politicians made sure that the benefits went to the few. The fact that economy grew while the vast majority of Americans either saw no benefit or lost ground is proof of that. If the increased national wealth went to right those who were adversely affected by free trade first, and the balance was divided up fairly between all stake holders, nobody would give a damn about free trade.
The problem is not that Americans are against a global order that promotes liberal democracies - it's that our democracy is failing us. It has been corrupted by greed and dishonest politicians who are now serving up a good measure of demagoguery so they can ripoff more of the nations wealth.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be." Jefferson knew the rich and powerful could not be trusted - that our republic's only protection is a free press and an educated electorate.
11
Sadly, this article feeds my belief that the "American Century" is in decline. History shows that world dominating entities (e.g. Rome, Britain) can only last so long. At nearly 60 years old, I'm sad to witness this. But I'm also grateful that those who ushered in the American Century (WWI and WWII vets, depression babies, suffragettes, etc) don't have to witness its decline.
1
My stepfather, the son of an illegal immigrant from Italy, is now reciting Fox News talking points verbatim. Out of respect for him, and my mother, I try to remain civil. But it shows just how well the "American First" propaganda has worked.
We are a nation of immigrants. With the exception of a few indigenous people, we are all the result of fairly recent immigration.
I understand and agree that a country needs to know who is inside its borders, but that isn't the point, is it? By drastically reducing the number of LEGAL immigrants, the Trump administration is actually increasing the need for ILLEGAL immigration.
We could have a working visa program for foreign workers. We could allow foreigners to be legal residents. We could treat refugees like human beings. We choose not to, because it is always easier to blame someone else for our failures than deal with the real problems.
7
Steve, I really agree with you. But......for the past few administrations, they've promised immigration reform. Amnesty for those here, then we'll fix the problems. A whole bunch of the illegal aliens got amnesty, it was a good deal for them. But a whole bunch didn't. And the administrations did nothing about the problems with our immigration laws and procedures. Meanwhile, 11-20 million more came in (official numbers. Now they say 11 million. I'll assume it's closer to 20 million). Whole industries have been taken over by the illegals, because it is more profitable to have someone you don't have to have workers comp on, or vacation pay, or medical insurance. And what ever happened to E-Verify? If your business plan includes hiring undocumented workers, you have a lousy business plan.
And nothing has changed. At least Trump did SOMETHING.
5
@Steve Acho. Sorry, but everybody on earth except people from east Africa is an "immigrant", yes including native Americans. Your arguement that this some how means we have to take everybody in, makes no more sense than quoting a cheesy poem on the Statue of Liberty, written when the population was 1/6 what it is now, should be policy. Every country on earth, and especially one with 325 million + residents not only has the right, but at this juncture the obligation, to control its borders and have an immigration policy based on what's best for its citizens rather than what's best for needy people who want to come there.
2
@AlThere were other nations on this land that we call America
More than a little bit of Bernie Sanders support aligned with protectionism, lacking both nuance and a sense of history (industries come, go, and move around with time). Across our political spectrum, our country does a poor job remembering that our greatest strength is our immigrant history, and an even poorer job allowing for the evident fact that the rest of the world likely has something to offer us (e.g. delivering health care).
Neocon rubbish. These arguments don't even rise to the level or being worthy of thought or comment. I made it through two paragraphs and have no more time to waste.
8
Interesting, but too narrow by far. Isolationism and intervention have ever contested for the lead on American foreign policy. Washington eschewed foreign entanglements; Monroe proclaimed the New World exclusively our sphere, 'Europeans, Keep Out.' That contest has persisted, even fossilized. GOP hatred of Wilson, braided to their isolationism, torpedoed the League of Nations, leading directly to the rise of Hitler and the millions of deaths in WWII. Roosevelt, following Wilson's lead, promoted cooperative action by civilized nations, to contain world wide evil. Nazism gave isolationism a bad name, and conservative embrace of anticommunism seemed to cement interventionism as the American vision. This did not prohibit its revival in the fertile soil of abysmal public ignorance in the 21st century. In a universe where man dominates the entire globe, and the two ocean borders separate us from noone, isolationism--America first--is utter nonsense as policy.
Americans, like any people, require leadership that overcomes their ignorance and folly, sometimes, as Roosevelt displayed, despite their wishes.
1
I'm not sure exactly who the great powers are today, but let's take the USA, China, and Russia. The USA and China are fighting on the trade battlefield, but none of the three are seriously fighting any other on any other field, or even threatening them militarily.
Russia and China are doing what may well be thought of as "tidying up" in their own natural area of influence -- as Russia historically has always done, securing the countries on its borders. China is a newcomer to this strategy but it's nothing the world hasn't seen many times before, in Europe and the Western hemisphere. The only great power that is making trouble elsewhere is the US -- especially in the Middle East, where we have intervened to the point that the unstable, artificial borders given us by Sykes/Picot have crumbled, and spread the instability to the real nation of Iran.
What greater harm to the US, or indeed to the world as a whole, were the US to exit the Middle East? Would more people be killed? Sure, but they are being killed anyway. Would terrorists have more secure bases? Sure, but they have them now, and if we withdrew they would have far less reason to hate us or attack us.
This rosy (?!) scenario would leave the great powers still fighting, all three of them, in the cyber world. So be it. I would gladly settle for that, in an otherwise stable world where each great power feels secure in its natural area of influence.
Not a new concept, and not a bad one either.
1
Would this guy like to provide even a single piece of data to back his many claims of the ways "most Americans" feel? Considering this being true is pivotal to the majority of his claims I'm surprised this tripe even got published. I'm not inclined to just take some neocon at their word unless they can provide proof.
5
Jingoism, propaganda, and corruption of forms of government... we're Rome...on the way down...
Trump is our Caligula
6
I remember, less than two years ago, the constant harping of the columnists of the New York Times, trying to chide us into buying exactly what it is that the columnists today are howling has taken us over and we must resist!
Since I am one of the commenter's who was regularly taken to the woodshed to be soundly whipped for not falling into step with "The New America", for unfailingly being a "pest", and for screaming bloody murder at the death of my country, then let me point out to Mr. Kagan of the Brookings Institution: CATCH UP!!! You're 50 years behind! How can you write a column on foreign policy and NOT mention our "Forever Wars"??! What about Gitmo? Or "Kids In Cages"??/
Truth? I have never been able to figure out what it is that you people in "Think-Tanks" think about.
The Times should do an article on all of you to let us in on why they think you are even remotely in tune with this world.
Perhaps they don't have a clue what it is you do, either...
7
The US working and middle classes do not want to send their children to fight in Riga. Neither do they want to continue sending them to Kabul, Damascus or other places in the ME.
How much longer?
8
@Elle. The problem is, they're not sending them. Just a tiny sliver of Americans have anything to do with those misadventures. If we had a draft and EVERYBODY had to go, we would have been out of there years ago.
1
Rebirth of America first started with the crimes of the Bush Administration which Mr. Kagan supported fully. His writings at that time were filled with disdain four our allies and their performance, much similar to Trump today. isolationism will always be part of the American character, but so too will be an understanding of our responsibilities . until this consensus is destroyed, as it was under Geroge W. Bush. So don't lament too much Mr. Kagan. You are a co-conspirator in the whole mess.
5
In a world in which the furthest point is instantly accessible by communications, 30 minutes away by nuclear missile, and only twenty four hours away by plane, the notion of America first is as idiotic an idea as having a psychopathic liar like Donald Trump as president.
4
if i were a betting man, the dsaying goes, I wouldn't bet on it.
It's the economy stupid.
Fancy words for racism
1
America's altruist foreign policy has murdered hundreds of thousands of American warriors since late 19th century Progressivism. Cuba ,the Philippines and the WW1 Axis were not threatening America. We should have let Marxists and Nazis militarily exhaust each other. WW2-Europe was not our problem. Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and various African nations can't threaten us. Russia and China are now militarily trivial relative to the US military.
If our alleged allies evade defending themselves ,with their wealth and tech ,they will suffer and die. That's sad but not our problem. We will remain safe , selfishly protecting the individual rights of Americans (and not "the nation").
We need an "Individuals First" policy.
2
The last time the U.S. was this determinedly isolationist was during the 1930s. And then WW2 happened.
3
The same Robert Kagan who w/William Kristol co-founded the Project for the New American Century that brainstormed the Iraq War?
The biggest, most expensive and stupidest foreign policy disaster in US history?
A perfect choice for a NYTs op-ed—decrying his own "America First" success story and not taking any responsibility for it.
And we wonder where Trump came from.
High 5 Neocons!! High 5 NYTs!!
4
@Happy Selznick
Happy Selznick, the "Times" allows ink to many people.
Only some use the opportunity to show-off their dangerous "Empire-thinking"!
Fortunately, many Americans are showing their intelligence in noting (and voting) against both Emperor Trump and EMPIRE!
1
"America First" is a slogan used by the KKK. Need I say more?
7
I grew up in the 1950's, an era consumed by Communist hysteria. We were required to sign loyalty oaths to go to college. We were told that the Communists were trying to take the nation over "within" by supposed Communists cells that were lurking everywhere. In the 1960's we presented with the domino theory--if Vietnam fell to the Communists all of East Asia would go next. These were all lies.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union another generation of Cassandra's has appeared, led by the author of this piece. We will not be fooled again.
6
The isolationism pillar is not like the other two. The US is such a giant that any foreign actions we take can have significant negative consequences; just witness all that stemmed from our invasion of Iraq. This article blames World War II on US isolationism, but there are also ways US foreign policy contributed to World War II—our tariffs on European powers made it very hard for them to repay their war loans and reparations, causing the economically distressed environment that made voters choose Hitler, while our government’s decision to buy all the world’s silver caused hyperinflation in China, wiping out its nascent middle class and leaving it as a sitting duck for Japan and ultimately the communists. A stable world order is best served if the US acts like a platform-owning tech company, allowing free trade but not intervening much in it.
1
23 Countries Invaded by the U.S. in 20 Years.
1. Grenada (1983-1984)
2. Bolivia (1986)
3. Virgin Islands (1989)
4. Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003)
5. Saudi Arabia (1990-1991)
6. Kuwait (1991)
7. Somalia (1992-1994; 2006)
8. Bosnia (1993-)
9. Zaire/Congo (1996-1997)
10. Albania (1997)
11. Sudan (1998)
12. Afghanistan (1998; 2001-)
13. Yemen (2000; 2002-)
14. Macedonia (2001)
15. Colombia (2002-)
16 Pakistan (2005-)
17. Syria (2008; 2011-)
18. Uganda (2011)
19. Mali (2013)
20. Niger (2013)
21. Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999)
22. Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011)
23. Angola (1976-1992)
1
@Lee Zehrer
An odd list that surely needs explaining. BTW the US Virgin Islands is part of the US.
3
'America First' was a slogan of the KKK during the 1920s.
The KKK was the reincarnation of the Southern Slave State Confederacy, promoting the Lost Cause of supporting slavery, and the Old Time 'Religion' of Evangelism (it's not a religion, it's political party). Nostalgic nonsense and fabricated history.
The Culture War is the Civil war of the 21st century wherein the Slave State Neo-Confederates are back for another Gettysburg type effort.
It's time to tell the Southern Slave State Neo-Cons that we didn't support slavery then, and we don't support slavery now.
We made America Great when the Union defeated the evil represented by Slave State Confederates on the battlefield, and no level of effort to win the Culture War will result in any other outcome.
Trump’s goal is to turn the United States into Russia, where a few privileged people control virtually all the wealth, with a small middle class of professionals, and everyone else trying to get by ftom one paycheck to the next.
Oh, and where everyone is white.
America First? More like Russia first. Is that really what America wants?
1
@Mark Robinett
Mark, the GINI Coefficient of Wealth Inequality in Russia is 0.699.
The GINI Coefficient of Wealth Inequality in America is 0.801.
The GINI Coefficient of Wealth Inequality in Zimbabwe is 0.845 (the highest/most unequal in the world).
A GINI Coefficient of Wealth Inequality of 1.0 means ONE PERSON has all the money in a country.
Do you think that America will beat the dictatorial kleptocracy of Zimbabwe and be able to shout, "We're #1"?
2
The stupidly of modern man is that a planet that had 1.125 billion people at the onset of the Industrial Revolution in 1800 now has 7.7 billion in 2018. Yet we act as if globalization can be avoided & the costs of overpopulation are not affecting us at all. Trump places our head in the sand so he can fleece us today at the cost of our children dying from Making America Great Again.
So what time does he want to return to? When women couldn't vote or blacks were slaves. We are only as great as the problems we take on. Trump is retreating America in defeat. He added $2 trillion to our debt in his first year. He has nominated people to the Supreme Court who lie, & that doesn't have anything to do with women's sexual charges against him. He twists the truth ,no he lies to cover the truth in order to win. We as a nation will be under water in a hundred years,we will be covered in algae like Florida. We will be fighting each other in the streets because the trashing of our rules of law that used to protect us,not just the rich in their Trump Towers.
2
Americans in general are too parochial, too incurious, and too ignorant of how the world works to formulate their own legitimate ideas on an all-encompassing and multi-pronged foreign policy. Blaming brown people for their own failings and the failings of the tax-scold conservatives they elect is so much easier and satisfying. That makes for America last. The fact that voters claim to want populist policies yet consistent pull the lever for the anti-union, anti-worker party of the bosses shows how shallow the understanding of even basic economics eludes them. Expecting them to comprehend complex international relations when the current party in power cannot understand them is asking too much. Getting them to appreciate the truth is even too much heavy lifting in their Fox News-poisoned world.
4
American foreign policy has always been driven by domestic interests. In its early days, the United States was an eager consumer of capital and labor from Europe, which helped create the vast fortunes of the Gilded Age.
As time went on, however, American businesses began to invest more heavily in other countries. What was politely referred to as “isolationism” was in fact support for the Francos, Hitlers and Mussolinis that protected capital against its enemies, nominally the Communists, but soon extended to any group that could be tarred with the same brush. The domestic Red Scares and McCarthy hysteria were part of the same program.
At our present moment, global wealth is distributed in a way that no longer requires the “rules-based international order” to protect it, as if any such thing ever genuinely existed for most of the planet’s inhabitants.
This is a well written piece, but contains an incorrect assertion which when corrected renders its argument even more unsettling.
Kagan states “It took Hitler’s conquest of Europe, near-conquest of Britain and, finally, Pearl Harbor to convince a majority of Americans that America First was a mistake”. Yet, the truth is that the first two events did no such thing. The historian Hugh Brogan reports that “In May 1941” – that is in the year subsequent to the aforementioned two events – “according to a Gallup poll, 79 per cent of the [American] people were still opposed to a voluntary entry” into World War Two.
Another historian Max Hastings believes “In the absence of Pearl Harbor, it remains highly speculative when, if ever, the United States would have fought”. Moreover, it is the case that the attack by Japan on December 7 1941 only initially led the US into war with Japan and not with its ally Germany. Hence, when Hastings avers that “Most Americans deplored what the Nazis were doing to the world, but would have remained unenthusiastic or indeed implacably hostile about sending armies to Europe, had Hitler not forced the issue” he is referring to the fact that it was Germany that would declare war on the US and not the other way around. Hastings notes “Four days after Pearl Harbor, [Hitler] made the folly of the strike comprehensive by declaring war on the United States, relieving Roosevelt from a serious uncertainty about whether Congress would agree to fight Germany”.
1
What selfish, self-centered people we are.
What sick, zero-sum ideas we have embraced.
What whirlwinds we are soon to reap.
Stop the selfishness, heal the sickness, rise up and face the whirlwinds.
Vote in record numbers this coming November 6th.
3
Kagan's real complaint is not that America is less important in the the world but that he and foreign policy experts like him are less important and have less influence. Under their influence, we intervened in Libya and how did that work out. It is now a haven for Isis terrorist. We invaded Iraq ,destroyed their civilian infrastructure which enabled Isis to thrive. Before that we invaded Vietnam to protect french colonialism , sacrificing 50,000 and 2 million american lives.
If you bring up Nazi Germany to make a point in a high school debate you automatically lose the debate
6
Because the liberal world order is working out so well for everyone.
4
I admit, when I first looked at this article and author, I thought why would the "Times" give it ink?
After all, Robert Kagan and his potty-mouthed wife Victoria Nuland (re. EU) are the founders of PNAC, which ignited the entire Middle East into wars, and are arrogant and dangerous war-starters not rivaled since the 1930s.
But this from the "Times" may well be a "learning moment" as Obama liked to say --- with the big difference being that the older "America First" cancerous ideology of ginning up war as a way which "consistently favored military spending increases to (supposedly) deter a real war" was countered by a strong and insightful FDR, who understood that allowing an Empire to grow in America, for any reason, could well be the first cancerous cell to disease our democratic Republic.
Waving the threat of war deceitfully and emotionally to promote the need to build an unassailable 'Empire of power' to supposedly protect 'we the American people' in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”, is nothing less, in this 21st century, than a ploy and con that is more likely to lead to global Empire than to global democracy.
Master of Public Policy, Robert Kagan is, IMHO, as well studied in war as was the fictional "Dr. Strangelove" in promulgating seemingly reasonable foreign policy plans more likely to bring about a disguised global capitalist Empire, than global democracy --- although Kagan the uber-neocon described his goal as just “belief in American hegemony”.
4
it has always been said, you have to take care of yourself before you do others.. america first is that.
3
Any American president who does not think and act with an "America first" mindset is a traitor to its citizens and to his oath of office.
4
It would be comforting to blame America’s current posture on Mr. Trump. But while he may be a special kind of president, even he can’t create a public mood out of nothing.
Joseph Goebbels would disagree: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
America First is a bankrupting idea this time raised and promoted by a serial bankrupt. If America First had been administration policy the last time it was so popular either we'd still be in the grip of the Great Depression, or walking around giving one another a straight armed salute, not out of pride or respect but out of fear of the consequences that could result from not doing so.
3
Russia First has won.
Kagan and the other neocons have no one but themselves to blame for the "isolationism" of the American masses when it comes to disastrous and idiotic Middle East wars to "protect" Israel, starting with Iraq. Trump won partly by distinguishing himself from Hillary by claiming he'd opposed the fool neocon war in Iraq while she had voted for it. The white American masses were simply voting "never again" when they chose Trump over Hillary, and America over Israel.
5
Give me a break: Obama's Kagan and Sotomayor were Neo-Marxists to the bench. Started there and continued with Obama's FBI dog whistle--"There's no there, there."
Not much left after Clinton-Bush-Obama--all criminal regimes, each taking a piece when each departed.
3
@Alice's Restaurant
First of all -- I think you should seriously look at the term 'Marxism' again.
Besides that, it's very revealing that you happen to fault Obama, Kagan and Sotomayor; who collectively represent non-white males in order to make your point....Case closed.
You make a lot of sweeping generalizations here without much research to back them up.
4
Fascism is already here. The only question is where will go and will the rest of us stand idly by. History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
1
Sorry, Mr. Kagan, but you lost all credibility when you helped the Bush administration lie us into the disastrous Iraq invasion.
8
(I realize you, the NYT no longer posts my comments. However, I would think this is a fair and poignant comment.) Let us ask, "Why not America first?" After WWII, America was the protector of the world. We were, and still are, the richest country in the world. However, we have more debt than any other country in the world, as well. For over 70 years, America has subsidized, basically, the world. The majority of UN plans and programs are more heavily subsidized by the US than any other country, or block (the EU) in the world. The US is not as rich as we were after WWII. Is it not time, at least for the rest of the "industrialized" countries in the world to pay a more fair percentage? Shouldn't we worry about "America First"?
2
We have failed and will perish because of our stupidity.
“America First” has won? Really? Margherita Sarfatti was Mussolini’s long-time mistress who helped shape Il Duce’s Fascists ideas. In the end, Sarfatti had to escape Italy to avoid deportation to concentration camps.
Today, there’s a parallel to the rise of Fascism. Like Sarfatti, there are several “advisors”helping Trump shape his “vision”: Steven Miller (attacking and racializing political refugees in the US southern border) Sheldon Adelson (got the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem), Kushner, Dershowitz and many others have contributed to today’s vile environment.
These “advisors” are exploiting the country’s discontent and unease caused by a fragile economy caused by Wall Street’s looting of the economy into ashes that caused the Great Recession. To think that under the surface people are OK with the current situation is nuts. Not all polls are capturing the source of anger percolating just under the surface and sharing it with pollsters
No! “America First” has not won, not by a long shot. Margherita Sarfatti was lucky to escape Italy just in time.
Lesson: people are watching and paying attention. The public just as sure as the sun is hot, don’t want a war with Iran, for example. Kagan’s narrative and facileconclusions are wrong! He shouldn’t assume that people are dancing in the streets. It’s not over!!
2
Capitalism, communism and fascism all purported to eliminate racism, ethnocentricism, misogyny, patriarchy, sectarianism and nationalism from control of all human affairs conflict and cooperation.
But the ultimate DNA genetic biological evolutionary fit one human race species reality is that we are by nature and nurture primate apes who evolved evolutionary fit in Africa 300,000 years ago. And we are driven to crave and seek fat, salt, sugar, habiitat, water, kin and sex by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
Ape first has never lost. And it never will.
1
It is economy, stupid.
"America First" is just a response to the fading America glory, a message that resonates with many voters who felt being left out by the growing wealth inequality.
The root of this illness is the unfair wealth distribution. Why do other countries have universal health care, affordable college education, but not US? Who benefit from this policy?
Trump is not a decent guy, but he offers something both parties haven't been able to, for America.
He is a product of our time.
2
This, ladies & gentlemen, is what happens when the anti-Trump rhetoric goes beyond the pale. The faces behind PNAC & other neo-liberal crusades are now plastered across our media outlets as they emerge not unlike a swarm of black flies from under the stones of a fast moving rivulet, to encourage more bloodletting as an antidote to Trump. No thanks.
3
"America First" a la Trump is not on the sidelines while fascism and militarism conquer the world, it is fascism conquering America first and then the world.
2
Kagan and his magical thinking are back? The more things change the more they seem to fit right into the Neo Conservative's playbook
8
Just as the NYTimes aided in the election of Donald Trump, through it's daily advertising of the inevitability of the Clinton Victory; today we see writer/reporters for the Gray Lady decideing that because the USA has remained together(unlike in 1860) and not fragmented , while refusing to evict the leally-if barely legitimately-elected individual from the White House, that this is the same as all Americans and all foreign governments acquiescing in the policies and ptractices as well as the cruel and vicious racism of Mr Trump and his administration.
It ought to be remembered by the so young writers for the Times that we also held togather for the almost 90 years before the Civil war and that many Republicans of Lincoln's party-not to mention the Democrats(known a Copperheads) also wanted to abandon to war and return to a unity, working out the slave issue over the next few decadesw.
What is probably occurring now is that Americans are trying to peer into the future to see what may be possible in 2018 and 2020.
America took three years before entering each of the First and Second world wars. In both cases-Wilson and FDR might have approved of earlier intervention, but could not get citizens to act as precipitously. So just because our government still functions, and Mr "T" is not hanging, upside down outside a gas station,(see Mussolini's death), proves nothing about the future of the US or the world.This is the NYTimes, not the East Village Other.
I don’t blame Americans for being tired of insanities such as the Iraq War. I do blame them for wanting stuff like unlimited cars and trucks and jet-skis and gadgetry and cheap trash cans while refusing to know where this stuff comes from or how it gets here.
I do blame us for being indifferent to what happens to the ever-smaller planet we live on while we throw away or feed to cats and dogs enough food to make sure that every kid on the planet goes to bed with a full belly. Not just because it’s wrong, but because it’s stupid and short-sighted.
And I most def do blame us for hoorawing around and waving flags while sending other people and their kids off to fight, and screaming like lunatics at the slightest hint that golly, maybe we oughta chip in some tax money to pay for our little adventures. Especially when we follow up by bellowing that we need smaller government and more poor people kicked off any and all help, then move on to bellowing at the refugees we just massively helped make.
Briefly put, I’m mostly tired of summer soldiers, chest-thumpers, godbotherers, the types who sit on their ample rear ends and scream about black folks and immygrants from the safety of their couch while forgetting who’s out there fighting for them, and the geniuses who were furious with Obama about the takeover of Crimea because they thought it was someplace near Ames, Iowa.
We don’t have a prob with isolationism. We have a prob with people who pretend that it’s possible.
1
In reality it is about approach. Many Americans do support these basic ideas. It his Trump mercurial and usually angry ad hostile approaches that offend most people. As for trade wars I thin most Americans would approve renegotiation instead of Trumps mercurial and often spiteful approach. Ditto for NATO It is not entirely the message, it is the horrible Angry and hateful messenger.
Then again those are only part of the Trump carnage to our beliefs. There is the base GOP racist component, the fake godliness and patriotism, the undo influence of Christian Fundamentalist ,Corporate Billionaires, the constant lies and the gross indifference to facts and science that disgust most Americans These nastier sores o disgust both Independents and Democrats and rightly so. We Americans are better than Trumpism.
1
Isolationism has won?
We have 450,000 troops stationed overseas, not a few in hot wars. And they're not just out there. They have hundreds of billions of dollars of equipment and arms, and we spend tens of billions annually keeping them there.
You call that "Isolationism" Mr. Kagan?
I can't decide what to call you, Mr. Kagan. So many possibilities come to mind.
3
Re: "But while he may be a "special" kind of president..."
Aberrant kind of president would be more accurate than special.
Special is usually associated with something good or precious.
Kagan the neocon is just voicing his depression. Although I'm not a neocon, I am depressed as well!
1
Maybe the jungle is the norm and this last century was the aberration. Primal/Tribal behavior wins out over responsible intelligence every time given enough time for people to forget history.
I did some checking and could not find any record of service in the military on the part of Kagan. He's apparently just another one of those comfortably situated pundits, whose bona fides on military matters extend only to the ability to put two sentences together, and perhaps reading Beetle Bailey in the funny papers. Other priorities, I guess, got in the way of more serious commitments.
If Kagan is somehow disabled or otherwise unfit for active service I apologize, but I strongly suspect otherwise.
5
Mr. Kagan seems to be advocating the continuation of the current militarized foreign policy, which rests on the conceit that Uncle Sam knows what is best for every other country.
I am all for turning inward if it means that we spend money updating our own crumbling nation (if you haven't seen the crumbling parts, you need to get out more) and improving the overall quality of life for every American instead of trying to impose our will on the Middle East or other troubled parts of the world.
Our militarized foreign policy has had a number of unfortunate results:
1. A decline in U.S. prestige around the world.
2. Literal trillions spent on boondoggle weapons systems, futile wars, and covert manipulation of other countries instead of on universal health care, high-quality education nationwide, not just in wealthy districts; affordable housing, green energy, and a modernized infrastructure (universal broadband, public transit, and intercity high-speed rail, just for example).
3. Conflation of patriotism with militarism, resulting in the accusation that people who don't support the latest stupid war are "unpatriotic."
4. Most recently the destabilization of the Middle East,
Our track record for "fixing" other countries is poor indeed. To use a Biblical metaphor, before trying to remove the specks from the eyes of others, let us take the logs out of our own eyes.
5
Left leaning people might think we should spend more on education and social programs, and less on the military.
Right leaning people might think we need to stop funding the UN and negotiate better trade deals.
Either way, the end result is the same, "more here, less there."
I also think many Americans feel that the rest of the world should be a bit more grateful. Despite the fact that we rebuilt two continents after WW2, are (by far) the world's leader in technological innovation, and are the top destination for the world's top-performing students, we are mocked as unsophisticated, ugly Americans in Western Europe and increasingly in other places.
1
If truth were told, we would wonder what enemy nation our leaders really work for. But maybe you're right. If "America First" means that we alienate our friends and pretend that our enemies are harmless well-wishers, that tariffs are instituted that raise our consumer prices and decimate our producers' sales, that our environment is wrecked and our public lands and waters lost, that our poor increase in numbers while our health declines--if these and more harms are laid upon us by legislators in the pocket of wealth and courts held by their buddy ideologues--then yes, America First has won. Except for its people, its principles, its morality, and its future, who have lost, lost, lost.
2
Isolationist? An imperial power with military bases throughout the world, with its armaments in the hands of friends and foes alike, with overt and covert plans to overthrow elected governments, with both political parties on board with the agenda of violence - this is isolationist?
5
As long as the U.S. keeps bases abroad, and there are a huge number, it will not be isolationist. What Trumps isolation is really about building a fort to keep the "indians" out--yea, like the good old days when the U.S. forcibly took over the country and then made themselves the victims of those who fought against U.S. savage violence (no pun intended)--it was America First back then too, except it as today it means "Whites First" and that is really what Donald Trump and his chumps mean by America First. Protectionism is nothing short of "we should be able to go to any country in the world and demand that they open a McDonald's, but we don't want them here doing the same to open up some foreign business. And again, Protectionism, also means build the fort (in this case walls) to keep the "indians" out (now those "indians" are anyone else with dark skin. And naturally, anti-immigrant fervor has always popped it's racist nature up and down American history---and now, as usual it means anyone with a dark complexion). To say that these pillars of exclusion were just gaining ground, is preposterous. They have always been pillars of American "exceptionalism." Solution: stop interfering in the countries of people you hate, shut down your bases and bring the soldiers home, and don't do business with anyone except Americans who live here. Don't want to do that? Then stop saying America First.
2
Isolationism is dreadful but so is interventionism.
We have been staunch supporters of hideous and brutal dictatorships all over the world, in order to protect our hegemony, and that has to end!
1
What is doing us in as a country of people and living things are:
the dominance of the military-Industrial complex (the Soviet Union collapsed due to too much emphasis & $$ for the military & global expansion)
corporatism and corporatocracy (the TPP was all about this, and nothing for labor, civil society, people)
the the overbearing wealthy 1% & financial sector nationally and globally (Greece for example)
a refusal by greedy business interests to accept or do anything about climate change (Kochs, fossil fuels, not renewable energy)
the demand by the wealthy and corporations for ever lower taxes, with no sense of responsibility for the larger society and its people (deficits matter, unless the GOP gets in)
the ever-rising inequality and loss of a secure middle class and hope for the future of our children and well being of society (obscene CEO salaries and ever widening gap with worker pay)
the imposition of the business model where it does not belong, such as in medicine, education, public transportation and infrastructure; care of young children, the disabled, and the frail elderly (profits over people and civic responsibility)
The alienation and psychological devastation are everywhere, but the political elites (including this author) don't deal with it or care. But con artist Trump saw it and knew how to capitalize and manipulate it.
To be American First, there needs to be a re-focus on the well being of people & the planet. If not, all we will get are Trumps
3
This is not just an American point of view. The same is obviius across Europe.
Ultimately trade will decide the issue. America cannot be isolationist and expect its corporation to be able to compete worldwide as freely as they do. All the large America based companies have over 50% of their sales and profits overseas
When the stock market gets hit hard the powerful will correct the stupidity. But for now the rest of us non powerful just endure the coming inflation
If I were a laid off GM auto worker in Dayton, Ohio, struggling just to get by (watch the PBS documentary on Dayton on the Sept. 11 edition of "Frontline"), I'd be wondering why the US was meddling in so many foreign countries when so many Americans were struggling here at home. It seems that Mr. Kagan has never met a war he didn't like and his wife, Victoria Nuland, as a senior official in Obama's State department did her best to stir up conflict in Ukraine (against Russia). Kagan and Nuland have often been described as neo-cons who tried to get the US more heavily involved in Syria.
The US is a declining superpower. While a small percentage of Americans now enjoy enormous wealth, the system will eventually face a financial crisis much worse than the Great Recession. Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it.
4
Canadians are aware that (a) the Trump Administration’s stance on international relations differs only partially in substance from that emerging generally across the US political spectrum, & (b) this US isolationist & protectionist drift poses major challenges to Canada. The pace of this US drift & the nature & extent of the resulting challenges that Canada faces are magnified by the emergence of China as (a) a regional power in the Pacific Rim (i.e. the CPTPP countries), & globally. Further, Canadian initiatives to diversify through a closer alliance with the EU through CETA & other understandings are complicated by the internal discord within the EU.
Thus, Canadians increasingly understand the needs to consider significant changes to the nature & scope of Canada’s current reliance on & commitment to NATO & NORAD & to NAFTA in a world drifting into a Darwinian international scene dominated by the US & China (each in practice if not explicit policy increasingly acting as if it was the Mercantilist metropolitan centre dominating its regional subordinate hinterland).
This needn’t lead to a fundamental breach in the Canada/US relationship but it will entail increased Canadian resistance to inappropriate demands & actions by the US. Canada will turn to efforts to build (a) domestic self-reliance, & (b) deeper relationships with our CETA & CPTPP partners based on the precepts of the rule & institution collective security & free trade post-WW II era.
"but few Democratic politicians are running on a promise to bring more immigrants into the country"
Back in the eighties demographers started saying that in fifty years white people would become a minority. Most people back then were probably not paying much attention to what demographers had to say.
Now that we are more than half way there every white person in America is acutely aware that their children and grandchildren will be minorities in America.
The republican party from here on out will be the anti-immigration party. It will probably even morph into a white nationalist party at some point...
1
“We have a U.S. president who doesn’t value the rules-based international order,” ... But is the American public any different?"
You think the "American Public" speaks with one voice, thinks with one mind?
Often winning candidates say "The people have spoken" --when 49% or more voted against them.
ALL polities--big and small--are pluralistic--a multitude of beliefs about the real as well as the idea world. Even theocracies. Especially muti-national ones.
The main political objective is e pluribus unum--one from many--at least a critical mass of citizens (or agencies) who recognize official authority.
Charismatic authoritarians can do it--but it won't outlast them. Only the rule of law--and bureaucracy--provide multi-generational political stability.
Replacing rule of law with a "Me First" autocrat is another step toward the dark ages--or even the dark last century. Look--for example--at political maps of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Enormous waste--of life and resources.
1
Is this really new, or just a return to the pre-second world war normal?
“The old free-trade consensus is gone.”
That “consensus” only existed among the self-appointed “elites” in our country. You can’t reasonably expect working and middle class Americans to continue taking it on the chin so that already rich people can rake in a few more bucks without a backlash. Our policy makers, heavily influenced by the people who finance political campaigns and who profit from corporate “free trade,” introduced this system of offshoring American jobs without any consideration of how this would affect the people. To continue doung this without expecting an extreme and logical reaction is as crazy as sending an infidel army into Iraq and expecting only to be showered with flowers and candy.
4
I must strongly disagree because Kagan misses what's at the very dark heart of the white nationalist "America First" doctrine--a frontal attack on the very pillar of our democracy, the Constitution. Donald Trump has been relentless in attacking the "rule of law" that is our Constitution by demeaning his Department of Justice and his Attorney General and by staging a coup d'etat that has removed the top echelon at our premier law enforcement agency, the F.B.I. The so-called "ideology" is just a cover as we've seen in other countries like Hungary, Poland and Turkey for authoritarian rule. If "'America First' Has Won," then America has lost--its Constitution and its democracy. That is the real battle now being waged; it's between the true patriotism of saving our Constitution or submitting to a Trump tyranny.
1
Donald Trump is NO isolationist. This is just one of the big lies told by those attempting to resist and obstruct him for binary partisan reasons alone.
There is no need for me to qualify this truth - do your OWN research. Ultimately, this type of willful disregard of reality in the name of "by any means necessary", can only do SEVERE damage to those hypnotized citizens participating in it.
1
'America Last, Plutocrats First' has won.
4
Mr. Kagan is mistaken to view "America First" from an American lens. The ideologies of isolationism. protectionism and restriction of immigration are global. From America to Europe, from Europe to Asia, these views are on the rise. Do we dare to say that the rise of these three pillars are just a manifestation of the resurgence of nationalism? Do we have a mindset that is closer to that of 1900s? The post world war II multinational framework crafted by the Allies is now under siege. Many of us have forgotten that the first and the primary propose of this framework is neither economical nor cultural but is to prevent the next global war. I have no illusion of where the rules of the jungle advocated by Trump and other autocrats will lead. Unlike 1900s, the world population is much better educated and connected. A majority of the people in current democratic countries still value international cooperation over unchecked competition. A good fraction of people in counties that were never fully democratic like Russia and China still believe that there are better ways. There are still people everywhere that will not follow the marching order of the autocrats. I do not think that we lost yet but the signs of warning are everywhere.
1
People follow leaders, even ones headed in the wrong direction. While one may argue that the primacy of America is passing, in reality it’s a relay race. We are still running, although with new and emerging runners in the race. The idea that we can retreat to 18th Century mercantilism as a solution to our problems is both wrongheaded and headed towards disaster. Winning the race does not involve stopping and adding lead weights to our shoes.
Trump and his minions would prefer that we engage in a Hobbesian war of all versus all, as long as the silver spoon brigade can keep the inferiors in check. (If you are an evangelical Christian, check your Gospel about the Samaritan and the inheritance of the meek to determine if you should support Trump.)
What we need are leaders who can recognize that our strength was and is built on universal public education and publicly accessible infrastructure—and absolutely not on tariffs or walls. It’s founded on the notion that everyone has an equal voice and vote. It’s supported by mutual respect for each other and protection of the weakest among us. Where are those leaders? Where is the call not to power but to true greatness?
2
America First like the Brexiters of the UK are classic in that both groups want to have their cake and eat it too. People want all the advantages of a global marketplace without having to invest in it. Like May is discovering in the UK's negotiations with EU, they see what she wants and they have no intention of letting the UK be all take and no give. The U.S. will find that true as well as we isolate ourselves more and more.
Too many Americans have no clue or connection to the world beyond about 100 miles from where they were born. A recent study of the distribution of "friends" shows the vast majority of people only have friends the live physically close to them and I suspect a great many of them haven't traveled very far either. The general ignorance about the world contributes to our mythologies about ourselves and what we can and cannot do. The rust belt of the UK and the non urban parts are very similar and people can't see what harm Brexit will do (or simply don't believe it). We're both going to learn the hard way - unfortunately - that there's no such thing as a free lunch. When grocery bills skyrocket because produce can't be harvested or farmers are now paying an actual living wage to people to do stoop labor people will most definitely start to notice.
I don't see any argument that the US is militarily withdrawing from the world. I see the US expanding its activities everywhere be it stationing troops in Norway and the Baltic states, building or expanding bases in Greenland , Poland and Hungary, confronting Iran, Syria and Russia over Idlib, confronting the Chinese in the South China See, etc., etc. I see the US becoming more active militarily all over the world in the near future, not less.
1
Where does climate change fit into all this?
You can't deal with rising CO2 emissions without close international cooperation. As the problem turns critical - it may have already - nations will have to band together to offer stick-and-carrot incentives to economies that don't adopt emission-reduction and help to those nations that do.
As perhaps hundreds of millions of people become displaced by climate change, what possible way can that be dealt with other than by nations working closely together?
Such measures are antithetical to the current version of America-first, although, ironically, they are actually the requirements of any policy for truly putting our nation first.
2
I agree that Americans are generally opposed to (1) acting as the Worlds' policeman and (2) paying for that privilege.
As with a handful of Trump's ideas, there is sometimes a grain of truth underlying the idea. For example, we do need immigration reform. Both Republicans and Democrats have agreed on this point for years. Of course Trump takes a legitimate problem then creates false explanations for the genesis of the problem while also falsely invoking extreme consequences for the failure to follow his often unconstitutional solutions.
Much of American isolationist attitude is based on Bush II's war of choice in Iraq. Americans were embarrassed to learn that the President manufactured evidence (yellow-cake uranium) and used weak evidence (aluminum tubes) to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation. Beyond being contrary to international law, the war cost trillions of dollars and untold loss of life. Further, it destabilized an entire region.
The reality is that we can't have tax cuts for the wealthy and continue to act as the global policeman. It is logical that in a world in which we have restricted budgets that money first be spent at home.
2
American foreign policy has always been about "America First." If it was based on so-called American/Western values, theocratic Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would never have been US allies historically.
All American Presidents have ultimately valued American might and its strategic and business interests above everything else when it came to the world affairs. It just so happens that Trump is doing things in a different way than the previous Presidents.
1
These trade policies made no sense to anyone that didn't stand to make a lot of from their implementation.
I honestly think most of the country believes there are no tariffs on American goods going into other country. Not true. Trump just wants American goods to get the same treatment we give others.
And, if we don't support "America First", who will? I'm with Trump.
MAGA.
Kagan was among the most vociferous champions of an interventionist foreign policy throughout the 1990's and early 2000's. It's strange how much he has clearly forgotten his many bedfellows to now postulate that the American public has been increasingly isolationist since the Cold War. He can only make this argument by omitting the ceaseless, and widely popular, interventions in the Clinton years. For their recklessness and lack of foreign policy imagination, Kagan and his neo-conservative ilk bear a huge portion of the blame for the rise of isolationism. Funny, I've never heard him accept any, but he sure likes to blame the rest of us.
7
@Matthew Brian
I'm sorry, but Reagan liked to intervene in countries affairs, Iran-Contra affair comes to mind, (now North is head of the NRA). Why don't republicans stop blaming everyone else for problems they had a hand in themselves.
@Matthew Brian. While I have plenty of problems with bill Clinton, he took the lead in the former Yugoslavia when the euros could barely mange to wring their hands, and with minimal losses, stopped the genocide. He probably should have lead an intervention into the horrors that went on in Rwanda and Uganda but he was clearly not an uncontrolled interventionist. If anything he was too cautious, in areas like whacking bin Ladin when he had a chance. Of coarse the neocons would have shredded him if he had, for using intervention to distract the public.
My broader point was that post-Desert Storm, the nation unsheathed its military power and embarked on a number of interventions for a variety of new reasons. These developments had popular support - in contrast to Kagan’s recounting of a creeping isolationism throughout the nation in the post Cold War era.
I think the broader question here is not whether we are politically entering or are in a period of isolationism, protectionism and restricted immigration, that seems now self-evident on the surface, but can it be sustained?
For instance, could the world recovery from the Great Recession have been possible without the ability of national and powerful banks worldwide to coordinate in real-time to put together financial packages and policies that were crucial in avoiding a recession from turning into a world depression? Internationalism here saved the day.
And while the US and other nations may get giddy over the idea of regaining traditional "sovereignty" are they really ready to go it alone and be at the mercy of powers like China and the US. Are countries like Hungary and Poland really ready to split away from the combined economic power their membership in the EU provides?
And then there is the practicality of pursuing isolationism when the internet and smartphones link together billions worldwide?
After all, even the Comment section of the NYT regularly sees posts from around the world.
1
Globalization can't work without a well regulated financial sector. The largest part of the global economy is now mainly abstract and hidden from the average person. Big Banks and financial institutions borrow, loan, re-borrow, and re-loan, and insure all these transactions with promises that are nearly worthless. And now there's Bitcoin and other exotic off-the-shelf financial instruments feeding off of its own hype and feeding off cheaper rural and electrical power grids. No wonder economists are warning about another more devastating economic collapse than what happened in 2008.
It's almost humorous if it weren't so sad. Here we are talking about building physical walls to protect ourselves from evil strangers as our ship of state once again drifts down the financial river of debt, over-leveraged assets, and massive transactions that only a mathematician could understand..... ever closer to the roaring waterfall that we hoped to avoid.
2
Mr. Kagan confuses "America First" with a common sense approach to foreign entanglements, tempered by learning how completely wrong Kagan and the neocons have been in recent years. Even further, he naively attributes a coherent approach to foreign policy to Donald Trump, whose only policy is me-first. Perhaps we should simply ignore Kagan now, lest we get even more encouragement for wars of opportunity that serve nobody except the arms merchants.
1
I think there are various reasons why "American First" holds sway with many Americans. There are numerous factors, but it's hard to welcome new and often poor immigrants when you have seen your standard of living stagnate for decades. It's difficult to contemplate spending tax dollars on foreign wars when you can't afford college for your child, roads and bridges are crumbling, and we are told that Social Security and Medicare must be reduced because we have a budget deficit (caused in part by redirecting tax dollars to the wealthy - but is another topic entirely). However, one issue that I believe really is the root of people's unwillingness to engage in Kiev or Montenegro is most people probably couldn't find either location on a map, and do not have any historical knowledge of these regions or why stability there is important to United States - both politically or economically. Americans are woefully ignorant of the world writ large. We don't teach young people about history and economics - focusing on STEM is great - but you need a politically and economically stable world for these skills to transfer to wealth and prosperity. I agree that Europe has had a "free ride" to some extent - one reason why they are able to provide generous social welfare benefits to their citizens. However, this can be addressed without retreating to an isolationism and nationalism.
4
@dairyfarmersdaughter. Many of us have often wondered why the left is mystified that we don't think importing masses of poor, illiterate, unskilled immigrants is the path to economic prosperity. A quick look at where most of these people come from provides a good indication of where this can lead to. Their answer is usually to simply dismiss our concerns by calling us "racists".
1
Trump complains about the cost of defending Europe, Japan, South Korea and others. Yet, he and the Republicans in Congress have pushed through massive increases in defense spending. Why? If they want the allies to assume more of the burden (which is not unreasonable) then wouldn't CUTTING defense spending to focus on domestic priorities (isn't it time for another Infrastructure Week?) make more sense
1
There is something disingenuous about Dems complaining about Trump’s stance on trade and foreign military involvement when many of those same Dems were anti NAFTA, anti GATT, anti free trade, anti military spending and intervention. For Dems to now gush over how wonderful foreign trade and international obligations and geopolitical responsibilities seems merely political gamesmanship. To wit, for Dems to now fully support our FBI and other intelligence apparatus seems to also be political.
2
@Shend
The dems weren't against NAFA, they were against the incentive's given via tax breaks to corporations to move OUT of the country, with no plan to replace those jobs. Our elected officials should have incentivized corporations to stay in the country. And to your statement regarding the FBI, and intelligence, they have never disparaged the intelligence apparatus the way Trump does. Trump undermines the credibility of the intelligence apparatus because it appeals to his base, much like the "deep state" lie, appeal to his base.
Trump is a reckless, and a reckless president is a dangerous one. Countries may decide to simply not do any business with the US. And where would that leave this country then
1
"There has been no popular outcry against.."
Mr Kagan seems to not understand that the American Public has been rendered impotent by our corporate overlords. We last tried the "popular outcry" thing during the Iraq Wars and the media refused to report it.
As the late, great Aretha sang, "Who's zooming who?"
5
America always thought if itself sd a place apart; its the postwar consensus that was unusual. In a sense were returning to our roots.
1
More simplistic commentary on "what Americans think". The majority of Americans are not isolationist, or protectionist, nor do the the majority of Americans support the racist and destructive immigration policies put forth by this administration. What Americans want is for our government to address is shoring up the crumbling infrastructure, making education affordable for all individuals who seek it either to enter the job market or to change careers to better survive in a changing job market, provide affordable health care for all citizens and to be the beacon of hope that America has always aspired to be; not the king in his castle with his troops shooting flaming arrows over the walls at his neighbors. Before Trump the US already had one of the most rigorous vetting systems for immigrants to enter of any country in the world. It has now become an human rights distaster for the most vulnerable of humanity, children and the parents seeking to protect them. What Americans want is not to be used as pawns to corporate interests and the craven politicians who are beholden to them. Unfortunately, this is where we are. It would also be in everyone's interest if the looming crisis presented by climate change and environmental degradation were given the attention they rightly should be commanding at this point in time.
5
The tone of the article is correct, though I dismiss out of hand the idea that Trump is inherently isolationist, given that he supported beefing up military spending (ask yourself this, if you are pulling out of international conflicts, why would we be spending money on large scale weapons systems and troops that would be required basically for those kinds of conflicts? No foe is going to invade the US, so if we 'pulled into our shell", why are we building a military designed for overseas conflict). Rather Trump is pulling out of international cooperation and 'going it alone", with the idea that the US will be able once again to go back to Teddy Roosevelt's time. Not to mention, of course, this defense spending is often nothing more than spending designed to create jobs in districts to keep the GOP in power, with no strategic value to it.
2
How about we start by asking for accountability in the United States? We are presently asking for accountability from sexual predators. Let's extend that goal to demanding an honest reckoning by our government. This is long overdue.
How can we untangle this mess of words and concepts when there is a lie at the heart of things, namely, that United States intervention into sovereign nations has not been disastrous.
One thing that this would entail would be that "celebrities" like Kissinger and Bush be held accountable for the suffering they have inflicted on our country as well as the countries we have invaded on false pretenses. We should not be asked to abide the likes of Bush at public events or on late-night talk shows.
Let's be honest--that is as good as erasing history. If the Germans did this, we would be appalled, but somehow we get away with it over and over again.
We will have to go back to our earliest atrocities. We will have to look at these events without defensiveness.
Contrary to Obama's advice in regard to Bush, which was essentially "Let's look ahead," I say NO! Let's look back at what we did.
Without a clear-sighted assessment, we will repeat and repeat and repeat these cycles of violence. The American populace will remain victimized and confused.
This state of confusion is, of course, the goal of this author, the politicians, the military and the financial vampires.
And this confusion is ultimately how we will lose everything.
4
Another “both sides do it”!
Nice try, no dice.
The democratic party and democratic presidents have consistently worked for and within an international order, just not always for corrupt crony capitalism.
Democrats arent the party threatening to pull out of Nafta, NATO, and the WTO. They are also more generally for inclusion in institutions like the ICC and international agreements on climate change.
The democrats might not appease Mr Kagan’s Disgruntled Republicanism but it is far from the party he supprted for decades. Through torture and unjust wars. It is better than that, and it is better than he is.
5
Trump will not outlast us.
We're so much bigger than him, and so much better than this.
1
I wish I had a lot of respect for this author, but I don't. When my nephew was a brilliant student at the USMA at West Point, this writer helped fulminate the nonsense that the U.S. was somehow supposed to erect an absolute political/military domination over the Islamic world--in order supposedly to get complete control of "terrorism." My nephew paid in his soul for what he then was compelled to do, witness and suffer in 28 of the hardest combat months of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In those wars, he somehow succeeded in suppressing every shred of his humanity to be able to convey to the youngsters under his command the image of a steel-hearted invincible warrior, notwithstanding what it did to his soul when at last he unburdened himself with immense negative effects in the years after he left the U.S. Army. Mr. Kagan in the security of his offices, sat around and theorized. Now, he discovers to his horror that the American people have invincibly welded their repulsion at the hideous effects of "The Long War" to their passion both to confine their defiance of history to their own country, and in doing so to make it invulnerable as to all comers. Mr. Kagan and his ideologists of The Long War helped set all of this off. His lament strikes me as too little, too late, and it has to me not the least tincture of wholeness, truth and honor. Tu quoque, Sir.
9
@David A. Lee
Kagan and the other Neocons who helped push for the war on Iraq should be tried for treason.
3
@John Chenango John: I don't believe in vengeance and retaliation. Something in the Jewish and Christian sides of my families rejects that. Even so, those neo-con people have remorse to feel and express. Living human beings died and suffered for what they did. But thanks for your message, John. It really does mean something.
Kagan derides the values of isolationism, protectionism, and restricting immigration as misguided or bad but what if we replace the words with definitions. Isolationism - minding your own business and not intruding into foreign controversies which are not your responsibility. At a minimum, the value in the Hippocratic Oath which says, do no harm. Protectionism, creating laws which regulate trade for the benefit of American workers and industries. No one wants to limit the importation of bananas but should we allow nations with no minimum wage or enforcement of environmental laws to compete against highly regulated American businesses. Shouldn't foreign companies have to pay a penalty for massive pollution, low wages and dangerous working conditions. And finally immigration. There is a strange dichotomy of judgement of immigration by todays liberal intellectual. When Europeans immigrated to America and took the land and resulted in the loss of native cultures, that was bad. Whites illegally immigrating to the Black Hills to settle on Sioux land were criminals and the Indians had the right to fight for their land. But today, we should share everything we have with anyone who wants it. Any American community which wants to retain their cultural identity is racist, xenophobic, and dangerous. Americans have to right to limit migration to their country. We condemn Americans for the same thing we champion the Native Americans for.
2
Post World War II peace was largely based on two important building blocks: Global trade and moral leadership by the US, backed by Europe.
Both are now in peril and this will lead to a more unstable world.
The military dominance of the US, which is supposed to be the new way, was and is vastly overrated. It is useless in confronting nuclear powers, which Crimea and the South China Seas clearly demonstrates. And yet, the US military budget only ever increases. As an aside, I wonder how effective those billions are, in an environment with preferred suppliers whose projects and investments are never challenged.
Economic sanctions and mutual trade dependencies remain by far the most effective way to keep autocrats in check. Europe's relationship with Russia, for one, is largely based on it (e.g. energy trade, sanctions vs. coulance), something often poorly understood by Americans these days.
2
Back in 1965 CBS aired a documentary entitled "The New Left". In it the subject revolved around the changing issues in American politics. Whereas prior to 1960 the only issue dividing Democrat & Republican, Liberal & Conservative was ECONOMICS! The right favored rich,business interests, the left favored trade unionists, blue collar etc. Everyone was against abortion, feminism, racial equality, and for guns. Both LBJ & Humphrey were life members of the NRA. Then things changed. Civil rights, anti-war fervor, women's rights, voting rights, abortion, contraception, the changing flavor of immigration from Europe to "other less white places" changed the whole dynamic. To be "left" meant you had to support not only economic equality BUT cutting military spending, being anti-War, being for abortion, contraception, feminism, and anti-gun ownership. Religious traditions (separate from real spiritual belief-just cultural in ideology) was being squeezed out of society. The so called "Southern strategy" did not just win in Dixie, it won in Boston when Italians & Irish mobbed up against Blacks regarding school busing, in Philly when Rizzo's militarized police force crushed dissent, & when free trade shipped jobs overseas & filled domestic jobs with illegal immigrants. I have nothing but contempt for right wing GOP ideology. BUT they did their homework. They paid attention. Like lemmings & Germans we are headed blindly over the cliff because of who we are, not who Trump is. Sadly he is us.
160
@Tony Borrelli
I am not aware that I know anyone who first chooses to be left or right then adopts a position on any particular issue because of that first choice.
People have ideas and opinions that span the full gamut of left to right. The idea of ideology like you describe so well here is divide and conquer politics. A very unAmerican way of doing things. The very basis of it is anti self government.
The differences before were due to people being too afraid to stand up to the bigots and ignoramuses. The labeling and line drawing after the people started creating a more perfect union that lived up to its declared ideals we due to the formerly mentioned bigots grasping to hang on to the false power they always had. Neither side is sainted or pure but one side surely is the progenitor and continuing promoter of the division that is tearing the nation apart.
1
@Tony Borrelli Isn't this sort of "ineffably sad" viewpoint just excusing recidivism, no matter how accurate a view of recent U.S. history ? And how exactly were religious traditions "squeezed out of society"? Hasn't the best of what religions propose been trivialized in the insincerity and greed of rampant commercialism ? Let's pay our debts, all of our taxes, and focus on paying attention to the needs of one another. We must all hang together, or, the devil taking the hindmost ("moral hazard" to professors of the dismal science), we may find ourselves living in hell on earth.
@Tony Borrelli Incorrect. The right favored the power of private sector over public. And the left favored public over private, but ONLY when it came to the public's need for regulation over private. That changed quickly in the 70s and beyond, where the left desires bigger government for all; not tied to regulations.
Isolationism, protectionism and nationalism are a one way ticket to conflict and misery.
Do people never learn?
4
When are we going to stop being ruled by the 30 percent minority?
7
The Free Traitors, I mean traders sold us out long ago. For market access, they traded off middle class jobs. The Democrats in the end will be the ones to take this back. The GOP could care less about this issue.
1
The masses may like protectionism and neo-isolationism but American elites, trained at the Ivy law schools, business schools, public policy programs et al, are indelibly internationalist in orientation. There is no going back on this. Our business system, financial elites, national security intellectuals and even our leading cultural figures, are all in on American globalism. So Trump and his anachronistic beliefs will pass and his successors will return to the fold.
1
@Yankelnevich
That is, until our "aristocracy" meets the same end as the French Aristocracy.
1
What do you expect? Playing and paying to be world policeman and welcoming everyone who wanted to come here was never all that popular with Americans, but they tolerated it because times here were good. You could buy a home and send the kids to college on one middle class income.
Lately we've seen a trillion dollars (or more) pumped into Iraq while here people, some of them working full time, are forced to live behind dumpsters because jobs don't pay enough to live on. Bridges are crumbling and roads are full of potholes. The world is also getting a whole lot more crowded due to human overpopulation. This reaction is not a surprise.
2
As always, leaders represent EXISTING views. They dont create them. They resonate with the popular ideology of the time. In other words, we already know this.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with AMERICAN (Key word America) politicians putting AMERICA (key word America) first. We should worry about ourselves before we worry about the rest of the world. If you can't face this then you can't face reality.
As Ronald Reagan famously said "the greatest threat lies in appeasement". This doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't participate in the international community, it just means when we do we should put our own interests and goals first.
Do any of you seriously think China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. care we are happy with their decisions???? -- So we should we care if we don't everyone happy as long as we put America first.
I am sure Prime Minister May of the United Kingdom puts the UK first in her decisions. So why shouldn't we.
I am sure President Justin Trudeau of Canada puts his nation's success and well-being into all the decisions he makes. So why shouldn't we.
I am sure President Emmanuel Macron puts France first when he makes a policy discision. So why shouldn't we?
We need to stop treating nationalism as evil. Nationalism is not inheirently evil. Obviously every political system can be bad under certain circumstances, but overall there is nothing wrong, either morally or ethically, with nationalism.
So now I ask. ---- Why is America First such a "radical" policy?
@American Patriot.... Nationalism is out of date in our permanently faster moving times. Networking is ruling global trade and communications. There is no escape.
So, we should think global too. Climate change and the still underestimated OVERPOPULATION on our planet leave no other possibilities. Otherwise mankind will perish, and this soon.
BTW, Macron thinks first of Europe then of France. So you are clearly mistaken in your opinion.
@American Patriot Because America First was originally formulated by racists who really meant White America First and as an American minority, I still think that is what they stand for.
1
Well, Americans wanted to avoid war until Germany made it clear it wanted to take over (at least) Europe and Japan seemed to want everything else. America developed the atom bomb and demonstrated we could be crazier than them all. We don't want war now either but lots of other people developed their own atom bombs. It wouldn't be in anybody's interest to be the craziest one of them all now. It could be the end of us all.
1
American foreign policy has always been driven by domestic interests. In its early days, the United States was an eager consumer of capital and labor from Europe, which helped create the vast fortunes of the Gilded Age.
As time went on, however, American businesses began to invest more heavily in other countries. What was politely referred to as “isolationism” was in fact support for the Francos, Hitlers and Mussolinis that protected capital against its enemies, nominally the Communists, but soon extended to any group that could be tarred with the same brush. The domestic Red Scares and McCarthy hysteria were part of the same program.
We might as well face it, global wealth is now distributed in a way that no longer requires the “rules-based international order” to protect it, as if any such thing ever genuinely existed for most of the planet’s inhabitants.
Blood of patriots and all that. It's coming.
“Now as always, presidents reflect public opinion at least as much as they shape it.”
Yes, that’s why we have something called leadership — when leaders summon their people to the greater good. Mr. Kagan Isn’t selling history; he’ s selling ideology. He doesn’t seem to have noticed that average Americans don’t get left out in the cold by accident. Leaders occasionally say things like, "We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for a hundred years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law." At the moment we have a leader who was “elected” saying the opposite, a leader marching us off the cliff, his cult followers close behind with Kool-Aid cups in Donstown. Let’s not buy into Mr. Kagan’s fake-determinist (and, frankly, dishonest and snotty) argument that a different kind of leader wouldn’t be taking us elsewhere. If Lyndon Johnson were president he’d have shoved a new version of the Voting Rights Act through Congress after John Roberts gutted it; insurance companies would be looking for the exit on healthcare; the minimum wage would have doubled; bridges and tunnels and roads and water purification plans would be under repair; and an industrial policy to protect jobs would have been written. Most important he wouldn’t have let the likes of Mr. Kagan anywhere near the process of making American policy foreign or otherwise.
America first? How about Americans first?
How about instead of drone bombing Yemeni hospitals, we fund our own hospitals? Instead of destroying other countries' roads and bridges with bombing campaign, maybe we can rebuild our own crumbling infrastructure. Instead of throwing immigrant kids in cages, how about we provide decent health care to our own kids?
How about instead of harming others, we help our own?
1
I just have one question: Do we have to give up integrity, morality, compassion, and the rule of law to be isolationist, protectionist, and mindful of our own immigration laws?
My answer is no, and most people - even among those who favor those "pillars", don't think so, either. The essential schism in politics today centers on the fact that so many of those pushing hard for those pillars are also willing to achieve them by giving up those American virtues. We only seem highly conflicted because the ones shooting off their mouths loudest and clinging ruthlessly to political power are the ones controlling the public narrative.
The people who are afraid of competition and want to withdraw from the world are old and dying off. The younger generation knows how important it is to be the leader of the free world not remove ourselves from it.
1
The three pillars of American ideology — isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration — were gaining popularity before Donald Trump became president and will outlast his tenure, thank Goodness.
This is the Fox News presidency, and Fox will keep pushing the same agenda when Trump's gone.
1
America First is a repudiation of the Atlantic Charter of 1941 and our founding principles that people have the inalienable right to determine their destiny. Democracy is not opposed to free trade so long as it's fair trade. We bought French propaganda about a Domino Theory in southeast Asia when they tried to reclaim their IndoChina colony and anti communist zealots purged the Department of State of anyone who admired communists. We were completely flat footed when Mao and Ho won their civil wars. We influenced international monetary agencies to be hostile toward countries that saw nature as a public resource or that transportation, utilities and other essential services should be owned by the public, a policy that continues to devastate the third world today. CNN ran one of Anthony Bourdain's final shows on Kenya last night, and two Kenyans described how the United States destroyed their clothing industry 20 years ago with "free" trade. Most clothes we donate to charity are resold to third party distributors who sell boatloads in the third world, cheap. Kenya had tariffs on the fraud until the United States demanded they accept the clothing under "free" trade, another name for colonialism. We need forceful advocates for free and fair trade, because we're witnessing economic hardships from an ideology based on personal greed that spawned two world wars. Patriots created our great nation for the common good not private greed, something Americans will respect.
1
An "America First" America is "Not my America!" It's not the Founding Fathers' America, either.
1
so you're saying that after 9/11 when the US properly invaded Afghanistan (and stayed WAY too long) then invaded the wrong country (Iraq) b/c W's mommy told him to do it "avenge" the dis by saddam on dad, resulting in squandering the countries bank account to the tune of umpteen trillions and the body bags of over 15,000 of our soldiers for not much more than whack-a-mole and lots of jobs for military "contractors" like blackwater while the domestic jobs market is decimated and infrastructure crumbles, the American people are tired of fighting "wars" ie invasions so a bunch of "internationalists" can feel safe to do business in 3dr world countries and continue to get even richer and avoid taxes?
why should they tire of incompetence and crookedness at the presidential level? now they have the most incompetence and crookedness in history. be careful what you ask for.
1
Lies from start to finish. Like Trump, the author seems to think that just by saying them, they become true.
The first lie was the contention that Trump's policies have "pillars". They do not. They have fatal flaws.
And, just as Trump did when he declared North Korea "no longer a nuclear threat" as the result of a photo-op, the author consistently claims "victories" were there are none. Only continually unfolding failure.
This whole adulatory fluff piece seems nothing more than an extended application for a job in this Administration, or perhaps, a spot on Fox News and Friends - where these views actually belong.
Anyone ever heard of Walt Rostow before? This author's logic and discourse are nearly identical. And just as dangerous.
3
Most of the comments I've read appended to this article are much more lucid and well-argued than the article itself.
3
The author asks:
Now we have Mr. Trump. Is he an aberration or a culmination?
The short answer is that he is both.
Trump is aberrational for many reasons. He is alarmingly ignorant, insane and untenably unpopular. Trump is effectively president for the 30-some percent of Americans who still somehow support him. He has learned nothing about effective governance and continues to act on impulse rather than careful consideration.
He is also the culmination of a decaying and dysfunctional Republican Party. This is the best candidate the party could offer.
Kagan endeavors to find a silver lining in the catastrophic Trump regime. Trouble is, there is none.
This is a man who nauseatingly liked Putin's boots in public and cooed at the prospect of meeting with North Korea's Kim, a vile and murderous dictator.
The fact that Trump has failed epically to expand his base speaks volumes of what Americans think of him.
A president cannot be great if most Americans reject him or her.
History will regard Trump as the worst president of modern times.
The author is clever, but intellectually dishonest.
2
Or, put another way, ignorance and a crisis level dearth of critical thinking skills amongst the American electorate has won...and the GOP, being cynical and sinister saw it and has exploited it for decades now.
1
Since the 1500s, America has been largely occupied by people-peasants, paupers, farmers-who couldn't "make it" in their native land. After Native Americans were "eliminated" these people found land, worked hard, raised their families. Most were average but America was huge, progressively unoccupied and people worked hard. Employers earned ~10X what they paid their employees; many jobs had pensions plans. This was the United States until the late 1960s. In the past 60 years, our population has doubled (now >320 million). Many of the immigrants were more "hungry" than the earlier immigrants and worked harder for less money. The more established, European immigrants could no longer find "good" jobs. Employers, freed from feelings of responsibility to their employees by the likes of President Reagan, reduced benefits to their employees: pensions were eliminated. Social Security benefits were reduced. The concept of every subsequent generation having a better life was no longer a certainty. Middle America became isolated and angry. Thus began the age of Trump, who used the anger of the people to further reduce everything that had made America the greatest country in recent history. Will the common people who put Trump in office recognize that their lives are not improving? Will they ever realize that Trump is using them to further enrich the richest 0.01% of Americans and is doing nothing to help the people who elected him? We can only hope...
2
@AJB
The only disagreement I have about recent immigrants being willing to work harder for less money is the assumption that they are on equal footing. In lower end jobs, like restaurants, landscaping, and to a large extent construction laborers, employers exploit illegal immigrants (with the blessing of the GOP,Middle America who blames immigrants for depression wages vote for GOP congressional candidates who want to deport illegal immigrants and restrict immigration, but refuse to vote for laws that severely penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants, the old nod nod wink wink), in high tech we have the H1B visa that once was about unique skills, and today is about allowing in tech employees from Asia and South asia for routine jobs, where the employer decides what a fair price is and the person basically is locked in to that job. It isn't so much recent immigrants are willing to work harder for less money, it is that recent immigrants being forced to take whatever employers will pay with no recourse.
3
@bill d
Great point! Either way, it is a return to the 19th century (and earlier) where workers have no choice and no power, ending up living in slums with no way out.
The headline on this provocative piece should have said, "'Bad America First' Has Won." What Trump and the Republican Party are really doing is subverting the ideals, forged in the Enlightenment, on which this country was founded in opposition to the old Western order: openness, tolerance, equality. Sure, the countervailing forces of isolationism, intolerance and inequality have always been present in the American experiment. But over the long haul their dominance has been checked by our basic commitment to the rule of law, the notion that all men are created equal, and the Biblical injunction that the truth shall set you free. The ascendance of Trump, a culmination of the me-first agenda already set by the GOP, is certainly alarming. But to say that the values he embodies have "won" is premature. We still have an election system, and this age-old battle for America's soul - or "better angels" - has only just begun.
4
"isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration."
Dumb. Dumber. Dumbest.
History has shown that isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration simply do not work, in the sense of improving the daily life of Americans (or the people of any country).
Isolationism and protectionism will not work unless we are entirely self-sufficient (which we are not).
The vast majority of Americans are either personally immigrants or the descendents of immigrants. Immigrants come here expecting to start at the bottom, and by working hard, making a success of themselves. That is how my forbearers came here in the late 1800s - early 1900s.
The folks who stayed in "the old country" were those who were "fat, dumb and happy" or who did not have the courage to strike out on their own, often knowing that they would never see their family again.
That is why Americans have always been a "can do" people.
Think about that.
2
Whatever you think about Trump's stupidity in leading us to a "Me first" isolationist mood, we the people are not ready to think for ourselves and realize we (the world) are all in this together, where this 'chain' is only as strong as it's weakest link, and that the 'golden rule' (with it's implied solidarity) is worth following. You mentioned fascism and militarism, always hiding behind malingering minds, while we keep looking the other way, indifferent to the undermining of the floor we stand on. Can't we see that Trump's danger consist in making chaos look normal, his constant lies a distraction for his vain and malevolent destruction of this democracy...and it's values? It's time to wake up and participate in this suffering political play, as it's much later than we think. Is Pogo right? Should we, or must we, take the blame for Trump's farce, promoting the current pluto-kleptocracy?
1
Neocons like Kagan have only themselves to blame for Trump's and his base's "America First" approach. Not the least of the reasons Trump beat Hillary was his attack on the neocons' war in Iraq to "protect" Israel and put it first, in an idiotic and utterly disastrous war which infuriated lower-class whites whose kids paid the price for this madness. Trump voters know that the war that blew off their own and theirrelatives' limbs and faces was fought for Israel, not America, and they elected Trump to say "never again."
Trump is the Republican Party with all its symptoms and psychosis. Just like the creature in the movie alien, who burst forth from the chest cavity of actor John hurt, then got loose to eventually seek out, and kill the rest of the crew, trump is that creature. To seek out and destroy sensibilities, civility, and harmony in this country. The Republican Party is the mother ship carrying all those eggs seeking to co-opt our system of government. A government of consensus is what makes this America. Not a government of take it or leave it. Not a government of might makes right. Not a government of a spoiled rich teenager with a big mouth.
2
As people become increasingly aware that the "America" in "America First" means corporate oligarchs and does not include them, the support that exists for it will, except the among hyper-nationalist, bigoted ignorati, will evaporate like spilled water on a hot summer sidewalk.
1
Trump is too incoherent to be the future of American politics. His most important winning issue has been immi -- immi -- immigration. Pulling back from our overly liberal open border policies will not send us into a fascist black hole. It is what would be expected if tens of thousands of our young citizens were dying every year from contraband smuggled in from foreign sources. We've got our very own version of the opium wars happening right here. And we're losing.
As for the rest of the Trump agenda, the Democrats need only return to their Labor roots. Steal Trump's thunder. Guaranteed health care for everyone who holds down a job. Raise the minimum wage. Reward hard work!
1
The 0.1% is burning America's house down. And this guy is worried that aren't enough poor folks with no future at home willing to die for Riga?
Robert Kagan was a co-founder of the PNAC, an organization we can thank for—among other things—the Iraq War. The Iraq War led to: 1) The rise of ISIS. 2) The empowerment of Iran. 3) A start of a flow of refugees to Europe which continues today, and continues to destabilize the democracies there.
Robert Kagan mourns the “America first” brand of isolationism. He’s one of the main reasons the movement developed.
Other members of PNAC? Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush. They are the other reasons the movement developed.
1
That’s NOT what “America First” means. Because it’s not “isolationism, protectionism, and restricting immigration” (Norwegians are welcome!?!) conservatives are pursuing; among so many other dehumanizing objectives, it’s an endless combination of “racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.” But nice euphemisms.
1
Smart article when rarely do these op Ed’s do more than confirm bias or values.
Oh for Pete's sake, what a hysterical rending of garments. What's the takeaway? Apparently we need to increase military spending (on what, exactly?) or else fascism and militarism will again conquer to the world as we become isolationist instead of interventionist. So we must return to the follies of the neo-conservatives to embrace more warfare, more dead, more refugees, more bullying of the world. And, oh yeah, it's Obama's fault.
1
Dear readers, wake up. Yes, the current occupant of the White House is an embarrasing half-wit. But the author of this essay was one of the creators of the "Project for the New American Century," a collection of armchair-bound neocons from whose busy little word processors issued important-sounding screeds advocating the overthrow of Middle Eastern despots. These writings found sympathetic sabre-rattlers in the upper echelons of the George W. Bush administration and led, more or less directly, to the decision to invade Iraq. We all know how that turned out.
The many thousands of American military dead as a result of that poorly-conceived adventure are no longer able to read op-ed pieces like this, and the region remains aflame with its unending resonances. Why is this person even given an audience?
4
Is this the America First ideology that invaded Iraq? Strengthen Iran? Created ISIS? separates families at the boarder? Pulled out of the peace accord? Denying climate change?
America was much greater before all that
2
"We have a U.S. president who doesn’t value the rules-based international order,” a former top aide to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. observed in this paper not long ago."
Who is Joseph R. Biden Jr?
With all due respect, is he the guy who complemented President Obama's depressing "empty chair" presidency with a dazzling full mouth of white teeth?
Clearly the previous administration valued the "rules-based international order" so much, they hardly changed a thing that George W. Bush Jr. did.
strange ...or maybe not ..that the old neo-con dinosaur Robert Kagan avoids any mention of Trump's foreign policy towards Iran
I doubt Americans are opposed to a vigorous American role in the world. They just don’t want to see precious resources wasted on useless wars and useless defense spending, when there are so many unmet needs at home.
The American Navy is a prime example of useless defense spending. It is a lumbering giant, obsolete in this day of massed drone attacks that can disable a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier at miniscule cost. This vulnerability makes it useless to deter Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea.
Likewise the vast U.S. Army is useless to wage counter-revolutionary war in foreign countries without unacceptable loss of life, as in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Rightly or wrongly, a similar argument can be made against immigration. When so many Americans are struggling economically, shouldn’t scarce resources go to help Americans first? It’s hard argument to counter.
So, these generalizations by Robert Kagan—about isolationism, protectionism and immigration—come across to me as sour grapes, blaming the American public for failed foreign policies that he embraced and encouraged, as other readers have reported.
The American people don’t like being involved in military adventures for no reason. Every war we have participated in has resulted in a backlash period of isolationism because Americans have seen how little we have gotten out of our interventions. Americans have no national identity and no real sense of mission or purpose as a nation. Thus it becomes very difficult to rally around any particular intervention because a people without a common identity cannot be rallied to a common struggle.
The Left have gotten incredibly right wing on the issue of foreign policy in recent years because they see how threatened their international order is. It had been the Left’s world in the post- 1945 order and they are just now realizing how beneficial that order has been to them. If the Left want to fight in Syria then empty out the colleges and put the Gender Studies students in uniform and they can fight that war. The American people will not support such a war.
Sigh.
The Revolutionary War got us our country.
The Civil War got rid of slavery.
The Second World War got us survival, a world free of Nazis and fascists, a rebuilt Europe, and unparallelled prosperity.
The Cold War got rid of Stalinism.
We can discuss the others.
1812? Adams was right. Stupidity.
1836? Greed. Got us Texas and half of California, though.
1898? Twain was right.
1917? We prolly had to orop up France and England, but otherwise...
1950? Somebody had to stop Korea being overrun by the bad guys.
Vietnam? Unforgivable.
Iraq? Worse.
Afghanistan? Oh, lord.
Isolationism is every bit as immoral and stupid as our colonialist adventures.
@Robert World War Two was largely a mistake on our part. By the US intervening in Europe we made certain that
communism would rule Europe for the next 50 years. The fight against
Communism was necessary but only because the Communists wanted to overthrow our government. The work done by Joesph McCarthy was just as important and patriotic as any of the military conflicts we fought against the communists.
Kagan has completely missed the obvious: to the extent that global corporations have used the liberal world order to escape their obligations to or control by any political authority, then "nation first" reactions were virtually inevitable.
"...What we’re seeing today is not a spasm but a new direction in American foreign policy, or rather a return to older traditions — the kind that kept us on the sidelines while fascism and militarism almost conquered the world."
That last sentence is, I believe the summary, of this opinion but, I also believe it is wrong, misguided and belies the true feelings of many Americans.
During the last 30 years the Democrats have curried favor with China, India, the European Union and various heinous dictators of the world. Economically and politically the Dems asserted that economic development and reform as well as free trading would improve the chances for Democracy and economic equality and also maintain world peace. These policy pursuits gutted American industry, jobs and communities across our nation. Also, during the last 17 years we have been burdened with continuous warfare that has stretch our military to the breaking point and destroyed budgets while almost destroying our national economy. The economic train wreck of 2008 is recent memory and still haunts us.
America is not on the sidelines. We are engaged in various on going wars with no end in sight. The militarism of China, Russia, Iran, Syria and other civil wars are being aggressively pursued. America is rebuilding her military adding ships, planes, tanks, new army brigades, air wings, ships and submarines.
We are engaged and not on the sidelines. What we're seeing today is a resurgence of an engaged America.
1
I’m sure I can check, but I’m medium pos that the Democrats for all their flaws did not ignore the signs that 9/11 was coming, launch us into Afghanistan without bothering to figure out what the goal was first, or gin up a pack of lies and cheerfully invade Iraq because terrorists from Saudi Arabia trained in Afghanistan attacked us.
And by the way, Democrats also did not make up a pack of fantasies about how long the wars’d take, let alone refuse to put anything on the Federal Budget.
1
@Robert Sadly Robert, you're mistaken. The Dems did indeed ignore the tell-tale signs that 9/11 was coming. In point of fact, Clinton, who was busy defending his hound dog activities responded feebly to the first attacks of Osama Bin Laden with a missile attack against an abandoned base. And he also was responsible for the fiasco in Somalia (Black Hawk Down) by refusing to allow tanks for support of the troops on the ground when the mission changed. And the Dems agreed to "sequester" as a budget gimmick that empowered Republicans. There is enough guilt, lying and gross malfeasance on both parties to fill an olympic size swimming pool several times. Don't forget that Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq in 1991. I don't care one iota for Donald Trump. He is a bully, a bigot, a liar, a womanizer, and general disaster. But, finally standing up to China on trade and military expansion in the Pacific, rebuilding our military and demanding border security are not bad things. Too bad its Donald doing the job. Where are/were the Dems?
Mr. Kagan assumes that without a robust foreign policy that the traumas of the first and second world war may repeat themselves. Yes, it's possible, but I believe to be unlikely. Much of the world has seen a decline in military conflict. In spite of the sectarian conflicts that define the Middle East, and the global issue of terrorism, many conflicts are resolved through global institutions rather than on the battlefield. Russia's annexation of Crimea did not provoke a massive land war in Europe, as it might have been in the past. Even Scotland's quest for independence through a popular referendum, did not incite a military action, as surely would've happened in times past. The idea that the United States can continue to play the role of global policeman, is unsustainable. Americans of sick of war. In my lifetime, America has been in one military conflict after another. I don't want to die for Belarus. I didn't want to die in the jungles of Vietnam or the disaster that was the Iraq war. The war machine that America created after the second world war has brought no peace, destroyed foreign countries and peoples, and has broken and destroyed the lives of many returning American soldiers. Unsustainable, Mr. Kagan.
1
@Richard Steele A very good comment. A tremendous problem for our foreign policy is that we get into wars that we don't need to fight.
The Vietnam War was one that we did not need to be involved in. It was unwinnable without a much larger military commitment. We had the draft but middle class Americans would not stand for more of their sons being sent to southeast Asia.
Invading Iraq in 2003 made our situation much worse, eliminated one of Iran's main enemies, and made Iraq dysfunctional; And probably cost a trillion dollars all total.
I could go on --- but we need someone who can see what is important in foreign/defense policy so that we can pursue our interest without just feeding the war machine and the defense profiteers.
RE: Internationalism
"He expanded NATO, intervened in Libya, imposed sanctions on Russia and presided over the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. "
What happened ?
All failures. Germany sat on her hands in Libya, Libya turned into a disaster, the TTP to quote Krugman was "not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement"
That soured the US public
Had Obama succeeded the US public would be far more internationally minded.
It is worth remembering:
1. President Obama wanted the reset before there was Russian meddling in American elections.
2. Al Gore clearly beat George Bush in the popular vote.
3. Hillary Clinton easily beat Donald Trump in the popular vote.
4. Income inequality, and the precariousness of many people's economic lives, has gotten steadily worse.
The first three call into dispute Mr. Kagan's premise that Americans are becoming more isolationist. They don't prove that Americans are NOT becoming more isolationist; they just contest the assertion that Americans are becoming more isolationist BASED ON the reset, Gore, and Clinton.
The fourth, also, does not make America more isolationist. It says our country is failing its own people, and blaming other countries for policies that serve American oligarchs.
5
After World War II, the United States was clearly the number one country -- economically, financially, militarily, and by just about all measures. Mainly because other countries -- Japan, Europe, China, etc. -- had just been the scene of destructive war. In 1950, the United States was responsible for about half of world GDP.
As the other countries recovered, their industries and economies began to grow until now the GDP of the European Union, China, and the United States are about equal.
Also, over the last 50 years, there has been a revolution in communications, shipping, travel and computing/automation. Communications and shipping are cheaper than they have ever been. We have gotten to a point where most corporations operate on a worldwide basis. For example, I am told that GM builds and sells more cars in China than they do in the United States. Most car companies have their suppliers and plants all around the world.
So when politicians and others talk about protectionism, isolationism, immigration, they seem to think that we can impose tariffs or drop out of NAFTA or WTO and just go back to the way things were before. But the world and business have in many cases become global. We can drop out of NAFTA and the WTO and impose tariffs. But we will never go back to the way things were in the 1990's before NAFTA. The United States dropped out of TPP but China took our place and TPP is going forward without us.
4
"Mr. Trump’s narrower, more unilateralist and nationalist approach to the world is probably closer to where the general public is than Mr. Obama’s more cosmopolitan sensibility."
This is because we now live in a sound byte culture - complexity and details are more than the majority of people want to think about or can even handle. Going forward a dumbing down and narrowing of messaging to voters is going to be the norm (more so than it has been in the past).
If politicians broadcast nuance from a podium, it is the kiss of death for their campaign.
1
No, Mr. Kagan, "America First" has not won. Recent polls show that the majority of Americans want global cooperation through the United Nations, NATO and other organizations and well-regulated global trade.
WE THE PEOPLE do not want The Con Don's America.
13
It's self-evident that there is broad agreement among the worst of other countries that it is to their benefit to weaken the United States, whether that will truly help them advance their goals or not. This country cannot help others succeed if it gives up leadership and allows itself to be controlled by those others. Trump is likely not the leader we need to create or implement the policies that strengthen what is good about our country, but this country has often, in recent decades, done far more harm than good in its foreign policy actions, and particularly during Ms. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Mr. Kagan certainly knows what his part has been.
2
The US is endlessly conflicted by idealizing the idea of a 'United' states and worshipping 'rugged individualism'. It's hard to build a nation of rugged individualists and hard for a nation of rugged individualists to blend easily with a rules based international order. We love renegades and coloring outside the lines. Heroes are always courageous individuals never smooth operating bureaucracies.
Of course it would also have helped if the military could have shown some clear victories after World War II. For all of our military might we have very little to show for our military ventures. Surely projecting military power has helped us but we haven't had a military parade of troops home from a victorious war since 1945. Of course we haven't even brought all the troops home from that war yet either. Seventeen years into the Afghan war and all we have is wasted national treasure and soldiers along with national PTSD.
7
@Paul: Once war begins, political solutions die first, and the war devolves into perpetuity so the dead shall not have died in vain.
Most, outside of government circles and economists, do not frame "America First" in the gauzy issues prioritized by Kagan. The phrase congers up the inevitable self-centered dialogue of WIIFM. "What's in it for me" translates in terms of policy and its effects into how do I and my family benefit from these initiatives. The expected answers are centered in daily life issues of better economic prospects, more affordable education and healthcare, and of course quality of life.
Massive investments in infrastructure (the golden fleece of both members of the duopoly) would appear to be one strong contender for an answer to the low wages and underemployment plaguing too many American workers. "Hey, we are going to cut back on military commitments and invest that money in billions of infrastructure projects paying workers high wages, good benefits and safe working conditions." America First.
"Hey, we are going to cut reduce foreign aid and use those savings to prepare doctors to work in rural areas plagued by opioid overdoses and deaths." America First
"Hey, we are going to cut the budgets allocated to members of Congress to fly overseas on needless travel to exotic locales and questionable conventions and use those funds to create safe school initiatives in each state." America First
America First? What's in it for Americans?
10
Mr. Kagan is fearful of the world that Trump is now accelerating towards . But this is not the America of Charles Lindbergh. Not only is the global economy here to stay, the "globalism" within the United States is even more entrenched & growing. America is getting browner, more diverse, more pluralist -- there is tremendous alignment between the "internal" globalism of the US and the "external" globalism of our world. But as Trump has shown, our "internal" globalism is not infinite. Our budget deficits and growing debt, and surely the need for national self-identity and fear of internal fragmentation, will surely limit our globalist ambitions. And here, we must be globally selective. So as the UK no longer serves as our interlocutor in continental Europe (courtesy of Brexit) & Germans in particular reject Trumpian/American populism (perhaps related to their own rising populism), Euro-Atlanticism as the global power center is rapidly deteriorating.
The 21st century is a Pacific century (specifically Indo-Pacific), and rather than ushering in American isolationism, Trump and likely succeeding Democratic Presidents are sealing America's growing engagement in the Asia-Pacific. We may no longer be the world's hyperpower, but our internal "globalism" (or diversity) will shape our "external" globalism (our orientation towards the world) in a very different way from the past. Just as we are getting browner, we will also have a "browner" foreign policy.
1
@Muhammad H. Very insightful comments. You cannot go backward. We have to take the world as it is now and deal with it the best that we can.
1
@Aubrey Yes, unbridled nationalism, like unrestrained globalism, is too utopian for American sensibilities. We are a pragmatic people, borne largely of people from other places around the world. That pragmatism is also our source of resilience. And thank God we border the Atlantic & Pacific. Arguably, on the eve of WW2, we were more a Pacific power than Atlantic one. We are humanity's best microcosm in a nation, I believe. That is why just as the world will shift to the Pacific, we will to.
@Muhammad H. I wouldn't be so idealistic about a "browner foreign policy." Asia-Pacific has its own share of vicious racial and religious conflicts that can prove just as entangling for the U.S. as any other conflict around the world.
America needs a shrink session - to separate the ideal from the actual. Take the notion that "America is a nation of immigrants" - with a short 250 year history of such. At what point does the country need to appropriately evolve from its nascence and consolidate? Perhaps (with overcrowding) we are at that point, or should be. The "nation of immigrants" used to want to "become American" by learning English, assimilating into larger communities, and striving in a way that enriched America's resources. Today we see many immigrant groups want to live here for the benefits while holding themselves apart: living in semi-closed communities, refusing to learn English, and sending much of their resources back to the countries they came from instead of building American wealth. So what does it mean to be a nation of immigrants in the 21st century? Perhaps this is what Americans are questioning (poorly), and rightly so: when is it time for a young nation to evolve and confront its own maturity? Is this that time?
Another divergence of the ideal versus the actual is a bit more dark. Many Americans talk about protectionism in global affairs and also in protecting American trade. What Americans are not told by the politicians who are using those slogans but whose real agenda is privatization is the truth about the power grab. There is no "old path." The new path is moving us in different directions using nostalgia as a narcotic.
9
Maybe it's time to try something different in the foreign policy arena? Maybe buying loyalty and friendship is not the answer. Maybe we should look to protect ourselves a bit more. Keeping the gates open is bankrupting some states and draining the social services coffers of others. maybe sending work to other countries is not in our best interest.
Our past open door policies clearly point to our present situation. America should come first. The natural order should be self, family, and community. Somehow we've reversed this order and put the world ahead of ourselves and our families.
How can we help anyone else if we can't first help ourselves? When we're perfect we can extend our reach to the rest of the world but by putting everyone else first we neglect those that put us where we are. By ignoring ourselves we do everyone a disservice.
8
The most interesting part of this column was how Dems and GOP are not that far apart on my issues, and probably, in a Trumpless world, would be able to work on legislation across the aisle and find compromise, even if imperfect, to keep our government working for the people. Without Trump, the heat level of Trump enthusiasts would not be turned on high or threatening to boil over. I truly believe most GOP voters will vote Trump in November, even tho he is not on the ballot. That is why I am hoping the Dems win. Maybe the REAL GOP, you know, the ones who used to be honest and honor Country over Party, can re-evaluate their party and rebuild so that we once again have the Republic that our forefathers envisioned...one that had checks and balances and worked for the benefit of ALL its citizens.
2
As I look at the world since 1918, I really don't see much BUT an "America First" intent--whether in defensive (isolationist, anti-Communist) crouch or in preferential development of international markets and exploitation of financial advantage (despite the cosmopolitan aims of such as Woodrow Wilson). The U.S. refused to involve itself in the European war for two full years, allowing Britain to go it alone and face near-destruction. Its refusal to face up to the fact of Japanese militarization and belligerence can be seen as a failure of American isolationism and naivete.
At the tail-end of WWII, the U.S. consolidated its financial position at Bretton Woods, in the Marshall Plan, and in geostrategic siting of military forces...and assured that the United Nations would not disadvantage American sovereignty in the slightest, choosing Cold War over detente (in odd cooperation with an intransigent Soviet Union). All of these initiatives, or defensive postures, benefited the U.S.
What we see today is a continuation of the America-first grab for power as Mr. Trump clucks and whimpers about unfair treatment of Superpower America. This is in response to, and contemplation of, a New Cold War--this time between the United States and China, with a largely cuckolded Russia finding a niche for itself in state-sponsored criminal pursuits. The last is interesting, since Mr. Trump may eventually be implicated in some kind of collusion with Mr. Putin in ways not yet identified.
4
The comments here are a sad reflection on the level of historical illiteracy in America today.
It took the twisted narrative of the Lusitania (a passenger ship secretly hauling munitions into a war zone) to bring the US into the Great War. Without Pearl Harbor we would have continued to sit on the sidelines in the Great War: Redux.
Fundmentally, Americans distrust the rest of the world.
The Western Allies decided after the fiasco thht was the first half of the 20th century, that interconnected trade and cooperative security arrangements would be better ways to keep the peace. And it did (helped along by the irrational fear of the Red Menace). Like any human endeavor, the framework was flawed. But both ends of the political spectrum, for different reasons, have decided to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We are simply reverting to our natural state.
2
Robert Kagan says The Trump era resembles the era when America sat on the sidelines while fascism and militarism gained sway in the world.
No, this time Trump Republican America is on the vanguard of the transition to fascism and militarism, not on the sidelines of this transition.
Undermining democratic institutions like the rule of law and undermining democratic norms like the belief in the freedom of speech and press--that is not sitting on the sidelines of authoritarianization it is leading the movement.
With American undergoing authoritarianization, who then can step up for the principles of constitutional liberal democracy?
That is the problem. Democracy may find itself without a champion. We can thank the Republicans for this. it was long in the coming. Remember Citizens United and the plutocratization of governmental responsiveness, limiting governmental responsiveness to the affluent.
That left many without a representative in government.
And that produced authoritarianizing forces in America.
A serious situation.
7
If Trump has been able to exploit for personal gain what is called in derision "America First" feelings, may it be because Democrats have failed to respond to those feelings in a better way? Could it be that the public may have legitmate reasons for feeling that their own best interests lie in the US adopting a mandated policy of balanced trade and of neutrality in ethnic and religious feuds amongst other peoples on far away continents? Is it time cease the costly, often self-defeating and outdated roles of playng international banker and international policeman that perhaps were appropriate back in 1948, but which are no longer appropriate in 2018? Is it time to move forward to a system where some international monetary unit, rather than US dollar, becomes the recognized unit of international trade -- a unit against which the exchange value of US dollar would adjust downward when our imports grew our of sync with our exports, et vice versa? The plight of our rust belt cities would suggest so. Our growing sum of war dead would suggest so.
So let's get this straight, policies that made the United States the richest country on the planet are now viewed as the US being taken advantage of. The problem isn't these policies. The problem is that the wealth generated by these policies was never evenly spread in the US as it has been in other countries. Workers in other countries saw benefits from the policies, workers here did not. That's not because the policies were bad, it's due to CEOs being paid 270 times more than the average worker. It's due to Warren Buffet paying a lower percent in taxes than his secretary, which by the way he wants to change. It's our internal policies that are bad, but instead it's saying it's my fault, people always find it easier to say it's their fault, they are the problem, not us.
5
From day one of Marshall Plan, our goal was to reduce the weight carried by the US and encourage our allies to carry more. Was that isolationism? No. Similarly, Trump abrogating treaties and echoing Putin on Montenegro is more a reflection of ignorance and pandering to domestic sentiment, which has always questioned sending GIs overseas. We are still on the same path, but the language is different.
The US has protested more cases of unfair trade practices at WTO than any other country and have won more cases than any other. And every president the past three decades has resorted to tariffs. Were these signs of protectionism?
No; those were smart moves to rightly protect our workers and markets. So does Trumps handling of NAFTA and TPP turn a new page. The language and the tactics are crazy, but the US has always tried to protect its markets and workers (although there are disagreements here). We are still on the same path but the language and the tactics are crazy.
On immigration, we had big liberalization in the 1960s and 1970s. But are we going back to the 1950s when "chain migration" was very limited and national origin quotas dripped with racial considerations? Again, the language and tactics are wild and crazy, but Melania's parents still came in.
We are not going back to the 1930s nor is Trump offering something original. He is just barking louder without much strategy or thought.
From an expat.
3
One of two things is true: what's good for the world is good for America, or we're a second-rate power.
The world's hegemon MUST be internationalist, because, otherwise, it has a target on its back. America First means the sun is setting not just on the American "empire," but on the American Century and the American Peace. To be able to tell the world to drop dead is not a sign of strength; it is an admission of weakness.
6
America would not be able to sustain the economy it has without globalism. Just FYI. It's not America First that made this the richest nation on earth, but it will be the idea that makes it more poor.
3
I believe in a theory described by Tolstoy, that both conservatism and liberalism offer unique solutions, but each creates its own unique set of problems as well. When a polity swings to one side, it starts solving the problems of the other side, but it also starts accumulating problems of its own. Eventually those problems become so great that it swings back the other way to correct them.
If it swings too far in either direction, it can break.
We'd better find a way back to the center. A republican sweep in 2020 could leave us a quasi-fascist state. A strong enough Democratic backlash could send us straight into the third world.
1
@mlbex
"A strong enough Democratic backlash could send us straight into the third world."
It would be interesting to see what you think the evidence supporting this is.
@Brad Blumenstock: My statement is based on a scenario where the Democrats overreact instead of governing wisely. We're headed for the third world already, with the hollowed out middle class. All the contention is about how to reverse this trend.
Involvement in far away endless wars of dubious worth to our future security does a lot to strengthen isolationist sentiment. The old Republican devotion to free markets is gone. And the internet makes trade in things and ideas a de facto global marketplace no matter what your philosophy is. As usual, there is a lot going on simultaneously. But this administration does not have the ability to think on larger scale than a real estate development (and, even then, maybe think not too clearly). Trump supporters are as short-sighted, angry and ignorant of history and economics as he is. Victimhood is easier than hard work. This is going to take decades to straighten out...if ever.
3
"The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business — ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed." – Colonel James G. Burton (1993, 232)
In countries such as the United States, whose economies are commonly, though inaccurately, described as "capitalist" or "free-market," war and preparation for war systematically corrupt both parties to the state-private transactions by which the government obtains the bulk of its military goods and services.https://mises.org/library/living-reality-military-economic-fascism
2
The author does not seem to realize that most rational people are simply fed up with American imperialism and militarism. Other nations do not need to spend so much on their military because they do not make enemies for themselves as the United States does with its neocolonial wars. Many people living outside the United States have a negative image of the country. They see a culture that appears violent, vulgar and decadent. They see a President who behaves like a schoolyard bully. The center of the empire seems to be agonizing.
7
"They favor a trade war with China but have not consistently favored military spending increases to deter a real war." Simply ludicrous. The US already spends more than the ten next largest military nations combined on it's "deterrent" and the budget is still going up as the Pentagon wisely takes NYT reporters or "ride alongs" in this "dangerous" world's "hot spots" that are let's be honest more often or not "hot" because -- of US prodding and poking the borders of its strategic competitors, So in the face of this Kagan is shilling for even greater access for the military industrial complex to the US treasury than the ridiculous endless unquestioned gravy train the last 30 years of "forever wars" foreign policy has afforded them. US foreign policy is held hostage by the military industrial complex.
3
What nonsense. President Obama less than two years ago steadfastly stood by our allies and negotiated an excellent trade pact to resist Chinese economic hegemony. Democrats support our alliances, and never did advocate mindless global nihilism and vandalism of the Trump regime.
You should know better than to engage in such fact free “Whataboutism”, Mr. Kagan.
3
@Demosthenes - and in order to get more votes from Democrats, Hillary denounced and rejected TPP. The author has it right.
1
@mkm
You forget. Hillary did get more votes ... and from Democrats, as well.
Robert Kagan was a strong supporter of intervention in Iraq. Andrew Bacevich called him "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" and his Wikipedia entry terms him a "realist" on international foreign policy - a term applied to Henry Kissinger too. (See some of Robert Kaplan's articles where he mentions Henry K.) In other words, Kagan is a warmonger and this is probably why he switched to supporting Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. As I have said so often, if Clinton had won the Presidency, we would have been at war with Russia by March 2017.
Kagan is just worried that his own cushy job as a lobbyist for war is in peril. Oops!
3
NYT September 23 China Is Confronting New U.S. Hostility. But Is It Ready for the Fight? by Jane Perlez:
“Some are too poor to see a doctor, some are too poor to have pensions after retirement, and some too poor to go to school,” Professor Sun said in an interview on the Voice of America last month. “Under such circumstances, if you still choose to throw money at other countries, domestic backlash is almost guaranteed.”
I thought Professor Sun was talking about America ?
Apparently he was talking about China! I have travelled extensively in China and I have never seen a hungry person. Annually, many millions of people are becoming "middle class". China graduated 8 million uni students in 2017, double that of the USA without student loans.
To be truthful it sounds more like the American way of life for millions more than "some"!
I think America's isolationist policies promulgated by the GOP and the Dems have become louder because the political class has totally failed the citizens and they just don't want the truth to come out.
The truth, is that China's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is a superior system of governance compared to the broken Federalist Constitutional Government running the America Republic into the ground.
So if the USA chooses (Dems or GOP) to "throw money at other countries" (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc..) and stifle the globalisation of the market to suppress and contain China then a domestic backlash is almost guaranteed.
3
Americans aren't isolationist so much as we are self-obsessed. If a tree falls in a forest and no American hears it, then the forest doesn't exist.
6
Unfortunately, you are entirely correct.
I'm not clear on Mr. Kagan's distinctions between "Democrats" (or "Republicans") and "the rank and file", "Americans", "voters" and similar terms. At times there seem to be three different mutually exclusive entities: (1) Democrats, (2) Republicans, and (3) average citizens. If I were grading one of my college students' papers, I'd be zeroing in on this problem.
1
Two quotes. From this article, "It took a lot more than fireside chats to turn public opinion around. It took Hitler’s conquest of Europe, near-conquest of Britain and, finally, Pearl Harbor to convince a majority of Americans that America First was a mistake." Then the cliché from Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Hitler's conquest of Europe and near-conquest of Britain; etc., happened BECAUSE the democracies retreated from confronting the Axis. Until it was too late. The lesson was—a little conflict/confrontation now avoids the great conflagration later.
1
"America first!" is an intellectual hoax. It pretends that some US leaders care more about the rest of the world than about the US. It start from the assumption that was is beneficial to foreign countries must by definition be detrimental to the US (typical Trumpian zero-sum game). It forgets that the UN for instance was created, not to annoy the US, but to avoid the repetition of a conflict that had killed hundreds of thousands of US troops. Does it work perfectly? No? But can you pretend that US will be safer just by retreating behind a wall? It's not "America first!", it's America short-sighted!"
2
Robert Kagan has no right to talk about rules based anything. He and his neocon ilk drummed up support for the war in Iraq which was a violation of international laws. He is a supporter of US imperialism not democracy or free trade or any of the things he espouses.
5
Not one word about the Iraq War, or or support for the Saudi war in Yemen. I suppose that would complicate his argument, so best leave them out.
3
This is a painfully honest evaluation of American political instincts and the wrong-headedness. Kagan rightly points out that Americans are weary of international involvements that cost lives, money and material for no perceivable gain or benefit. He is right in almost making the point, that needs to be made, that Americans will, when back against the wall, actually do the right thing as they did in WWI and WWII. He is also right that reading the American mood, the matter of politics, is an advanced skill that few master, and mostly not for long. Obama raised the bar on vision and intention in the face of a public grown tired of too much adventure. While Kagan argues that Trump may represent the most central view in American I think he has missed the point that Trump has adjusted too far and will likely be snapped back. He dominates the airwaves now with ideas that are repulsive, revanchist and divisive the capture just enough of the latent anxiety in the public but demonstrably hang too far over the front of the board. The child separation policy is reprehensible and seen that way. The employer community is slowly gathering itself to make the strong point that they need immigrants to take jobs of all kinds high and low. His Helsinki performance still resonates badly across the scenery. Finally, Europe is slowly collecting itself to push back very, very hard on economic issues. There is more yet to be seen here.
2
Generally speaking, Americans are a notoriously insular bunch, raised amidst the din of 'American Exceptionalism' propaganda, lied to regularly by the government about reasons for going to war (North Korea, VietNam, Iraq), buffered by two oceans that have thus far ensured all military 'adventures' take place in remote areas and sedated by the greatest wealth any society has ever known, the American people have been enabled to create a worldview that essentially sees the rest of the world as either enablers of 'the American Dream' or obstacles in the way. This is the delusion of empire. It is a worldview that is unsustainable; times inevitably change, empires inevitably fall and thoughts of God-ordained exceptionalism inevitably are revealed to be what they are: delusions of grandeur. Enter Mr. Trump. It was inevitable.
4
@MG
Your biggest mistake lies in your generalizations about America (and Americans).
We are not all alike, nor are we some monolithic mass with the same beliefs.
No offense, but you should first read more of our history.
1
@N. Smith I am, in fact, an American. Dual citizen. I've lived half my life in America. Obviously I am painting in broad strokes here; there are millions of Americans who are curious and knowledgeable about the world. In general terms, though, I stand by my comment. The country was founded on the ridiculous idea of 'manifest destiny' and even to this day, Presidential candidates, regardless of party, ALWAYS trot out the 'exceptionalism' idea. America IS an empire, and as a whole is under that spell. And that is why you have Donald Trump playing President - in real life.
@MG
Broad strokes don't paint an accurate picture. In any case, many Americans make the same mistake about 'American exceptionalism'.
As for "manifest destiny"; Historically speaking, that's a concept that only belonged to (wealthy) white men... which is also another reason why you have Trump.
To understand American policy preferences, we need to understand American psychological preferences. Just as seemingly contradictory inclinations can exist simultaneously in an individual’s personality (e.g., MBTI types), such is also true of our collective society, and Americans embrace what appear to be deeply conflicted penchants. These are reflected in foreign policy goals which prove difficult to pigeonhole. To typecast American attitudes with all-encompassing terms like isolationism, protectionism and xenophobia, is to over-simplify the reality.
Americans are profoundly idiosyncratic, leaning heavily toward the tenets of libertarianism, as romanticized by the popular ideal of the rugged, self-sufficient individual. We perceive ourselves as more capable than we have objective reason to suppose, convinced we’ll do just fine without help from anyone else, especially the government (which is never ‘here to help’). I tend to see this as arrogant mythology, but it is a prevailing American ethos.
Yet along with this devotion to standalone, pick-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, American exceptionalism, is an equally strong urge for conformity. Americans are fine with individualism, as long as it is the ‘right kind’ – we don’t want no freaks! Both aspects are arguably reflections of the WASP work ethic, the basis for what many perceive of as ‘real American’ good people types. Despite all the can-do, self-reliance, Americans are joiners at heart - ‘different’ is suspicious.
103
@Erik L.
I agree. Despite the central myth of the rugged individualist, we are at heart a culture of rigid, stultifying conformity.
@Erik L. There is a lot of arrogant mythology around. Many people want libertarianism for themselves but not for others -- I want to do whatever I want to do, when and how I want to do it. But I watch my neighbor to be sure that he doesn't do something that I don't like and rush to call the police on him if he does.
All of my life I have heard of "rugged individualism" and pulling one's self up by the boot straps. Why don't those people (often black or brown) get a job and get off welfare? Now fast forward to the left behind folks of today who are out of work and angry. Well why don't they pull themselves up by the boot straps and get a job.
@Erik L. The American contradiction is between Enlightenment individualism and modernist altruism. Leftists and conservatives merely differ over versions of altruism. _Atlas Shrugged_ points the way toward a philosophically consistent individualism. Thus the evasions and lies about this second American Revolution.
The author bemoans the rise of America First, pretends it was inevitable, with Trump capitalizing on it. He remarkably asserts that much of it is because "Obama was too internationalist." He fails to mention his part in this. He was a major advocate of the never-ending Iraq/Afghanistan War. The author blames everyone and everything but hawks like him, who in advocating for the Iraq war destroyed what he claims to cherish. Central to liberal democracy flourishing was the use of soft power, a bulwark against isolationism, which relied upon consensus and was a foundation of NATO and the EU. It stabilized North America and Europe, and hence the world. In contrast, hard unilateral power was deemed undesirable, unnecessary, and self-destructive. Initially meant to dissuade aggression by Germany after two world wars, alliances, like soft power, necessarily constrained all member nations, including the US. The Iraq War was built on lies. Our allies saw the lies, opposed the war, yet the US went to war anyway. Further, thanks to Dick Cheney and his cohorts a US administration flagrantly used brutal torture and shattered international law. These International laws were really North American and European agreements on core civil rights protections. They didn't only protect individuals, they protected the foundations of democracies as well. The Iraq war was pure macho nativism. It shattered the very foundations of the North American-European order. It made "America First" possible.
3
@Robert B
I'll never forget the telephone conversation with my (then) daughter-in law, at the time of the US-instigated Iraq War.
"We're kickin' butt!" she crowed.
" You're not kicking butt; you're killing people" , I said.
Relations were frosty, after that.
"There has been no popular outcry against Mr. Trump’s trade battles with Canada, Mexico and the European allies."
I don't see how anyone could believe this.
Where are the polls showing that a majority of the American people wants us to go to war with our own best allies ... ? They don't exist.
Moreover, the worst problem with the current GOP is not "isolationism, protectionism, and restricting immigration", the worst is the unprecedented level of corruption, both in the White House and in the GOP Congress. Lying has become synonym for being a Republican politician or "journalist", and destroying standard procedures in Congress or in the White House, that are longstanding traditions and were put in place by the Founding Fathers in order to guarantee a smooth functioning government, including respect for America's most important institutions, is now a daily GOP practice.
As to immigration: the only thing that would truly restrict immigration numbers is the comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill that Democrats accept to pass but that the GOP is too incompetent to get through Congress.
Conclusion: this is a government of corruption and mostly "all talk no action", certainly not a government defending one or the other "ideology", let alone an ideology that a majority of the American people would have been shown to support ...
1
Pundits living in the thriving metropolitan parts of the USA have no idea how the 2008 recession on top of closing of companies that provided a comfortable living shattered the confidence of white people without college educations living in cities and rural areas most of which still have not recovered fully from 2008.
The infrastructure is crumbling, schools have had funding decreased, the population has decreased as children leave for job and college never to return and even health care becomes less available.
People see the perpetrators of the financial collapse still in positions of power and great wealth escaping justice and wars without meaning and without end drawing resources, maiming and killing men and women from these areas. Is it any wonder that people are disenchanted with Pax America across the globe when their needs are ignored?
13
@Edward Blau
The only thing poor white people haven't fully recovered from in 2008, is having a Black man in the White House -- and that's not the pundits' fault.
1
America first is a fear based world outlook. It is driven not by strength but by insecurity the same way that Trump's egotism is reflection of his weakness.
Fear and insecurity are emotions that small leaders can always employ to suit their ends. Unfortunately, the 20th century is a highlight reel of the consequences of this bad faith ideology.
1
FDR and Eleanor sent their sons to fight in WWII. Income taxes rates went way over 50% on the wealthiest to help fund it. When today’s elites send their children to serve on the battlefield and empty their bank accounts to fund these wars, you can lecture us about isolationism.
2
I don't entirely agree with Mr. Kagan and neither do most Economists when it comes to railing against globalism, simply because no world economy can grow without some form of it.
Another thing. The current form of isolationism, protectionism and immigration restriction being practiced by this administration has nothing to do with 'policy', and more to do with Donald Trump's own small-minded, greedy and bigoted ideas of how he and his ultra-wealthy corporate pals can enrich themselves on the dime of the average American taxpayer -- since they're the only ones enjoying the recent G.O.P. tax reform plan.
And with Trump stacking the Supreme Courts with his acolytes, and Republicans unwilling to share or give up their grip on all three branches of government, there's no reason to doubt that this kind of populist ideology will be with us for some time.
But that doesn't mean all of us are "winning".
171
@N. Smith I agree with trump that there are problems with trade and intellectual property.
But I don't think that the Con Don knows anything about the modern world economy and world trade. From hearing him talk on television, I sense that he views the world economy as it was 30 - 50 years ago. Naturally, he has advisors and experts, but I think that if the top person has a badly misinformed view of what we doing, that is a tremendous problem.
We cannot go back; we have to deal with problems as they are now and going forward.
@Aubrey
Point taken. And I too agree steps must be taken to safeguard American intellectual property -- even though it's hard to reconcile that Donald Trump has the intellectual capacity to do this.
With a soaring economy and a national sentiment that mirrors much of the nationalism and selective protectionism we find in Trump’s agenda, his abysmal approval ratings are a grand and powerful testimony to how despicable he is as a human being. Coupled with sane, empathetic and charismatic candidates who hold moderate positions on immigration, environment, healthcare, infrastructure and the economy, the Trump “despicable factor” should play YUGE in 2018 and 2020.
2
@Concerned MD. Please feel free to list all these moderate democratic candidates you speak of.
Perhaps, our allies should withdraw from the fight on terrorism and all military action. Let's see our government handle all these issue alone.
1
To the extent that globalism means promoting military adventurism and helping corporations exploit cheap labour and avoid regulation and taxes, liberal Americans are against it. But if globalism means promoting harmonious relations between different peoples, checking the power of corporations and corrupt governments, and protecting the environment, labour, and human rights we are all for it.
2
It is important not to be forced into false dichotomies. There are different approaches to each of these concepts. Isolationism with a huge military build up and saber rattling at every turn is Trumpian, with a military reduction is Democrat. Protectionism by large import tariffs and a trade war is Trumpian, by moving toward equal environmental protection and labor standards is Democratic. On immigration, Stopping immigration of all non-white people is Trumpian, a rational program of humane immigration is Democratic.
1
Before Donald Trump I worried about a lot of things: my kids, health, money, Israel, the coyotes that have been spotted in my neighborhood, the fate of Dallas Texans, etc. But I never worried about America’s basic survival because I believed that was in the bag. Now I worry about it constantly.
Before Donald Trump, I believed that most problems could be identified and attended to one-at-a-time without resort to politics. Now I understand that problems are interconnected and all of them involve politics.
Before Donald Trump. I never believed that one man could permanently ruin this country, Now I believe it.
4
Is it wrong to want lower military spending and still think the US should be the upholder of global security? The epic scale of waste in the military/industrial complex is well documented. I think many people believe that we should be able to lower military spending without compromising our foreign policy and military objectives.
5
America is war weary because of Bush and Cheney lying to us about Iraq and putting us in a no win war. We are war weary because of the illegitimate Viet-Nam War and Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson lying to us about why we we there. Trying to stem Communism was the reason then.
But World War two is what put us in the forefront of the International Community. We committed our Country and its citizens to keeping world peace. And for a while, it seemed we did.
When our Government stops lying to us, maybe we will come around to being able to distinguish between real danger to the world and make a logical and sensible decision when it is a good idea to risk lives and treasure on both sides of of the question.
Until then, while the Military-Industrial Complex rules the world, we are doomed to lies to lure us into wars.
Most of the time, these wars are not about freedom, but about greed, power and fake Religious beliefs.
This has nothing to do with putting America First and it never was.
3
This triumvirate idea of America First--isolationist, protectionist, anti-immigrant--when executed, has been done in a hamfisted manner, and hasn't generally worked oin the long-run.
Trump's harsh manner of pulling out of international treaties, his "bad for Americans" tariffs, and his support of stringent and cruel immigration tactics, all bolstered by lies, do appeal to part of the U.S. population.
Watching the Republicans in Congress not doing their job of "checking" him, but rather do his bidding, reflects their greed for power, control and money (tax cut), and a disdain for those who are not like them.
We've all met people who look down their noses and disregard those who can't "do" anything for them. So it is with Republicans.
We've met people who hold cherished beliefs, generation's-long, against people of color. American's antipathy to foreigners is based in their long tradition of not travelling to foreign countries, nor making friends with foreigners in the U.S. They are left with fearing "the other", not welcoming them.
Rank-and-file Democrats are diminishing, either by bringing their ideas in line with what Americans want, or being replaced by Social Democrats.
Being an isolated, protectionist nation that does not treat immigrants fairly only hurts Americans. Losing our Western allies, only to have Kim Kong Un, Putin and Duterte in their place, would bring America to its lowest point, and no longer a democracy.
This is not a win.
1
It would be difficult to disagree too much with this Op-Ed. If, for instance, the US were to focus on the lower 99% instead of the 1% for a few decades (seems pretty clear what that means!) thereby raising the general confidence level in the US then the "US First Movement" could relax. Neither the military industrial complex nor foreign policy can do much to help the 99%. Vastly improved incomes, infrastructure and healthcare are the pillars required.
2
Very amusing article when read in context. The other day a nyt article floated a right wing idea that president Obama was too soft on China in the South Pacific. Today Kagen says Obama was too aggressive in pushing NATO growth and transpacific alliances to face China. The only consistency is Obama derangement syndrome. Americans respond to putting America first. What that means is where leadership counts. President Obama made America first by protecting her interests in coalition with our friends and necessary assistants. By contrast trump is imperiling our ability to lead by jettisoning our principles and disparaging our friends. Trump style megalomania produces a short term sugar high, but at the cost of eating the seed corn. Real Americans won't stand for that.
3
Mr. Kagan is pulling a Trump by stating things without proof. Show us the facts, not opinion or ideology.
3
We had better outgrow these ideologies of the fearful and the angry because history shows without exception that you cannot be or stay a great nation while you view yourself as “put upon,” or invaded by those who actually have little or no power! Only those who are little inside, who view themselves as impotent or losing power act on that fear against those who are less powerful whether they be individuals (immigrant aliens) or nations (Mexico, Canada!, China, the EU).
The ideologies described here are cultural soil from which grows wars and defeat, not greatness.
I think it is necessary for everyone to accept that we have reached a turning point through Donald Trump's isolationist dogma. The 'free ride' he derides was a trap waiting for decades to ensnare the European Union grown too complacent to bother taking continental security too seriously.
Just as the #MeToo movement is a watershed moment in gender relations with irreversible effects, the Trump Doctrine will force former allies to adapt costly yet pragmatic measures to compensate for America's withdrawal from the international scene. I personally loathe Trump's language and style, but he is doing nothing more than applying what the majority of Americans on a bipartisan level desire the most. Too bad for the academic élites who will lose international standing when foreign students start avoiding the United States by droves. 'America First' partisans have to be content with all aspects of their choices, that's all.
2
Mr. Kagan, despite mentioning Russia and how Americans indirectly are embracing Putin, you say nothing about Russian meddling in our elections, nor the credible evidence that Russia's involvement tilted our elections. If true, the "America First" success hypothesis looks weak.
Kagan’s thesis is that "America First"-ish sentiment is more prevalent than we acknowledge, even among liberals.
So I’ll use myself as a test case.
If believing we should not have gone into Iraq makes one an “isolationist,” then count me in. That war was based on cynical lies put forward by incredibly wrong Bush-administration Neo-Cons who believed another war would fix the Middle East.
I opposed TPP not because it was about “free trade” — every trade deal is labelled, meaninglessly, as a “free” trade deal — but because of corporate cronyism. It was being written for us by lobbyists for the multi-nationals.
I’ve for years worried that China is stripping away the US manufacturing base. But Trump’s tariffs display a grade-school understanding of modern economies. I believe the proper unilateral response to China is to positively promote R&D spending in new industries, not subsidize steel. Yes, that means picking winners. Venture capitalists do it all the time.
I believe that closing the border to immigrants is a vulgar exercise in racism. The notion that it will protect American jobs is just cover for Trump’s base, which would sooner draw disability than work sub-minimum wage. On the other hand, I believe our obligations to non-US citizens are by definition limited. I’d rather intervene in the countries they’re fleeing.
Nuance, anyone?
432
@William Bates
Count me as another. For me, the one thing I would add to your comments (this is my belief, not an attempt to "interpret" yours), is that our corporations have for decades been using every excuse to invest elsewhere and did a "good" job abandoning the towns and cities where they made their initial wealth. They seemed to freely give China their engineering and design trade secrets (reverse engineering should have been an obvious issue to them) as well as sell off companies, factories, and technologies to satisfy the stock analysts. The use of shell owners and buyers to achieve those sales was not uncommon.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the focus on R&D began to drop greatly and then seemed to move towards "new and innovative" financial "R&D". I remember the insistence that the US was moving to a post industrial society (of course those anti-union post industrialists seemed to love those "post industrial" luxury cars - made by unionized German autoworkers in modernized factories).
A lot of folks have moved to "America First" because they perceive that those with the wealth and power have been the winners in corporate internationalism. And these are not "just" blue collar workers, but many with advanced degrees in the sciences, humanities, etc. Many see the decline in actual R&D in corporations as well as government and the lack of value put on that by right wing economists and politicians.
Unfortunately, USA #1 will not solve our problems.
1
@William Bates
Excellent comment, excellent observations. Thank you for succinctly articulating these nuances.
@William Bates US manufacturing is bigger than ever.
Over four hundred years have passed since John Donne penned "No man is an island," but it holds as true today as it did then. The same goes for countries. No nation is an island unto itself, and to pretend otherwise is fraught with damaging consequences. Fighting in two world wars on foreign soil should have taught us something. A country that believes that it only needs to look out for its own interests is short sighted and sailing into perilous waters. America has become such a country.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
3
Funny, is it not? The unilateral decision to wade into the Iraq disaster was, by many indicators, very much an expression of 'America First': You did so against the council of the UN, and against the overwhelming public opinion of almost every nation on this globe. They were 'either with you, or against you', remember?
On the other hand, a more 'internationalist' stance toward your most important allies in these times would have been THE single most effective measure to avoid the loss of American life, treasure and morale stature in the last quarter century: Don’t wade into Iraq on a trigger happy bogus claim of WMD, without a clear, limited objective to your operation and without the consent of the UN, the French president and the German chancellour (and many others) told you. You chose to call them traitors and anyway: Americans were from Mars, and Europeans from Venus.
Which leades us to the remaining question, how the employment of John R. Bolton as the national security adviser squares off with any characterization of the Trump administration as "isolationist" or "non-interventionist".
1
America is a great country because over the past centuries some of the finest brains have emigrated to USA!
But a lot of money is spent on war and defence expenditure! If this is spent on providing all Americans a decent affordable health care system America will meet ve from good to great!
Isolation in trade is no longer a possibility due to the universal nature of market forces!
So really nothing to really worry about!
Instead let the MITs, Purdue and Princeton’s multiply in geometric progression!
I suggest people go back and read Ross Perot's wikipedia entry. He's was pro gay rights, pro-choice, but was anti-nafta and wars of choice. The media made a complete joke of him because he talked funny and used charts to explain complicated economic issues. Unlike Trump, he was a real self-made billionaire who created a real business from scratch. Maybe he knew what he was talking about.
2
Beware when using an isolationist strategy, you may succeed! Then what? Think about the consequences of having severed your ties to the nations of the world. Really, and carefully think them over again.
1
Mr. Kagan,
In a democracy the people get to decide these matters, not the elites. Sorry.
1
It is not “internationalist” to invade Libya and illegally and brutally support the murder of its leader. The UN approved humanitarian intervention but not taking out Qaddafi.
I’ve realized that the America First approach is a reaction to the right-wing misunderstanding of the Wilsonian liberal approach to Int’l affairs that argues for American intervention and support in various contexts because such actions will, despite an apparent focus on he benefit of other nations, actually help us also in terms of supporting a rules-based Int’l order.
But this Wilsonian liberal approach was always based on a big fib: that such actions weren’t always first and foremost about US benefits anyway. Kind of like the Marshall Plan requiring most monies to be spent on US goods like oil, and hiring US companies, turning what looked like a bleeding heart liberal plan to help defeated enemies into a highly effective aid program for American companies and products.
So from an accurate understanding of history America First looks like “We REALLY don’t care about other nations, it’s really all about US.” Even the fig leaf fib is now gone.
Me First; hardly makes friends; and we all need friends.
'America First', 'La france d'abord' or 'Deutschland über alles'...
These are all expressions for the same pursuing of narrowly defined, sometimes erroneously perceived national interests, without regard for their longer term effects on the international stage as well as in domestical terms: Neither Mr. Trump, nor anybody else knows the eventual consequences of his disruptionist set of policies of late, this President however, by antagonizing almost every other country on this globe, is placing a huge bet on the future (relative) strength of the United States, to remain always the mightiest player in any possible setting.
And thats the meaning of 'isolationism' in this context: To be 'isolated' from the consequences of your deeds (due to your strength), but very much including military interventionism abroad, actually with a enhanced probability: antagonizing everybody else tends to lead to antagonism in return.
Americans and Europeans of the 20th century knew about the eventual horrendous costs of narrow minded nationalism, our current crop of politicians, intellectuals and JoeSixpacks has obviously forgotten about them.
1
It's too early to judge Trump's record on dealing with fascism and militarism, and it's a bit disingenuous to claim that a few public statements define the administrations position, when compared with what they actually do.
Obama had big words and an army of sycophants echoing his globalist views, but that didn't help the people in Ukraine, Crimea, or Syria, eh ?
Contrast with Trump, who has renewed sanctions on Iran, increased sanctions on Russia, is bombing Russians in Syria, and Islamic fundamentalists all around the globe.
As for immigration and trade, he's in America's sweet spot. Any Democrat who opposes better trade agreements and calls for more illegal immigration is welcome, because they will be another nail in the coffin of the Democrats.
1
I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this article. I do not believe that Americans have returned to isolationist roots, and I do believe that the Trumpists are simply an aberration. The trade agreements were poorly drafted and stilted in favor of large, multinational corporations who helped write them. Democrats and unions seek fair agreements, but are profoundly engaged in the international movements for social justice, the environment and human rights. Traditional Republicans favor free trade and international engagement. America First is a product of the deranged Trumpsters and nothing more than nativist, John Birch Society nonsense.
One only had to watch Tiger Woods March to the 18th hole to cement his win for the PGA championship. The crowd of thousands chanted “USA, USA, etc. etc.“Yes, there is no doubt, this is trump country!
Trump is politically incorrrct to an extreme — but, his instincts are correct. China is taking advantage of unfair trade practices. Iran is imposing itself throughout the Middle East. The Palestinians rejectionist negotiating a two state solution with Israel. NATO does not pay it's share of defense. North Korea is a dangerous rogue state that previous presidents have been unable to rein in.
We can't be the world's policeman, but the world is better off with a strong US than one retreating to its own borders. Trump in his unique way is trying to accomplish this.
49
@Pragmatist in CT This is the exact sort of mentality that I fear will start catching on among "thinking" white males in this country. "Sure, Trump's obnoxious, but he has the right instincts for the direction of the country. Let him shake the world's cage for a while, then we'll get back to politics as usual." Trump is in actuality an insane man helping a minority party normalize it's slow rolling coup d'etat in these here United State. He and his ilk will only lead to turmoil and disaster.
3
@Pragmatist in CT He will fail, then. And for the following reasons.
1. Yes, China cheats win trade. But there's little we can do about that unilaterally. As part of a trade alliance, (such as the TPP) we would have had more clout, but instead of enlisting g their help we've declared war on them as well. So now instead of the world against China its us vas. the world AND China.
2. Iran is a pretty bad influence in the region. But so is Saudi Arabia, waging a war in Yemen that is viewed in the Middle Eastern world as being every bit as brutal as the one in Syria. They are both repressive theocracies, the only difference being that Iran actually has a veneer of democracy and allows women slightly more rights.
3. If the Palestinian have been negotiating in bad faith, it is only because the Israelis have been negotiating in even WORSE faith, allowing settlement construction on occupied Palestinian land while it's main backer, the US, looks on with little offered other than stern admonishments. And by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital (but not doing the same for the Palestinians) we have shown ourselves too be far from neutral in arbiting their dispute. This will come back to haunt us. BIG TIME.
4. NATO exists primarily as a counter-weight to Russia. When the biggest so-called "leader" of this bloc downplays the threat, many NATO members will start to wonder why they pay at all.
5. Cont-
@Pragmatist in CT "the world is better off with a strong US than one retreating to its own borders. Trump in his unique way is trying to accomplish this."
Huh? Trumps entire policy is to "retreat to [our] own borders..." He only wants to engage with the outside world if they will essentially pay us to do so. That is certainly a "unique" way of "not retreating!"
As always Repubs want everything but don't want to pay for anything. We set up the world after WWII to make the US the policeman, obviously because of the problems that Germany and Japan caused. The idea was to take over that role and then those countries would not build their militaries back up. Instead the US invested in those and other countries by re-building the entire world. That put us in charge, and kept others from being aggressive - to a point. The problem the US faced was the smaller 'weaker" countries not really liking that arrangement, especially in the Middle East where the world powers did a really bad job of carving things up in a very illogical way - at least for the inhabitants. Those "small" problems brought about all we see today.
Is an attempt to get strong and prosperous allies EU, Canada to share the burdens of the world by trade that keeps us from going under? Is it wrong to challenge China which abides by almost no international rules or norms to stop their thievery via trade barriers and methods and intellectual property? This isn't an abandoning of international norms but an attempt, it seems to me, to seek a fairer burden sharing and fairness in trade.
1
Republican policies conspire to keep the American people ignorant. Prioritizing paid private education, over strong public schools, denying science, and promoting ignorance enables a ruling class to dictate to the rest of us. George Bush was handed the presidency, as was Trump,16 years later. Imagine the difference if Gore had become president. Or Hillary. Policies that have worked to keep the ignorant in their place while the wealthy have gotten inordinately wealthier over two decades, perpetuate the policies of a Republican minority against the will of a Democratic majority.
It’s too facile to make the blanket statement that America is not fighting the America First ideology. Americans are overwhelmingly against the anti-democratic policies that started with George Bush and culminate with 45. Many thousands have shown up to protest the treatment of young DACA immigrants,family separations,and anti-immigrant policies just generally. The radical Republican agenda that would put us back to the 1800s epitomized by the Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court is rejected by nearly all Americans, but the electoral college has prevented the country from moving forward on the path it wants to take.
First things first. Our priority must be to stop the terrible policies that are turning the world upside down, caused by this ideology, and our dangerous down president. We can argue about the rest of it once we put a check on the disaster that is the current administration.
1
I admit I find the title of this piece too marketing-oriented; a bit too much like Trump: catchy, and lacking substance!
Too few of us want to think, really think, throwing aside our understandable predispositions to pull for the Red Sox or the Yankees (I’m from the Boston area). Ideology, opinion and their children: reflex, cant and the like are far more comfortable.
We’ve moved so far apart from one another we can no longer listen, and hear what the other is saying. We seem unable to any longer really look at people and see who they are. We make ourselves into shells of what we could be.
Too many of us simply want to use the national stage to exercise our demons, or at best our neuroses! Protect the public health and welfare has become but a sham for self-serving ideologues whose ultimate loyalty is to themselves, not to any public office!
If by "isolationism" and "upholder of global security" the author is referring to America's endless wars, overt and covert military interventions, drone assassinations and endless reckless more often than not entirely clueless and destructive meddling in other countries internal affairs (See past 40 years) then yes I would suspect the general public not employed by the military industrial complex or a think tank funded by said cabal would be rather keen on this tragic bloody bloody farce being brought to an end. But given the US is not a democracy (See Princeton Gilens Page 2014) it really does not matter and has not mattered for the last 30 years what the US public wants. The forever wars and escalating military budgets will continue. Having laid waste to the middle East the US military industrial now salivates over the opportunities in Asia - a region rich with countries that have the money to pay for their weapons systems! Hence the yeoman work in raising tensions and endless efforts with a largely moronic or totally on side US media complex eager to position China as the new great enemy. For the war profiteers and gaurantors of US capital and access to foreiign markets - on their terms - its trebles all round. For the people of this planet including ordinary Americans - it's a nightmare.
2
What a great explanation. Thanks Mr. Kagan.
Please don't mistaken Trump's selfishness and use of "America First" as virtues - they are not. Trump's primary interest is, was and will always be "Trump First". After he takes care of himself...then his heart will bleed uncontrollably for other rich people and corporations. As for all others not belonging to the top 1 percent...maybe they can grab some crumbs falling from the over-stuffed pockets of those who are the real priority for this irresponsible administration. I think if Trump loved this country (and what it stands for) a tenth of what he feigns at his hate rallies, he probably wouldn't denigrate and lampoon our institutions on a daily basis - which only serves to undermine the country and make it weak and its populous cynical.
4
I don't think America is standing on the "sidelines while fascism and militarism" abound. I think Trump sees the perpetrators of such evil as strong, potential business partners.
Bush assumed his invasion of Iraq would be over in 6 days. Obama wanted the US completely out of Afghanistan. Neither was possible. The first was deluded, the second idealistic.
Somewhere in between lies the spirit of American involvement in the world.
2
It is not unreasonable to question whether the current global world order is serving the best interests of the majority of Americans. The standard answer that since we have had relative world peace since WW2 so it must be working is a lazy one. The globalists need to make a better case but declaring that anyone who questions unrestricted immigration is racist isn't the way to do it. The global economy has lifted a billion people of a extreme poverty world wide but it has also hollowed out the American working class. Trump won on this and nothing coming from the other side seems to offer any better solutions than turning inward as a nation.
63
@Todd: I agree. About this statement:
"The global economy has lifted a billion people of a extreme poverty world wide but it has also hollowed out the American working class."
It might be that the world doesn't need the people it has to make things. We need to figure out how to have a middle class that is not engaged mostly in making stuff to sell overseas, but we also need to make enough to balance the trade deficit. And while we're at it, we need to do so in a sustainable manner, which might require redefining how to be "middle class" with a smaller footprint.
They're tough problems, but they are the problems we face.
1
@Todd.... every nation has the chance to make the best out of the current conditions: administrating and producing, exporting and importing and finally make aa financial surplus.
@Todd Trade is good. Win-win. Get govt out of the economy and jobs and production will skyrocket. Both Leftists and conservatives are committed to govt controls.
Nobody should really be surprised. It is human nature at work and history is merely repeating itself. No superpower can last forever. I think we now know why. Having said that, I am not pessimistic at all. Most importantly, I really don't see any serious competitor on the horizon. Forget about China. Western media including NYT are blocked in China. Tell me how can China become a serious threat if they are so scared of NYT? In fact, China is in a much worse situation. But of course the current US model is unsustainable either.
Unfortunately, even though the solution is simple, human nature makes it too complicated. Thank God the rest of the world have bigger problems. We should be fine for at least 50 years.
1
I totally agree with this piece. The “accepted” narrative now is that immigration is a problem. This flies in the face of all facts. Immigrants as a whole have always been the lifeblood of this country, the new blood, the zeal of the convert, the endless ambition and new and different ideas that continuously renew our country. Immigrants are a solution and a blessing not a problem. The US has always been, finally, an idea not ethnic construct. This wrong-headed mindset reminds me of the idea that there was a Jewish problem in Germany in the 1930’s: there was not, only a wrong-headed and diabolical mindset that there was.
1
Unfortunately Mr. Kagan is right ! And unfortunately, this does not make America Great Again today.
Things will change one day and the true American values will win again in the future. Let us hope il will be before another Pearl Harbor !
1
Democrats don't want a smaller, weaker US. We want a smarter US. We can reduce our military spending while still being tough on Russia and China for abuses. President Obama tried to improve relations with Russia before they initiated a war of aggression and assaulted our democratic process. Being a leader doesn't require having more tanks than our next ten allies combined.
1
@Thad.... a nice interpretation from Texas.
All three mentioned "pillars of ideology" are the typical, yes typical, signs of a failed intern policy of the United States. AND it all started already with Bush Sr. coming into office in the White House. This guy was already out of step with the American population to an extent that today it can only considered as "hair raising" ( his sole salvation is that his wife Barbara was even more out of the rails, she really thought herself to be the "Queen" of America).
The social distance of these two to the needs and essentials of the plain American people created the conditions that you have today. Sorry, that as an European I have to tell you that.
Now, your Congress too consists of Representatives and Senators that have also lost the contact with the People. They prefer to hold their hand open behind their back. So don't wonder about the decline of your country during short 26 years.
I like to think of myself as somewhat of an internationalist, but I hardly favor starting wars with countries that are not threatening us, as did George W. Bush. President Obama was smart enough to quickly realize that unless one is prepared to back up warnings (threats) with full scale war, world leaders need watch their tongues. (Unless that leader is Donald Trump, who everyone realizes never means what he says). Staying involved internationally doesn't necessarily mean participating in war large scale wars.
1
It is because extremism is on the rise worldwide
President Clinton was able to sell NAFTA for President George HR Bush - Bill didn't start it alright! - but the poisonous Tea Party narrative coupled with the rise of OWS as an opposing force has thinned on the rank of the middle. Additionally, the middle class was too busy to fight for its survival when George W Bush turned a blind eye of outsourcing in favor of the ownership society leading to the Great Recession. Instead of aiding a new president to make a recovery possible, the Great Obstruction Party chose to stop President Obama at every juncture, even when Mr Obama has sought to adopt some moderate Republican ideas
Still, Mr Obama tried to get the TPP across the goal line. Too bad it was election time. Sec Hilary R Clinton probably would have supported it had she not wanted to get elected first. Like her husband, she is a pragmatist
Remember, she was okay with the Keystone XL extension before the progressives shot it down. But really, in the scheme of things, Keystone was/is not a big deal. A compromise was possible. Yet people like Tom Steyer made a big stink about it. It doesn't even have anything to do with 'America First.' More like an extreme pet peeve. Both the right and the left want to use it as a talking point
David Brooks used to write his columns with diametric opposition set up. He has discovered multiplicity lately. Too bad, America has drunk the extremist cool-aid. Extremists on both sides have won!
1
We've needed someone who was willing to shift our priorities on immigration, trade, and military engagement abroad for at least a generation. That this figure should have been Trump still astonishes me but not because his ideas on these matters seem out of step with those of many Americans. The core America First ideas of non-intervention and support of American industries and workers, both in the 1920s and now, can find supporters on the left and right, among labor, conservatives, and libertarians. We tend to look at everything as a stark binary choice. But you can be in favor of sensible, more restrictive immigration policies without being anti-immigrant; be non-interventionist and have a strong military; and wish to reset trade relations without becoming a full-on reflexive protectionist. We were long overdue to seek a new balance on these matters.
122
@Frunobulax During the Cold War, we used the gift of one sided trade concessions to small and weak economies to bring them to our side and keep them there.
They are no longer small and weak. There is no longer a Cold War for them to be on our side.
The calculus has changed. So should the policy. The only "change" offered was the clown Trump. Well, it was the only thing going, so he won.
The response in this article is to suggest we start new Cold Wars, and recruit back our side in them at our economic expense. That is nuts.
We won. Take the win. Make something of it.
23
@Frunobulax Such a sensible comment. Very unusual in today's world--especially in the New York Times. Please comment more. Maybe the Times editors and writers will learn something from you.
2
@Frunobulax Well stated and spot on. Unfortunately most of the comments on this thread are just partisan bile being put forward in anger. It's a shame so many feel they have to fight "their sides" corner and offer nothing approaching your sensible suggestion.
2
"America first" posits a zero sum world. It looks at other countries as the enemy. This precludes peaceful negotiation (give and take,) causing war, disrupting populations, and spawning immigrants. It is the discredited neocon way. We won't forget Bush-Cheney and their positively evil outcome.
Trump's ranting against our European and Canadian allies is about one thing--their rules and regulations benefiting the people and holding back unrestrained global monopolies. Climate change has been known for decades to cause terrible problems, and have remedies in clean energy; but corporate greed has so far won out. Roundup (glyphosate) has been poisoning us for decades until the Europeans and now California banned it. Now comes the dawn of technology regulation (again in Europe) and the corporations fight it at the expense of our privacy and autonomy. On and on it goes in the tug of war between the 1% and the rest of us. Democracy demands that we make our voices heard.
277
@betty durso
Every EU and NATO "ally" insist they have a fundamental right to opt out of U.S. and NATO policies and efforts, and follow policies in their own self interest.
Why is the U.S. America First any different?
The rest of the world, the "globe", is real. To the extent it contains threats, we make ourselves more vulnerable if we hide behind borders. To the MUCH greater extent that it contains opportunities, we are poorer economically, culturally and spiritually if we ignore them.
In a healthy two-party system BOTH major parties need to be dominated by reality. There can be different preferences in the balance struck between different objections: safety and liberty being the classic example. But there should be a broad agreement on basic realities, and that needs to include that America benefits from goods, services, money, and people crossing both ways across our borders.
198
@Mark R.:
>BOTH major parties need to be dominated by reality.
But the Democrats are. They make evidence-based decisions on health insurance and health care, wages, safety nets, consumer protections, employee protections, education, the environment, unintended consequences of real life, hemispheric geo-political realities etc. etc. etc.
166
@Mark R. -- Fine, but not "Travel to foreign places, meet exotic people, and kill them."
That is what we got, not enrichment from other cultures.
10
@Valerie Dear Valerie. Please take the time to notice how the Democrats have now become the both the "war party" and an apologist for the worst practices in the corporate world . Notice how, for example, every Democrat in the Senate voted to increase the military budget well beyond the amount requested or needed. As long as good democrats live in a dream world imagining the party to be something it stopped being long ago, the party will continue to decline.
I just don't accept the assertion that Americans in general, including Democrats, are ideologically isolationist. I think it's more of a recognition that global military dominance has had a deleterious effect here at home, such as crumbling infrastructure, lack of affordable medical care, kids with thousands of dollars of student loans, etc.
496
Unfortunately, the current budget proposals continue to pour money to the military rather than fix infrastructure, schools and improve the medical system.
4
Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around the U.S. I have recently returned from living in Europe for a number of years. Being back here (in central Michigan) reinforces my belief that Americans and the U.S. are living on borrowed time. Sorry to hurt your feelings but Europeans couldn't care less about the daily lives of Americans any more than Americans care about Europe (or any other part of the world). None of my friends, colleagues or family there want to turn in their passports to become American.
The only reason the U.S. carries such a weight in the world is due to its overblown military welfare complex.
And let's be honest about immigration: It's a false assumption that the powers-that-be want a solution to immigration (legal or illegal). Many large industries in the U.S. depend on immigrants who can be exploited. They are valuable in their low-cost value.
Finally, what difference does it make if Americans "feel first?" Most Americans live with a sense of fear with regard to their daily lives. Go to the doctor? Bankruptcy. Turn 40-years-old? Terminated. Go to college? Lifelong servitude to your creditors.
The town I live in here in Michigan has American flags hanging from virtually every door-front, painted on barns, and I'm sure plenty of people here wear American flag underwear. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
511
@mrfreeze6
...also, the TV talking heads mention the average US family's salary as an indication of prosperity.
At the median annual income of a little over $50K, more American families do not have consequential savings or the ability to withstand an unforeseen expense.
A (continental) European may earn less and live in a smaller home, but they are more secure in not having to worry about health care or education through college, and they can eschew other expenses that are a drain on Americans - automobiles for instance.
The American people have been sold the lie about "the thin veneer of patriotism" (not my words), preferring to bury their heads in the sand convinced that they are better off than anyone else.
3
@mrfreeze6
But it was funny, your comment concerning flag underwear. It gave me a chuckle. Thanks!
1
@mrfreeze6 Gee, could your disdain for the US be any more obvious? Sure life is good in Europe, even better than in the US in many aspects, but the reverse is also true, and these aspects often reflect the culture of each nation.
But, things don't have to be any better or worse overall in Europe or anywhere else to be very different. If you prefer Europe so much more than the US, why didn't you stay there? More to the point, why don't you go back?
Most Americans have realized for a long, long time that "all is not well" and that the "American Dream" , that all valued so much and aspired to, is no longer within their grasp. We are now in the second generation of those whose progeny failed to achieve and prosper at the same levels as their parents. Although there may be many reasons for the economic and social disparities that contribute to this problem, there are those politicians who like Trump -- the modern-day huckster like Huey Long-- who spew the tired old mantra that all of the problems are due to "those others" who are not like us -- be they foreign-born or domestic-- and who are looking for "free stuff" that they get by having it "taken away" from hard working people who have earned and likewise deserve their fair share of the benefits of our social compact between government and the governed.
This false image is presented under the delusion of "making America great again"; it sustained by making us more divided and polarized. False measures are advocated to "fan" such unproductive sentiments; no real measures are proposed to advance constructive solutions that would make things better for all -- not just those who wish to maintain the current status quo ante. In view of the marked success of Medicare, it should be possible to have a meaningful discussion of the benefits of Medicare for All and how best to construct such a program, without getting involved in a stupid debate about socialism.
119
@Phillip J. Baker
"In view of the marked success of Medicare..."
Medicare will require tax increases/general budget funding increases to survive in the near future. Which brings me to my real issue, if we decide one day to truly go socialism with medical coverage, when will we have the meaningful discussion of tax increases for all required?
Insightful and perceptive. Objective assessment of policy , for a change. Trump understands power , ugly as it is. He uses it bluntly and knows the bigger fist usually wins the fight. In each area of conflict, he has the edge. Do the Chinese want a lull in their goods and services to their middle class? Do the Canadian's want to protect their daily culture at any cost? When Trump tightened " e-verify" , Americans flocked to the now open jobs. Korea is a discussion of the slowness of progress not the tension of conflict.
I do not like him but he understands his times. Obama did not and failed ..If anyone things that the North African migration to Europe is not a result of the failed Arab Spring and Libya ....think again.
1
@Joel Levine. I agree with much of What you say, except the last line. Africa's problems and europes immigration issues are a direct result of a spectacular population boom. 30 million extra people per year in an already crowded continent can not be fixed by democracy or anything else. Our southern border problems are blamed on a multitude of issues, but like Africa, the population of that part of the world has gone up 4x in 60 years. There is nothing for those people to do except go to somewhere that looks better.
The United States is not the only country on the planet nor are her people the only humans that matter. Yet, we sure act as though we are the only ones on both counts.
When will we wake up and see ourselves as members of the human family and part of a global community of people sharing more in common than we could ever hope for?
If the US continues on its current path, how long will it persist or survive? Throughout world history, countries and empires have come and gone or at least morphed into something else. We may not live long enough to see the completion of the changes happening in the country but they will come and future historians will take delight.
1
This is mostly nonsense. Isolationist America? We have stationed troops throughout the world. To the benefit of whom? Mainly the 'occupied' countries' economies, and our own munition manufacturers. Certainly not to our own taxpayers.
And please don't mourn the rejection of the TPP, a flawed treaty that would have allowed individual corporations to overrule governments. Is that the "rule of law" we strive for?
4
There's a lot not to like about this column. Let's focus on just one major theme that the author - like many Americans - just doesn't seem to understand. "Isolationism" is a meaningless term in a world dominated by intercontinental ballistic nuclear weapons. If something big happens, it all comes back to America's nuclear capabilities.
The rest of the world has come to accept that reality. Where all the problems develop is in the United States' apparent addiction to the projection of power through conventional military force. The world hated the United States for the criminal invasion of Iraq and that hatred lingers with the consequences.
The United States lost it's appetite for international conventional military engagement because, yet again, it lost a war it shouldn't have fought in the first place. Obama couldn't do much more than bomb Libya because the populace wouldn't tolerate another defeat - and you can't lose if you don't play.
Where this author's analysis goes really wrong is that - as so many people do - he ignores the Trump Effect. Trump's actions aren't subject to reasonable debate. Trump does what he does for short term narcissistic gratification. If he hasn't started a war yet, it's just because he hasn't needed to yet.
This analysis is going to be made nonsense by Trump's Election Stunt nuclear attack on Iran and the war that follows. Trump isn't an adherent of "America First", he is a believer in "Trump First" - and that means a war with Iran in 2019.
5
Great leaders don't follow the public mood, they shape it. Globalization is here to stay in one form or another, but, the reality is we now live in a global world. Now, you can fight that reality, attempt to turn back the clock, or, you can shape that reality in ways that take advantage of that economic model for the American people. Trade wars, shutting down immigration, isolationism only is a time-out from the game already being played on the field---you can play the game, or forfeit it in the locker room.
120
@ACJ: We needed a time out. If Trump doesn't sink the ship of state, perhaps the next group of leaders will figure out how to play effectively and keep America in the game. I don't see them yet, but I'm watching.
@ACJ
I agree. But Kagan's point is that many Americans (and others) don't. And I agree with that.
Kagan must believe in the "red wave" this November, like Trump does. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about Kagan. Where do these guys get these fanciful ideas? Reality must be too difficult for them to accept?
How absurd to simply ignore 'Dubya's failed, unfunded interventions in Iraq & Afghanistan which we are still fighting. Middle-class citizens, the ones who pay taxes, are sick & tired of our money going to make military contractors wealthy. Meanwhile the generals have 17 years of failure at their jobs yet receive all their government benefits as they leave service & work for military contractors or libertarian think tanks. Our chickenhawk legislators love spending billions on new military toys that don't work. Meanwhile, trillions have been spent in Iraq & Afghanistan while U.S. infrastructure is crumbling. It's infuriating to know that Russia subverted our democracy using computer hackers & $100K.
4
Well, if we as a nation want to behave like advanced grade schoolers, America First and "winning" is our song. Hopefully, the majority of us will grow up and get back to realizing that we are in a multilateral world with nearly 200 countries where we must lead and solve problems together. Donny Trump is of course one of the grade school group living in his fantasy world of "winning." Pathetic, but that's where are right now.
As Trump recently said I am elected to be president of the USA and not of the world". "America first" was long overdue and is being realized in the Trump era. The spin off of America first has been that the world is that the major economies of the world have also benefited with the exception of a few socialist countries like Venezuela. Another benefit of America first is less intervention in overseas costly regime change conflicts that have been raging during the Bush and Obama years.
With a focus on an all out onslaught on the global terrorist outfits that resulted in the decimation of a bulk of them, the world is more peaceful following the eviction of the barbaric outfits from their countries of origin.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty........ John F. Kennedy
The USA envisioned by Kennedy ran its course with end of the Obama term as president. During this period the US national debt had reached astronomical 20 trillion dollars and the cost of overseas wars in Vietnam, the middle east, S Asia, the cold war resulted in thousands of brave American lives lost or badly harmed.
USA tried everything that was wrong from 1960 to 2016 and finally in Jan. 2017 seriously and vigorously turned to America first with Isolationism with talks, trade protectionism and restricting immigration by "extreme vetting?
2
Bob Dylan sang “...and the times they are a changing” and they are as they’re supposed to. You’re either moving ahead, or you’re slowly dying. Change can be both good and bad unless it’s directed. It seems that the one thing the author is missing is “Who’s leading the Charge?” What this country, and much of the civilized world is missing right now is true “Leadership”. The Trump flock are for the most part a bunch of sheep without any real direction in their lives. Let me remind the author that in the beginnings of many civilizations, the tribes were sometimes lead by the most despicable and deplorable tribesman.
We have an opportunity to make real changes for the better in the upcoming elections. In order for the body to get well, we first much remove the cancer, as long as the treatment doesn’t kill the victim. Presently, the Republican Party that we now have is the Cancer! It’s the Republican Party that needs to change before our country can get well, and we really need BOTH parties that are Cancer FREE before we can make America Great in the future.
1
Analyze this any way you want but there would be no appalling Donald Trump in the White House if there was no venal and duplicitous and inevitable Hillary Clinton as his opponent.
And without those two running at the top of major party tickets in that horrible 2016 election (!), this nation would be having entirely different conversations about everything.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)
I've got news for Mr. Santayana: we're doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That's what it is to be alive.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
Trump, the salesman, didn't create isolationism, protectionism, and racism. He exploited it to get elected.
3
We have seen this before many times in our history ie the battle between isolationism and getting involved in the rest of the world.
Moderate views on both sides are legit but where Trump perverts our way of life is the extreme way he does it, like with immigration ie using degrading, vile language to describe some immigrants over others.
2
I'll believe this when Trump pulls out of Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, South Korea and Germany. So far it is the same old, same old. The increased defense budget shows no indication that things are changing.
So far, there are no tectonic shifts in our trade relationships either, other than the trade war with China. The "new" NAFTA deal represents an evolution, not a revolution. The proposed deal with the EU is exactly what's been under negotiation since Obama at least. Without a doubt we need to rein in China's bad behavior but Hillary would have done it a lot smarter and more effectively. Trump is a bull in a china shop.
Pulling out of the climate change deal does not represent America First. It's putting America last, and Trump's climate policies are going to hurt Americans, not help them.
The international order has benefited Americans enormously, the problem is that the gains were not fairly distributed. It is domestic policy that has not worked in their favor. So when is Trump going to reverse his big tax breaks for the rich? When will he make the rich cough up all the gains they reaped from trade? Where is the infrastructure program he promised. Where is the most wonderful health care?
I'd like to understand what's gone wrong with America's spirit. A shockingly large percentage of our population has become resentful of others, angry at the educated and government, and vengeful. Too many believe that they deserve the promises found in the Preamble to our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. We have rights to these promises, but we must work for them and defend everyone's freedom to aspire. It's hard work. Life isn't always fair, but American needs to keep working and not allow itself to become angry and dispirited.
That's Trump's lever of power, to exploit those with resentment toward others who appear to be achieving something or getting more. Trump's supporters need to stop blaming others (here or around the world), educate themselves about the beauty in diversity and multi-culturalism, and act with dignity in their own lives.
1
Yes, angry and dispirited is a major problem. When there is constant crying about our educational system, and students blame the teachers, well, you get out of it directly proportional to the effort you put in, when there are apps to rate your teachers and professors, which apparently is having an effect on how they teach, they don't want to offend anyone so they let things slide now, when teachers are supposed to entertain their students now, when tests are being "dumbed down", because expecting some people, to know the same material as "other people " is considered racist, when students are signing for student loans, $100,000 loans to become a Sociologist and make $12/hour. and then cry that it's too much (nobody forced you to sign that note, you don't need an $800 iPhone, or a new car while you're in school either, or a $2500 computer to play video games all night), there are some serious problems.
I know a professor at a nearby University. He told me incoming students generally need remedial English and Mathematics when they arrive, they're just completely unprepared for University level learning. Our local high school, released test scores last year, that showed 72% of GRADUATING high school seniors, couldn't pass the exit exam. A school 30 miles down the road had an over 90% passing rate. The difference? Engaged parents. How do you NOT notice by 4th, 5th, 6th grade that your kid cannot read or count correctly? Because you aren't paying attention.
We seem to have been the only country following the " rules base international order ". We have been taken advantage of and spent - mistake not spent - given our wealth to others in the hope that it will make them want to be nice. Good on Trump .
2
An encouraging op-ed. Thank you.
Unfortunately the writer might have painted a overly dystopian picture of global chaos and triumph of some unnamed evil force caused by American withdrawal. American isolationism is unique because America is in a league of its own, above all other nations in both brawn and brain (innovation, talent and technology) for decades. Therefore there is really no existential challenges to the freedom and rights championed within America. That is not to ignore the fact that greater world stability has resulted from mass decolonisation and the decentralisation of power among countries. The fate of over half of the planet is no longer decided by the European table.
1
Americans both left and right have soured on internationalism because internationalism has sent what used to be good jobs overseas, sent their children to die or be maimed for life in unnecessary wars and has deepened the gap between the investor class and people who work for a living.
It didn’t have to be that way. Strong environmental and labor protections could have been written into NAFTA and other trade deals from the start. We could have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11, captured or killed those responsible and declared victory.
Those things didn’t happen of course. They didn’t happen because people like Mr. Kagan had no concern about leaving Americans as road kill on their quest for economic supremacy and global domination. It might be nice if some of these people would occasionally take an honest look at their failures for a change.
23
@Brooklyncowgirl - Amen, amen, AMEN. Succinctly put. Thank you.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's less that there hasn't been any public outcry due to the popularity of these policies, and it has more to do with the fact that many Americans are poorly educated on economics and trade (myself included, sadly) and don't quite understand the further reaching implications of these trade battles and isolationist tendencies. It won't be until people start feeling the negative effects of these policies themselves that they'll start to care (if they can even trace the effects back to the policies in the first place, but something tells me a significant chunk of the population will believe "it's the democrats' fault" because of a certain TV channel masquerading as news).
4
Well yeah. A significant number of people are blaming Trump right now, for everything from slavery to hurricanes. You see, Paul, it works both ways.
Thank you. The Dems need to be reminded not to mistake causation. Rural America has always chafed against ostentatious spending. I even remember grumbling over the moon program, with the cost being compared to apparent neglect of rural counties. Lavish spending on anything that doesn't seem to have immediate benefit is a political danger.
1
@Blair: They sure voted for tinsel with the golf course emperor.
Mr. Kagan - I regret to inform you that you are confusing neoliberalism with liberalism and Project for a New American Century interventionism with prudence.
The devastation of the industrial Midwestern heartland is not fake news; however, I doubt that you have visited East Moline, Illinois and seen the weedy fields where International Harvester and other manufacturers used to produce farm implements that were the envy of the world. Not have you probably seen the meat packing plants in West Liberty, Iowa where the workforce in almost entirely immigrant, working at real wages 1/4 of what they were in the early 1990s.
And I suspect that the vast majority of Americans shudder at the prospect of military intervention in any areas of the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine. After all, didn't your buddy Rumsfeld say that the Iraqis would meet us with flowers and chocolates? And hasn't the Afghanistan mission been oh-so-successful in creating a western, democratic society?
Sorry, Mr. Kagan, but your ideas were utterly wrong in the early 2000s and, thankfully, are now obsolete.
19
@John Egan. The Midwest is not Kagan’s concern, never has been . He couldn’t denounce Neoliberalism because, after all, this is his raison d’être He couldn’t denounce interventionism because it would weaken the Palestinian subjugation, and so it goes. Hubris? This he knows.
1
I am proud of the way President Trump has handled international affairs. You can compare him to Obama and Bush and he easily excels by translating his business acumen to global commerce and innovative ways of engagement. The pink hat ladies and the lackies on the left need to respect borders, cultures, family and wealth. The balance is always a little rough around the edges but at least Trump has the strength to smooth the edges. America First still leaves quite a bit to go around.
2
Some bipartisan examples provided by Mr. Kagan are conflated. A “reset” is conflated with “appeasement,” for instance, the author inferring the two mean the same thing, which they do not. There are others. Democratic politicians and candidates not speaking for more immigration suggests this is their only option. Many Demcrats have spoken out against inhumane immigration policy, the necessity of secure borders, and the benefits to the economy achieved through immigration.
Global trade is good economically for US national security. Such trade agreements open the door to addressing other global issues. A read of Secretary Clinton’s economic policies while a presidential candidate reveals the ideas for government and shared government-corporate sponsored programs that would address the negative impacts of automation on US manufacturing by providing training for Americans and a more realistic global view. The idea some Americans have about trade agreements being the sole source of their concerns regarding job security are incomplete. We need a Congress willing to invest in people.
Isolationism, protectionism, and anti-immigration populism have been movements occurring many times in American history. They have been demonstrated unrealistic, fearful, and bigoted, respectively. Policies resulting from this “ideology” have been harmful, if not devastating. Some do not learn from history.
Let’s not conflate “a pox on both houses” blame this time around.
11
Unfortunately for the rest of the world and ultimately for the US itself, the author's perception of the public mood is probably correct. But what it points to more than anything else is what he does not say: this is in its essence a failure of leadership. Real leadership is supposed to lead, not follow and exploit. If an enlightened leadership were to perceive that America's real long-term interest aligned with an internationalist perspective, it is the responsibility of that leadership to bring a skeptical public with it.
It's all too easy for demagogues and opportunists with short-term, self-centered objectives to exploit the simple-mindedness and narrow-mindedness in its midst - really a problem of faux leadership devoid of long-term vision and sustaining principles.
Sadly, one must also agree with the author that in respect of foreign trade policy, whether Democrats or Republicans, the posture may differ little, hence the leadership void isn't confined to the one party or the other. It is an object lesson to those countries who have placed too many of their eggs in the US basket that it's well beyond high time to diversify away from the United States and spread their opportunities and risks far more broadly. This scourge is not about to end soon regardless of what happens to the Trump regime.
9
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why, it just takes someone looking at the environment of the country, since those shape attitudes. The answer is pretty simple, other than the top of the very top, the last 50 years have seen an America that has struggled to try and keep the American Dream going, and it has hit large swaths of the population. People were told free trade was going to bring a bonanza to the country and that jobs lost to overseas cheaper labor would create demand other things, but the reality is that didn't happen. Free trade likewise was going to create huge markets for US made goods, but the problem was often those goods were made by "US companies" using cheap foreign labor. Then, too, what people saw was the US having the largest defense budget in the world, as much as all other countries combined, and saw countries like Japan and Korea prosper while not having the burden of defending themselves, or the US acting despite NATO as the world's police force (doesn't matter if true or not, these are perceptions).
The real answer quite bluntly is that the US lost sight of many of its own people, GOP or Democrat, they sold people bills of goods about trickle down economics or free trade, how building third world countries by sending jobs there was good for all,promised "we'll take care of you"..and they didn't, they took care of the top .5%, both parties, then claimed they were shocked everyone else was hurt.
14
Would Mr. Kagan choose to arrange for the comfort of strangers before seeing that his own children were fed? Why on earth WOULDN'T we be in favor of taking care of our own country, our own people before turning to thoughts of others?
But while concern for the well-being of our fellow citizens rightly leads us to question globalist policies on trade and immigration, it doesn't make isolationists of us. Fair trade and controlled immigration (unlike the war-mongering that Mr. Kagan equates with international engagement) are absolutely in our best interests. Deployment of American troops in endless, unwinnable wars is definitely not.
23
"After all, even Hillary Clinton had to disown her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the last election. "
Those of us paying attention to what she said note that she, correctly, objected to specific positions in the TPP, such as a dispute resolution mechanism giving companies too much power over governments, eg seeking financial relief for "harm" from environmental or labor regulations
Lack of subtlety by commentators is part of the problem
31
Americans are not "isolationist" nor are they against the "old world order." We generally want: 1) FAIR trade, not the existing system where China steals our IP with impunity and places big asymmetric tariffs on our automobiles; 2) LEGAL immigration, not open borders and amnesty for those who are clever enough to sneak in; and 3) SHARED burdens in our military and poitical alliances, not the existing system where America does all of the heavy lifting while other nations coast along without contributing proportionately. After WW II, when other nations were poor and ruined, it was right for America to shoulder all the burdens. Today, Americans simply recognize that the current "order" is not sustainable when we subsidize China's militarism in the South China Sea (where our Navy now fears to navigate), when our communities are disrupted by too many immigrants too fast, and when other nations are not invested in their own defense. This is not "America First" it is "America Respected."
10
Mr. Kagan makes a strong case that Mr. Trump's ascendancy to the White House resulted from an undertow of national populism that was trending well before his appearance in the political arena. Even Mr. Obama recently acknowledged that the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is a "symptom" and not a "cause"of working-class backlash to unfulfilled promises and perceived harm from an international economic order ballyhooed by both parties.
However, Mr. Kagan should note that Obama was certainly not the author of NATO expansion. Rather, Obama continued a tradition that his predecessors from both parties had carried through the mid-90's despite all assurances from the George HW Bush administration to Gorbachev that such expansion would not happen after German reunification.
It is unfortunate at this moment when a constructive relationship with Russia could serve a more stable world that any gesture toward such a relationship is now seen through the lens of the basest motive by association with this administration.
However, in all this discussion of "cause and effect" the stabilizing influence of US-dominant post WWII alliances should neither be overlooked nor lightly dismissed. Europe has enjoyed, perhaps, the longest period of continental peace since the Middle Ages. A more enlightened immediate treatment of post-Soviet Russia might have avoided many of our current--and potential--European problems by building on that legacy.
2
I think you are giving more credit to voters than they deserve. I doubt Trump was elected by deep thinkers who debated the pros and cons of free trade, mutual defense pacts, and the requirements of our dynamic labor force for talent from other countries. The right has successfully created an alternative universe, and established their own media world which feeds propaganda to their base to keep them in line in their hate for anything not white and 1950s America. Trump's presidency is a product of this system, and I only pray that a candidate will arise from either party that brings him down in 2020, before he brings us all down. It could take decades to undo the damage he does if he is elected again in 2020.
30
@Curt Dierdorff
The 2016 election was an anomaly.
The Democrat Media Complex gave the appalling DJT tens of millions of dollars in free air time in an attempt to elevate the joke that he is to a level of prominence compared to his sober Republican challengers. You know, because everyone considered Trump so beyond the pale that the inevitable Hillary Clinton would stroll into the White House in a landslide of epic proportions.
What the media and Democrats didn’t count on (living in a bubble and all) was the utter revulsion many voters felt (me included, though I voted for Johnson. Jeez...) at the propspect of the venal, duplicitous, and grubby Clintons back in the White House. Couple that revulsion with a tin-eared, unlikable candidate who thought half of her potential voters were deplorable and we are where we are today.
Oh, and FWIW, Democrats seem to have learned nothing in the past two years and have doubled-down on their hatred of their fellow citizens so good luck in 2020 getting rid of DJT.
You don't have to have any deep understanding of the causes. You just have to be suffering from the symptoms.
@Curt Dierdorff
The only reason Trump won was because the Democrats decided to do everything in their power to give Hillary the nomination. Biden would have defeated him, heck my dog might have defeated him (except for the age thing). She was a terrible candidate and to overlook this is to place more emphasis on why Americans voted for Trump than to focus on the fact they didn’t want Hillary.
I think Mr. Kagan accurately assesses the fact that US citizens have become unenthusiastic about being the "international cops", not to mention lender of first and last resort to our allies. But he fails to acknowledge the entwining of foreign policy and economic justice. America's war industry (along with all the other industries that support it) profits mightily from our interventions, and those profits are harvested mostly by the same internationalist elites that often initiate conflicts, but rarely sacrifice their own wealth and children to war. Americans understand the value of allies and the concept of moral imperative in some wars. Since the Viet Nam war, however, most Americans rightly have grown skeptical about military intervention, and aware that military expenditures increase economic disparity, while most citizens who serve in the military come from economically disadvantaged families.
19
First, such political swings as Mr. Kagan describes, only confirm that life is eternal struggle of Good and Evil, where one gains an upper hand for a while (a long while, sometimes), to be replaced eventually by the other.
Second, the US strongest tradition is the open-carry of weapons. The founding fathers, in their formulation of the 2nd Amendment, left a legal loophole, by not specifying the citizens' right to be armed EVERYWHERE AND ALWAYS. This loophole allowed many States and municipalities to restrict the carrying of arms, and falsely place the public safety in the hands of the mercenary gunslingers of the police, poorly trained in the use of firearms and self-control.
@Tuvw Xyz. Only if you are willing to muster on the village green, Saturday morning
It's not that people agree with Trump's policies. Doubtful even he does. He's just an entertaining and controversial comedian -- so different from any other president we've ever had. His act is always on the road -- and always unpredictable. Who knows what he'll say or do next? Not even him. Stay tuned.
3
@Richard
The majority of Americans didn't vote to put "an entertaining and controversial comedian" into the White House.
No need to stay tuned.
I think that we all know that public sentiment on any issue waxes and wanes over the course of time. A kind of "familiarity breed contempt" if you will.
The problem though is that some things are right vs wrong. It is right to pursue policies designed to minimize conflict, but it is wrong to pursue policies that institute conflict.
Trump's whoe credo is Might Makes Right as long as he is the one who controls the might.
4
One thing for sure--it takes a Pearl Harbor or a Great Depression to get the American public to move and accept drastic action by the Government. There is no public outrage until the public is directly impacted.
10
Cognitive dissonance of our intellectuals often perplex me - American leaders always followed policies that strengthen their electoral calculations, not followed a coherent strategy to make a strong America. This is the predicament of liberal democracy - no national interest, only political interest, unless the nation's existence is at peril. America First is a slogan not a strategy statement - anything can be packaged as America First - immigration, trade, security and Supreme Court judge and LGBTQ. What is at display at Trump Presidency is an unconventional international diplomacy - a diplomacy style that normally used by gangs and drug dealers. The use of all types of forces and lies to damage the opponents materially and psychologically to get a WIN-LOSS outcome. In conventional diplomacy and foreign relations, countries tried to get a WIN-WIN outcome. We have to wait and see the result - normally this tactics produce disastrous outcome.
16
I would have expected Mr. Kagan to pivot his point to a challenge for progressives to steer these impulses towards a trade system featuring rules that promote high environmental standards, high wages, and closely aligned progressive tax systems, rather than the backward looking piece he has offered.
But I supposed that when Clinton & the DLC sold the soul of the Democratic Party to venture capitalists it was naive of progressives to think such leadership would materialize.
20
I wish that Mr. Kagan gave reference to some public opinion study or results which could support his point more. Relying on presidential election results by focusing on single issue (or three issues under the name of isolationism) can be highly misleading and there is selective bias. It is based on the assumption that Americans only consider foreign policy promises when they vote for presidential candidates.
Having said that, I have to admit that Mr. Kagan saw an interesting empirical pattern there, and yet it shouldn’t lead to any causal relationship. This is kind of saying that the American society is actually not divided on issues like illegal immigration, isolationist foreign policy, and trade policy (which I find most difficult to agree on). And we need data to support this claim, and even though we have data it will need a very cautious analysis due to high volatility and fluctuation in public opinion especially when it comes to these issues...
8
Re: "...but have not consistently favored military spending increases to deter a real war."
This is the central fallacy in Kagan's thinking. Further misallocations of trillions of dollars towards the military is not going to deter war but rather (1) result in more wars due to the continual deployment of excess military forces, and (2) significant under-investment in the domestic economy. A weaker domestic economy will ultimately improve the competitive position of international rivals.
One can argue that it was the continual breaking of international rules through unilateral military action that has soured the American public on the "internationalism" fostered by the government in Washington. The mismanaged interventionalism that goes with internationalism is the source of the dissatisfaction. The problem is less with the people than the stewards in Washington.
7
All that money we spend on the military benefits corporations and their leaders
It never trickles down and that is the problem
Wages are stagnant, infrastructure is neglected and we are all bankrupt from healthcare and education costs. Our government abandoned us when Reagan was elected.
We need to change the dialog from America first to middle class first
42
@Deirdre
What about those who are not even middle class? The under privileged, seniors on a government fixed income, homeless, physical and mentally challenged and of course the working poor. The least of us first, not the middle class. Need over want.
@Deirdre: The best possible outcome of weapons production is further expense to dispose of them safely.
There's irony in the fact that the economy has become more global, people travel internationally and immigrants mean that some of us get to know people from different cultures. Why is the response so often to hunker down and try to protect ourselves from those outside influences?
Politicians find it easy to use the emotional responses to the changes that have occurred and will continue to occur. We have very wealthy individuals and corporations who live and thrive in the global economy who are using hate and fear to ward off curbs on their power. This is not happening only in the USA.
We could be having conversations about how to ameliorate the negative impacts of globalism. We could be looking at new ways to build international institutions that would address the gargantuan issues of climate change and inequality. We could be, but we are not.
33
This is a lot of speculation about public opinion, without any polls to support his opinions. Even his weak rational for recent presidential election results, which ignores many other contributing factors, also ignore that some of these recent results did not reflect the popular vote.
12
This analysis is worse than useless. The false paradigm of “isolationism” v ‘internationalism” (or whatever) was always some combination of lies, self deceptions, propaganda, and sheer nonsense.
Most Americans, like most people everywhere, just want to live peaceful lives in a peaceful world, and would welcome trade, immigration, and cultural exchange in a safe and peaceful context.
Most of us are also aware that elite leadership has its own agendas. We also know that some elite perspectives are based on sophisticated attempts to understand complex dynamics that make peace, fair trade, and safe cultural exchanges extremely difficult - if not fraught with perils. But it’s very hard to separate legitimate, far sighted, broad minded leadership from all the manipulative self serving that ends up too often forcing ordinary Americans to make sacrifices (including the lives of their children in foreign adventures) for policies that are actually making the world less safe and less sustainable for organized human life.
Who is Mr. Kagan even talking to here? If he’s fishing for a job in some future administration, let’s hope this kind of discourse is something he sees far through.
31
Trump's presidency is not unlike Rob Ford's mayoralty of Toronto a few years back. A clearly compromised and incompetent public official who was only in office a short time, but the damage done to the voting public was lasting. Like Trump, Ford appealed to low-information voters; facts and truth had little to do with anything he said, but it didn't matter. And while there was a correction eventually, years later, his almost-as-bad brother Doug is now Premier -- something that never would have happened had Rob not bulldozed a path.
Trump has been following the Ford script from the start. Watch out America, this is only the beginning.
20
Doug is worse. 4 years ago, Rob was dying, so Doug ran for mayor of Toronto & lost to a strong ABF (anybody but Ford) movement.
Just a few months ago, Doug became the leader of the provincial Progressive Conservatives. He then became Premier of Ontario (governor) as that election was ABL (anyone but the Liberals, in power for the last 15 years).
He found he had more power. He legally has the power to reduce the size of Toronto City Council. So, he did that moving from 47 to 25. The problem is that this was done after election campaigns were underway for the 47, unethical. Lawyers got involved, a judge ruled for Toronto but he had tools to override that. He also noted that he was elected and judges, in Canada, are appointed. His mantra is “For the People”
We cannot wait for the casino and Ferris Wheel to show up.
America First will become America Last if the three pillars really take hold. Look at your clothing labels, your shoes, your computer, your phone, the vehicle you drive and the food you eat. Much of everything you buy was imported from overseas or has foreign-made parts. The global economy is here to stay and efforts to turn back the clock with tariffs and trade wars will cost you dearly.
16
@Christy: Trump's tariffs are really just taxes on American consumers. And we'll be wearing clothing and shoes made by slaves in Asia for the foreseeable future. I'm afraid the North Carolina textile mills won't be coming back, given the flooding caused by global warming and the current costs of manufacturing in the U.S.
5
Until the manufacturer countries are brought to standards of worker safety, environmental protections are incorporated and livable wages, yes, this will continue.
The companies manufacturing the goods in your list are gaming the system in the name if profit.
If sports shoes can be made for $5/pair in SE Asia and sold for $95 in the US there is no incentive to return the work to the US where we have the expectation that workers will have decent wages, medical coverage, retirement security.
If a company chooses to move cookie manufacturing out of Chicago to Mexico to "save costs" - sure, but the end result is a 25% decrease in cookie package size on the shelf and a somewhat larger increase in price.
With TTP and TTIP this was only going to expand the situation - no incentive to raise standards, simply a race to bottom for workers and most consumers.
2
This article accurately if unintentionally reveals the real purpose of internationalism -- to make the world safe, not for America, but for client groups that depend on America and have nowhere else to turn.
2
And, remember, because the United States was isolationist, and refused to join the League of Nation, sat idly by why the victors of WWII impose major sanctions on Germany, this caused the Weimer Republic to fail and caused the rise of Adolph Hitler. Also, ignoring the expansion of the Japanese Empire eventually led to Pearl Harbor. Also, the European victors carved up Africa, the middle east and the Ottoman Empire to create their own empires. This is still being felt today with groups like ISIS, the Taliban and Muslim extremism.
The United States cannot be the policeman of the world, and that those, the US helps, needs to compensate the US for that help. This is true; however, then, like now, you cannot isolate yourself from the world. The US, in 2018, is repeating the mistake of 1918. Not only in isolationism, but also in world trade. Nothing good will come from this.
And, no I do not support perpetual war. Nor, do I support giving what money we do save, from a smaller military, to more 1% tax cuts. In a country, as wealthy as the United States, no one should be without access to health care, live in poverty or go hungry. If you are going to do "America First", then that means making sure your citizens are sharing the great wealth of this nation, and not just a select few.
42
@Nick Metrowsky
Oh, I left out, US isolationism, also allowed for the fall of the Czar, and the rise of Lenin, then Stalin. Eventually this gave rise to spreading Stalinism through out the world, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Cold War. The vestiges of this still exist today. See China and Russia (Putin either wants to be the next Czar or Stalin; in China Xi wants to be the next Mao). And, both countries are engages in undermining the US and Europe.
2
Remarkably (although perhaps not surprisingly given his track record), Mr. Kagan fails even to mention in passing the one event in this century that soured the country on international involvement. To wit, George W. Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003. A decision he and his administration sold to the American people under what turned out to be completely false pretenses. The Iraq War. The gift that keeps on giving.
176
I don't think Mr. Kagan needs to mention any specific event. The pattern of discouragingly pointless interventions stretches all the way back to the Boxer Rebellion, Cuba, the Philippine Insurrection, Pancho Villa, World War I, Nicaragua, Korea, Vietnam, and Bosnia, not to mention your example of Iraq.
1
"Most Democratic voters want lower military spending and a much smaller United States military presence overseas." That Kagan disparages those two notions is astonishing. Ikes entire valedictory address was an apocalyptic warning against the military-industrial complex, a term he coined. And here, seventy years later, a prominent think-tank pundit insists that military spending is TOO LITTLE, when it enters the trillions of dollars.
14
“America First has won! The three pillars of the ideology — isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration — were gaining popularity before Donald Trump became president and may outlast his tenure.”
The meaning of the first sentence (that is absolutely valid) is diametrically opposite to the statements presented in the second one.
America First has nothing to do with isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration. It has absolutely opposite implications for our foreign policy.
America First means we cannot engage any longer in waging the endless foreign wars all over the globe. That’s just the common sense and basic survival instinct. We don’t have to support either Israel or the Palestinians, Iran or the Saudis, the North or South Korea. We can support all the people by making them the better neighbors to each other. If they prefer the hatred to coexistence and reject our advices, then it’s the right moment to withdraw and leave them alone. That’s not isolationism but staying on the high ground and maintaining our international integrity.
We shouldn’t expect the Chinese and the Indian workers will endlessly manufacture for our needs while we waste own lives on the social media. That’s not protectionism but the fight against our hubris and laziness.
We cannot solve the global problems by bringing the world poor population here to America. We have to help them create the countries worth living back in their homelands.
Common sense first!
3
America has always believed in America First. The main bone of contention isn't whether the USA should be first, but which Americans would come in First over others. So-called "free trade" is a good example of this. It has worked out excellently for financial giants that can move money across the globe at the click of a mouse and businesses that scoured the world for the cheapest possible labor to work in their factories, not so well at all for Americans workers who were dumped because they dared ask for living wages. And America "as the upholder of global security" has meant almost 40 years of never-ending wars: good for defense companies, a continual tax drain for the rest of us. Is it any wonder that some Americans, many of them not Trump supporters, are getting tired of this?
14
Well put, Pops.
As the Republicans scored lasting gains by casting nearly all federal spending not for the military or debt service as "entitlements," so the globalists have scored lasting gains by casting all attempts to rebalance our trade deals as "protectionism."
We need a no-labels debate on whether we are going to use trade policy, not strictly for our economic advantage, but as a major lever of soft power in the world. Either way, we need a a no-labels debate on who will bear the burden and benefits of such a policy. Since the 1970s, the working class has borne all the burden, and the financial "industry" (another pernicious label that has stuck) and associated elites in law, accounting, etc have enjoyed most of the benefits, even to the point of shedding much of their duty to pay taxes.
It's always been America First, Mr. Kagan. Once that meant all Americans, but, for the past 50 yrs, one always has to ask, on hearing this phrase, which Americans. Since the Age of Income Compression ended in the early 1970s, it has meant Elite Americans, who gladly shared the wealth with their counterparts in other countries. The only thing that is changing now is the the rest of us want a piece of the pie. Deal with it.
20
When the U.S. can eventually display to our own citizens and the rest of the world both universal, Medicare-based healthcare and a university-sourced, scientifically based, federally funded educational system, with fair proportionate taxation and consumer-protecting limitations on corporate promotion. When corporations are no longer protected as "individuals" or allowed unlimited campaign spending by the constitutional interpretations of "hired" justices. Then Americans may feel safe and become wise enough to avoid the temptation to fight amongst ourselves. Then perhaps we can proudly re-affirm our position of progressive, ethical leadership in the world.
Turn off the video "feed" more often. Stop insulting each other ! It doesn't make you any smarter, even though we've all enjoyed the guilty pleasure of snickering at dopey characters on sitcoms. Actually take some extra time daily to practice the peaceful tenets of whatever spiritual guide you may have, whether you go to church or just root for your favorite team on Sundays. Please.
7
"In the long run we'll all be dead."
He was trying to save the short run. But there are a couple of long runs: one for Trump/Kagan, et. al and another for a couple of generations who will be around for a lot longer, share very few of a soon-to-be moribund generation's ideals, and have the standard younger generation's resentments. Public mood may be hard to reckon a decade or so down the line.
1
Every other country in the world pursues its own interests. They are out to increase their wealth, and provide jobs for their own citizens. Why shouldn't we do the same thing?
11
@Jonathan
The three major problems in the world are nuclear war, climate change and artificial intelligence. Those can't be solved by all countries pursing their own narrow interests.
2
@Jonathan
Assuming by "every other country in the world" you mean those similarly 'advanced', economically powerful, culturally sophisticated countries with which we tend to be most familiar, there is an important characteristic of the US which makes our behavior uniquely disturbing.
That is, we no longer perceive ourselves as "a country". We have been smashed to pieces, Trump being just the most recent and, by dint of cumulative effect, the most damaging hammer to come along.
We are corporate versus unAmerican traitors. We are rich versus lazy, grasping, unAmerican poor. We are wee little groups greedy for more and more versus an American people who all share certain inalienable rights.
We are political parties seeking the death of our opponents.
While articles such as this perceive only competition between ideas of a good America, blood sport that it has become, they universally ignore that we are in the middle stages of a drive toward totalitarianism that would have been unthinkable fifty years ago.
We're seeing appeals to patriotism that would have been considered treasonous among long dead troops invoked with maudlin regularity by those most eager to pervert patriotism for the sake of their own power and comfort.
We're oppressed by faux religious movements eager for domination, lusting to crush all those who disagree.
We're lunging toward totalitarianism, distracting ourselves with sideshows and details.
1
@Jonathan
Because it comes back to haunt you -- try reading your own history!
"But few Democratic politicians are running on a promise to bring more immigrants into the country." I'm surprised a political policy wonk like Mr. Keagan made such a blatantly incorrect statement. I follow this lightly, if at all, and certainly don't study it, and even I know that Democrats, the party and candidates, want to expand Hb1 visas; workers on farms and other low-paid jobs; nationals excluded or restricted by Trump; and refugees of all kinds.
5
Many of the workers of corporations like Walmart are forced to rely on govt. programs such as food stamps to make ends meet. The corporations institute stock buy backs instead of raising the hourly wages of it's employees. This is good only for the shareholders bottom line while the worker is forever living in a cycle of poverty. It's time for these mega companies to institute a living wage. This would be a major step to bring all Americans back to financial security.
16
@L.A. Seniors on SS are living on the equivalent of about $3 an hour. Why is it that "liberals" never mention this in their minimum wage rants?
Americans want lower prices, but not free trade agreements that disrupt the economy. They want democracy and freedom in the world but not honest international political involvement. They want freedom from terrorism but not foreign military involvement and the resulting death and destruction. A true national leader helps people to see the connections and the need for difficult decisions. Trump and his kind, on the other hand, make simplistic short term decisions that result in immediate gratification (and profits) but will harm the standing of the USA in the world and harm the country’s real long-term interests.
34
Grover, you missed Mr. Kagan's point. It's not just Trump. It's a whole way of relating to the outside world.
The author has a point, as far as it goes.
But it doesn't go very far.
There is an isolationist strain running through the current electorate, as there alway has been. But scratch an isolationist, and you'll find more of an anti-war sentiment than an anti-internationalist one.
True, the advantage American blue collar workers had post World War II, with the world's other economies in ruins, and which it kept for a good several decades, is more and more being revealed as a historical anomaly that cannot be repeated or reverted to; the other nations of the world have joined the competition. But that doesn't inevitably mean a decline in living standards--we have made deliberate political decisions, usually in support of continue rent seeking by oligarchs, that have resulted in this for non-oligarchs.
And yes, a lot of that non-oligarchic electorate realizes the treasure we have spent on international military forays could have gone to refurbish infrastructure and a better safety net, and that's why they're in the this mood.
We don't have the resources we once did. But we still have more than anyone else. It's the way we choose to deploy them that makes all the difference. America First is about universal health care and free higher education as much as it is about reducing overseas military bases.
40
@Glenn Ribotsky
"But scratch an isolationist, and you'll find more of an anti-war sentiment than an anti-internationalist one."
This is for the most part very true. Liberals are far more likely to support multi-national solutions to problems, and far more likely to support multi-national organizations. We take seriously the need for a global solution to the global problem of climate change.
What we are skeptical about is war. It is telling that the author of this article - a key proponent of the Iraq War - closes by invoking World War 2. He has no believable defense for the disaster HE supported.
Since he cannot defend the Iraq War, he seeks to enlarge the discussion in hopes of salvaging his position.
5
@Glenn Ribotsky Wrong. Canadians, Australians, maybe even Germans have higher standards of living than Americans. We do NOT "have more than anyone else".
This pendulum has swung before. Unfortunately, the administration which is riding this swing has likely put us on the path to WWIII, a nuclear armageddon which no one may survive.
3
It takes humility, and a secular and non-economic "socialist" view of the world to believe in internationalism; to be a true liberal globalist. The only time in our history when this appealed to a majority of Americans was in the 25 years after World War II when:
a) the lessons of isolationism were still a vivid memory and;
b) when the nation was seemingly prosperous and held opportunity for most to rise into a true middle class life and;
c) when nuclear annihilation from a feared military equal posed a daily threat.
And while the unending 38 year disaster of supply side economics caused "b" above to disappear; Mr. Kagan and his ilk with their love for military intervention starting in Vietnam and continuing with the never ending Afghan and trumped up Iraq war has destroyed the consensus for globalism. So of course his main lament is that a majority of Americans do not want increased military spending?!
26
If you want to reduce America’s overseas commitment, get US out of the oil business. If our energy footprint consisted of mostly renewable or domestic sources, we could shrink our military overnight.
Oh, wait...that would require acknowledgment of climate change...
23
@Jeffrey Schantz
This would also require that the rest of the world give up petroleum. The US is largely energy independent (albeit largely on fossil fuels) but the world economy remains wedded to petroleum exported by countries with agendas that do not align with ours. Nevertheless, our economy is tied into that of Japan and South Korea and other nations that also depend on what the Saudis and Libyans et cetera export. To make matters worse, let's suppose that the price of oil collapses because of new technology in renewables. Over the long term, great.
But what do you suppose happens when petro-states no longer have petro-dollars to spend on their young and growing populations? Do you think Saudi Arabia's 27 million will remain in that desert kingdom when the royal family no longer subsidizes their unemployed lifestyles? What do you suppose will happen in larger petro states?
The hostility / rejection of trade agreements takes place within the context of WalMart’s low low prices, lower MSRP for GM and Ford vehicles, the quality of German engineering, and the beauty of Italian design. These trade benefits are appreciated across the income spectrum. As prices for goods and services increase, the cost of America First will be felt across the US economy. America First will be much less welcome to those paying higher prices for everything while incomes remain well behind due to the weakness or unwillingness of labor to squeeze higher wages out of corporate America. How the America Firsters react to prices increasing faster than wages can be an opportunity for Democrats to challenge the Republicans’ union busting, tax-cutting, false prosperity of Bull markets policies.
16
Sounds like the author prefers being the worlds policeman while entangling the country in more conflicts. War mongering. While all political "good ideas" go to far I see nothing wrong with staying out of other peoples business so long as they are doing nothing to harm the US. If manufacturing comes back to the US because of America first even better. Manufacturing drives industrial technology and creates peripheral jobs. While goods may cost a little more the consumer savings touted by those that sold the idea of globalization seemed to manifest into increased corporate profits instead of consumer savings. Profits that were then hidden from the tax man overseas. Now we need to work on shrinking the footprint of the federal government so that the government can live within its means instead of ballooning the deficit. This however is a bipartisan problem.
8
@Blackbeard. . . "minding our own business" is just not OK if countries engage in genocide and oppression of innocent people. The world is so interconnected that any harm done to people far away, eventually harms ourselves. How can we sit back and let what happened in Germany and Eastern Europe happen again, with pogroms and genocide? No, we must not mind our own business.
@Blackbeard
Back to school brother, your contentions don’t add up.
Technology drives manufacturing, not the reverse.
Less war, not more, when there is a “rules based order.”
Staying out of other folks business sounds good, but as we have seen, results in even worse confrontations. Think WW I & II.
Lastly; the continuous shrinking of the federal presence is resulting in worse outcomes, across all sectors.
“America First has won! The three pillars of the ideology — isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration — were gaining popularity before Donald Trump became president and may outlast his tenure.”
Actually, the meaning of the first sentence that is absolutely correct is diametrically opposite to the statements presented in the second one.
“America First” has nothing to do with isolationism, protectionism and restricting immigration. It has absolutely opposite implications for our foreign policy.
America First means we cannot engage any longer in waging the endless foreign wars all over the globe. That’s just the common sense and basic survival instinct. We don’t have to support either Israel or the Palestinians, Iran or the Saudis, the North or South Korea. We can support all the people making them the better neighbors to each other. If they prefer the hatred to coexistence and reject our advices, then it’s the right moment to withdraw and leave them alone, but that’s not isolationism but the staying on the high ground and maintaining our international integrity.
We cannot expect the Chinese and the Indian workers will endlessly manufacture for our needs while we waste own lives on the social media. That’s not protectionism but the fight against our hubris and laziness.
Finally, we cannot solve the global problems by bringing the world poor population here to America. We have to help them create the countries worth living back in their homelands.
16
@Kenan Porobic I think your assessment is fair if it indeed were accurate. We have not just advised countries as you put it but actually invaded them. We left them in worse shape than before we got involved.
The bigger problem of 'minding our business' rather than isolationism as you put it is that the conflicts of tomorrow among countries could be nuclear. North Korea can dump a nuclear device into the Pacific ocean and devastate our waters for a 100 years. To avoid such a situation we need to be more engaged not isolated. How are going to tell India and Pakistan to stand down on the verge of nuclear conflict? Not by calling them names! So there is a role for our engagement in every aspect of global environment. If it were to be proven that Co2 emissions from Asia have something to do with hurricane that hit your great state, would engage or isolate? Certainly they are not going to shut down their coal mines while we run ours. We are the only remaining superpower and we maintain that by engaging and help lift up the rest of the world! At least that has been our glorious history - world war II was one such.
6
It isn't the waste of time on social media driving offshore work. it is the subsidized economy in other countries, or the elimination of worker and environments protections which, along with near-slave worker conditions and pay, that leave our citizens idle and underemployed.
2
In retrospect, Clinton's disowning of the TPP during her presidential campaign was a huge mistake. She was given a perfect platform to advocate for the issue on the national stage, and she was nothing if not an articulate advocate. But she backed away. Now we're left with no policy other than trade wars to discuss.
2
If one reads any history of the United States (Canada too) the ‘America First’ sentiment stretches far back and was most vocal, perhaps, in American opposition to involvement in the first two World Wars. This sentiment became fairly moot after WWII, remained virtually silent during the Vietnamese war, and is now resurgent. No doubt should a WWIII come to pass America will once again drag its’ heels before becoming involved needing unrestricted submarine warfare (as in WWI) or Pearl Harbour (as in WWII) in order to feel it has any ‘skin’ in the ‘game’ of the world.
1
@Lewis Sternberg
Don't worry. Nothing meaningful will survive WWIII, most certainly nothing substantial enough to formulate any coherent international—let alone global—'strategy' (isolationist or not), for a very, very long time.
Since 1/2 the military budget is driven by the protection of the oil industry, I don't see Corrupt Donnie's policy as consistent.
There is an inconsistency between his lack of support for renewable energy, which by its nature is local and his support for the oil industry, which by its nature is international. Yes, coal and to a lesser extent natural gas is local, but the military budget isn't focused on them, nor is the weakening of the fuel economy rules out of the EPA.
A true "America First" policy would be pushing hard for renewables and at least a carbon tax.
5
Funny thing -- when I hear that phrase my thoughts are more along the line of 'of course'. But what follows is that the needs of the country for peace, prosperity and security are paramount. And that has included vigorous trade with others, mutual trust and respect for laws being applied uniformly to all. And most of us are children of immigrants who came to the US to make a new start. Thats the place I grew up in and respected.
This new place is none of those -- trade only where the benefits flow one way, different sets of laws based on party or race, no foreigners need apply... and the benefits go to a very small group at the cost of all. Compassion has been replaced by rage and pettiness.
I don't know this country. Seems more like a dark parody of other places and other times -- like the novel 1984. With the Ministry of Truth cleaning up the news archives so yesterdays lies match today's. And everything crumbles because the infrastructure and healthcare that was promised was just another set of lies.
I am curious as to what it will take to break the shell this time, and get the ever loyal base to see that the joke really was on them. Unlike the past, there may not be many out in the world who would help. The terrorists have won... sad that they were insiders.
6
“Democrats might seem to be rallying behind the liberal order, but much of this is just opposition to Mr. Trump’s denigration of it.”
That’s me! Can’t wait for Trump to be gone so I can actually THINK about issues instead of simply reacting to Trump. Oh Happy Day! Right now, sad to say, if Trump favors it, I’m against it.
14
@MD Monroe I fully agree. As a dedicated member of the Resistance, I find it necessary to deactivate my personal analysis in favor of just being against anything of which Trump is in favor. That is the cost of being a Resistance Freedom Fighter, intellectual abandonment. A high personal cost, but a worthwhile cost that will admired by those for whom I have help save the future.
6
@drcmd Referring to yourself as a "Resistance Freedom Fighter" is extremely offensive, presumptive, and distasteful. If you don't know why, please research the French Resistance during WWII. When was the last time any so called "Resistance" person in the US today was dragged into a public square, then tortured and shot without ANY trial and before terrified citizens? I don't think this has happened in the US, (especially not in Sarasota). Calling yourself a "resistance fighter" is melodramatic, and insult to generations who suffered during WWII.
@drcmd & MD Monroe:
It's one thing to be irrational and counterproductive, but to brag about it?....
"Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force"
That's Mr. Kagan above. He's in the same boat as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and a host of other neocons. They and their misguided strategy led us to one of our most costliest wars in history. The Iraq War.
Most of today's turmoil in the Mideast can be traced back to that period, including the tragic refugee crisis with millions displaced.
And neocons who never served in the military, are people I will always question about their credentials.
102
Nothing is forever, including my good looks. However, I agree with Mr. Kagan that “America First” has won for now, that it predates Trump’s ascendance which he based on a recognition that its victory was ripe for exploitation by a presidential contender, and that it likely will play for some time before it fades again.
America’s role as SOLE upholder of “global security” has taken it on the chin as Americans became increasingly weary of footing the bill to stand-up that charge while allies became increasingly dependent on us militarily while building robust social welfare networks that we couldn’t afford while protecting everyone else’s bacon. “Free trade” has taken it on the chin as the race-to-the-bottom inherent in completely free trade became evident and our middle classes hollowed-out as a result.
“America First” was a predictable consequence as America fell victim to more relativist worldviews that plainly attacked our central material interests. But no pendulum remains at one extreme of its arc forever.
Trump isn’t merely talking the talk – he’s walking the walk, as well, and he’s delivering results. As our super-charged economy expands, and as the benefits of that expansion are reflected in higher middle- and working-class wages as employers compete for skills and bodies to exploit that expansion, we have the prospect of regaining what had been lost through a diminished prosperity. When that happens, the pendulum may well begin reversing its arc again.
2
@Richard Luettgen
Any statistics to cite as back-up for your statement about higher wages? From what I'm reading, wages have remained flat and gains minimal for most workers.
11
@richard luettgen
There have been no middle class wage gains under Trump. Due to inflation, wage gains have been flat. And Trump’s trade war will very likely “supercharge” consumer prices. As a Republican to the end, I assume you would be worried that our national debt has been “supercharged” during a long period off sustained economic growth. Recessions come to all, regardless of who is in the Whitehouse. Trump is setting us up for a doozy.
6
@Daniel
Even the Times is now reporting that wages are going up -- have been for some time. It started small but started widening a couple of months ago. Use the Search facility here to find stories on wages.
Mr. Kagan's view is sadly close to the mark. Nevertheless, his essay presents an either/or of internationalism or isolationism as the only possibilities.
There is a third option, which is for America to both - and simultaneously - boost our domestic investments (especially in education) and our international leadership. This is the tack with the best chance of preventing any number of calamities for all of humanity in the current century and beyond, whether climate-related, nuclear, biological, or technological.
Without serious effort both domestic and international, America and the world are in for some very dark times, indeed. So at a bare minimum, we must hope that those who consider Trump an aberration are correct.
7
Spot on . Anyone who visits main street can confirm Mr. Kagan's views. It is the media that most do not trust.
2
It's hard for me to believe people like Robert Kagan have any currency or relevance in today's world. He's not alone, however. And, frankly, I don't understand them.
How can individuals, almost always men, refuse to serve in the US military (some actually thinking it's beneath them), then get all dewy eyed over every weapons system and potential regional conflict? Maybe it has something to do with money and not our actual security?
Oh yes, the world can be a dangerous place. But so is stretching our military to its limits while most of those sitting back home and pontificating have very little skin in the game. "Armchair warriors", if you will. "Tough guys".
While we know isolationism is dangerous, so is engaging in every two bit skirmish that comes along. Venezuela anyone?
I know it's not popular (ask yourself why not), but it's past time for some kind of national service, with preferential treatment for those volunteering for the military option. Let's see where people really stand when their or their kids or their grand kids lives are on the line.
66
@Joe S. I’m with you 100% on Compulsory National Service. It would help solve a multitude of ills: putting the brakes on military adventurism, getting young adults out of their home towns where many succumb to drug use or gang affiliation, teaching job skills along with discipline that some are lacking, and it could provide a work force to build our infrastructure for the future as well as improving access to health care services. Model it on the CCC. Sadly, America doesn’t embrace big ideas these days. Could we build anything similar to the interstate highway system in today’s social/political climate? I doubt it.
1
@Joe S.
Kagan probably had an overprotective mom who sued the school district after little Bobby was declared "it" for no boundaries dodgeball.
I assumed our effete neoconservatives all enrolled into night school to acquire appreciable skills. Especially after Charlie Rose got metooed and went off the air. I guess NYT still gives them a voice. It's nice to hear from them once in a while.
1
The main thesis or theses here are wrong.
Recent polls found that high percentages favor the UN and follow international news. Many may like the phrase "America First" but they don't want "America Alone."
Polls show a large majority favor free trade over protectionism.
Polls show a mixture of views about immigration depending on what questions are asked and how. No one has proposed "open borders" and most are uncomfortable with limitations on immigration, so the "comprehensive immigration reform" agreed on a few years ago (but withheld from debate and vote) would likely satisfy the nation.
I prefer the optimistic re-frame of our situation given by Michelle Alexander to this pessimism: "America First" is a minority resistance to the flow of history toward a more open, democratic, and cooperative national and world order.
https://www.nytimes.com/column/michelle-alexander?action=click&conte...
7
@Dennis Maher
First, I distrust polls like I distrust growling pitbulls. Questions are generally oriented to produce a desired result, or are just flawed in the sourcing of respondents. Remember Hillary's 95% guaranteed victory in 2016 based on polls?
Second, yes, people may answer that they prefer free trade over protectionism; but actual free trade is elusive, and most people don't understand that the concept of free trade is different from our trade reality. We didn't have free trade when our economy was taken over by Japan in the '80s, and we don't have free trade now with China, India, or the EU. Democrats and the "Resistance" are quick to oppose a trade war with China, but anyone paying attention should realize that an artificially undervalued Renminbi and drastic rules for the commercialization of any foreign (starting with US) product in China are NOT free trade. Hiking up taxes on Chinese imports is only protectionist with regards to our prior severely disadvantaged trade relationship with them. It makes no sense to oppose higher taxes (essentially a leveling of the playing field) on Chinese imports on the basis of "free trade".
Furthermore, given the Chinese state-sanctioned technological and industrial espionage on US interests, and our growing, unsustainable trade imbalance with what is becoming an increasingly hostile military enemy, it has become obvious that our best interest is not to keep feeding the monster.
1
OK, it seems that America has decided that they are not going to do business with other countries or at least if they do they want to impose lots of extra charges on goods at the border. Go figure.
One thing for everyone else to keep in mind - CANADA is open for business. Canadians make quality products at a fair price and are looking for new customers. We make great food products and lots of industrial goods.
CANADA is a friendly and welcoming nation and we take the same attitude towards business. We are hard working and will make the extra effort to make sure our customers are properly loaded after. So, call us, we have operators standing by to take you orders.
Remember - BUY CANADIAN!
19
@Lew I
Canada is still a nice enough place as long as you don't accidentally misgender someone, and conform to the dominant ideology; at least in Ontario. But I guess the local Kafkaesque mentality shouldn't deter anyone from buying the products.
For a timely analysis of why and how to fix the problem see:
Ralph Nader - To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency, and Why It Isn't Too Late to Reverse Course
His new book is a searing analysis of how Big Business, abetted by the flaws of recent presidential administrations, created the political climate that put Trump in the White House. Nader takes both Democrats and Republicans to task for their failures to curb corporate excesses and their abandonment of the poor and middle-classes.
19
Can you ignore the world? How much of the problems in the world are due to America’s interference? Are there challenges such as global warming and nuclear proliferation that needs world involvement. I think we ignore the world at our peril.
17
Internationalism created an economy where 50% of US workers work low paying service jobs.
Those are the jobs where you work full time and qualify for food stamps. Where you can't afford the fees for your kids to play organized sports. Where a $400 car repair bill is a catastrophe.
The jobs that make life comfortable for the financially secure devastate the lives of people actually holding those jobs.
Internationalism works well for the well off--products are cheaper, travel is easier, finding help for the kids and the house and the yard and grandma is easy, and your kids won't be off fighting wars.
The people it doesn't work for didn't invent the problems they face. And our politics reflect that.
52
Your concerns are valid. My question for you and others with the same concern is - what do you see as the solution?
Trump doesn’t understand either trade policy or economic policy and started the trade war to appeal to the voters that elected him. That’s fair I suppose but the part not said during the election is that it would take 50 years to change how America (and the rest of the world) does business. All those cheap goods that are sold at places like Walmart come mostly from China and other nations where wages are low. If you want Walmart to sell only things made in America there would be two effects: 1. Prices would go up sharply, and 2. The shelves would be empty for the next 10 years since America does not have the manufacturing capacity to replace those goods.
Walmart and lots of other American companies have gotten rich selling goods manufactured outside America. So, if you want to pursue this sort of economic policy get ready for change. Scale back your expectations of income and standard of living, they are going to go down.
4
TPP and TTIP were going to make it all worse for Americans.
There are reasons we needed Trump, these are part of the list.
We may not like admitting it but the United States does not have the military strength to intervene decisively in conflicts around the globe. We just don't have enough men and women in uniform, enough ships and aircraft, enough tanks, artillery pieces and armored troop carrying vehicles. We have favored tooth over tail to the extent that we no longer have the ability to transport troops, their equipment and the arms and supplies needed to construct bases and keep our troops supplied with the ammunition, food and to replace equipment destroyed in combat operations..
3
Policies aren't made by popular opinion alone. Money plays an important part too. The author is part of the neocons, the propagandists for the military-industrial complex who for several decades now have managed to dominate American foreign policy. Despite a peace loving public opinion they have pushed through an aggressive foreign policy of which the pillars are hatred for Russia and a thirst for overthrowing foreign governments.
This never had anything to do with American international leadership. On the contrary, this focus on dividing the world in friends and enemies distracted the attention from the need to develop and maintain a vision on how the international order should look like.
86
@Wim Roffel
Dividing the world into "friends and enemies" is oversimplification, but is still preferable to dividing socioeconomic groups within our own country into friends and enemies. An international order that consists of oligarchs throughout the world unifying against the peasants is just a little bit worse than individual countries doing so in isolation.
Trump isn't causing the political chaos. He's reflecting it. We reached a tipping point decades before he entered the public arena. Voters may be more liberal on social issues but they see the establishment's foreign policy and trade initiatives for the complete disasters we know them to be. We are where we are today because the mainstream parties are intellectually bankrupt. The 1993 NAFTA treaty is a good example. President Clinton defended it saying it would promote more growth, more equality, & more jobs. He predicted NAFTA would create a million jobs in the first five years. That was a lie. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as companies moved their production to Mexico, where labor was cheaper. Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. Third, NAFTA drove several million Mexican workers & their families out of the agriculture a& small business sectors, which could not compete with the flood of products — often subsidized — from U.S. producers. This dislocation was a major cause of the dramatic increase of illegal immigration in the United States. Fourth, and ultimately most importantly, NAFTA created a template for the rules of the emerging global economy, in which all the benefits would flow to corporations & all the costs to workers. NAFTA is the main reason the Democrats lost the working class vote. Given that fact why aren't they doing everything possible to rewrite this unfair treaty?
79
@BillBrown
NAFTA did not create the situation where jobs moved out of the country. It was occurring already as corporations found cheaper labor elsewhere. NAFTA, if anything formalized it and allowed Mexico, US and Canada to profit more. Corporations will not come back if NAFTA goes away but labor and manufacturing remain cheaper than in the US. They may charge more for their goods and services but until US costs are reduced little will change as long as consumers are willing to pay and profits increase.
US manufacturers didn’t need a NAFTA agreement to move production and labor to China, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc. It is the cheap labor markets that were and are the lure. As an overseas labor force became more expensive companies relocated to a less expensive market.
Public outcry can influence moving back to the US as some call centers have discovered, for example. Having a US based call center is viewed as a competitive edge by some. Has anyone not noticed how the obviously foreign based customer service agent introduces themselves with western names?
This is all about reducing costs and maximizing profits. The US worker is a poor third on that list.
3
@Bill Brown Thank you for this intelligent and factually accurate recitation of some of the many betrayals of working people by corporate democrats.
1
Whether we like or not the US is an important member of the world community . Retreating to our shores will not do for that is a luxury we cannot afford. The world is now confronting the start of a major shift in climate, increasing levels of poverty and the re-emergence of older ethnic rivalries which the Cold War kept in check. We cannot continue to belittle our allies, tear up agreements nor can we go into a blunder bust situation such as Iraq and Afghanistan What is needed now is a foreign policy that is based on the realities that the world is confronting at this time. "America First" is nothing more than wallowing in fear. It is also a method by which Trump in his own particular reality thinks that he can upend any leader and bend history to his will. His delusions will end up costing us dearly and will not begin to resolve problems and deal with the serious issues. This does not mean that we need to act as the "world's policeman". That was the past and some of that NATO, the WTO etc. can be retrofitted for the times we live in. We must not forget that there sits in the White House an individual that while campaigning wondered what good are nuclear weapons if we do not use them. That is beyond frightening . It is thinking like that makes him unfit to be in office. The US is a senior nation and with that comes responsibilities that can be discharged or ignored. We either continue to move forward or suffer the consequences.
47
This author was a leading figure among those who brought us into the Iraq War.
He was a key creator of "The Surge" to stay in Iraq, promising if only we'd hold on it would all come right. In fact the proposal for it was written up in his home over a weekend, then presented to Dubya as an alternative to the policy of the Pentagon and State Dept.
Now he tells us that the world is going wrong? Well, he DID that. He and his were the ones who unwound the Rules and launched aggressive war of choice that only a Nazi would love.
Why is he writing policy advice here? Because he doesn't like Trump.
Why doesn't he like Trump? Because Trump has not yet attacked North Korea or Iran.
Is that what we want? Do "real men go to Tehran" like he said back when he took us into Iraq?
537
@Mark Thomason I'm sure John Bolton and Stephen Miller are doing their best to start a war with Iran, whether Trump understands the implications or is even aware of their efforts.
2
@Mark Thomason, thanks for reminding me who this guy is. At first glance it seems loony to want America to invade Iran, until you remember that neo-cons see everything through the lens of Israel First.
2
@Mark Thomason
Do we want real men to go to Tehran?
No, this time let’s send all of the old white haired men whose decisions to send OTHER PEOPLE’s children to fight and die but not theirs, who in their minds glorify war because they have never been, FIRST. They can use all of the weapons that Americans have spent their education and healthcare budgets on instead spending it on the tax payers
1
One should be careful to mistake the signs given off by parts of the 2016 electorate as a push for isolationism. On the left a sizable portion was crying out due to the harsh effects of six years of GOP obstruction and nullification on voters who'd already been victimized by the Great Recession and centrist policy before that.
One should also be careful not to confound the Bush war fatigue on both sides of the political divide for a tendency towards isolationism. It wasn't.
That isn't to say that there weren't isolationist forces on the right, but one can certainly pin much of the blame on the rampant propaganda of that election cycle.
That said, whatever isolationist sentiment there is, one should pin on deprivation and the growing economic inequality of the past decades.
---
Lessons for progressives
https://www.rimaregas.com/2016/11/27/silent-class-revolt-most-democrats-...
27
@Rima Regas -- We must distinguish between isolationism and antiwar.
It isn't isolationist to dislike the Iraq War. It isn't isolationist to dislike attacking North Korea or Iran to start another one. It isn't isolationist to think that 17 years of war in Afghanistan is long enough for whatever we could hope for from that.
253
@Mark Thomason
That's what I wrote
Trump is guided by no other policy except to reverse anything that Obama did. That's the extent of his statesmanship.
305
@Greenfield -- At least he didn't come right out and say he'd do more like Dubya, which is what this author did and wants to do again.
22
@Greenfield - Uh, you might want to consider what the greatest threat to world peace is. The answer is the USA. This extends from the federal government all the way down to American soldiers who terrorize villages in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other places around the world and then rationalize it as "just following orders." If Donald Trump destroys the US government that is a GOOD thing.
1
@Greenfield
If what you write were only true, then shifts away from the GOP in Congress in this year's election & defeat of Trump in 2020 would resolve many US domestic & international relations problems.
However, a better case can be made, at least on the international scene, that Trump is cruder & more extreme & emotional than many Americans across the political spectrum endorse but that he channels the underlying isolationist & protectionist drift that is occurring across that spectrum.
That drift, like that which occurred between WW I & II, will be a real problem for the US, its allies, & the global geopolitical scene going forward.
I hope the United States to be more democratic, less unilateral, unlike Trump.
But wait, has there been a time when the United States wasn't unilateral?
I found Bill Clinton once said like this : "if necessary, we will act unilaterally", citing article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. ("self-defense shall not be impaired when an armed attack seems to be imminent, without the Security Council's measures")
That act has been made use of by the United States to intervene in other regions arbitrarily and "unilaterally", in the name of ensuring international peace and security. The results? Vietnam and Iraq. (North Korea was almost added to the third last year)
I cannot but wonder if the Charter of the United Nations (including the Security Council) is merely a tool for the US to persist its own sovereignty over other nations, and if it is "democratic".
8
Well, does the world become more dangerous or less dangerous as the USA
contemplates it's participations in various political and military conflicts?
Mr. Kagan is very concerned, and I cannot glibly discuss
these matters with facile ideas.
The Ukraine's messiness is a typical dilemma, and not resolvable easily.
In fact every foreign issue that I can think of is problematic.
I don't envy the leaders nor the followers.
President Trump is stuck, though no leader could acknowledge, for instance,
seventeen years of Afghanistan without explaining candidly how difficult
the place truly is.
Syria ditto.
We are stuck, and that's a fact, Jack.
It would be interesting for DJT to try to explain the international issues
coherently.
He explains Puerto Rico, post Hurricane Maria, as a success.
14
@Robert Cohen
You wrote, "It would be interesting for DJT to try to explain the international issues coherently."
No, that wouldn't be interesting, that would be mirth and merriment.
I think the American people understand that the country's role of global policeman is becoming untenable and unaffordable. And they would be right.
America's global security guarantees need to be scaled down. The nation suffers something of an imperial overstretch; its military has bases all around the world but at home the infrastructure is crumbling, the social safety net is being reduced to nothing and the state's coffers look frighteningly empty.
No nation can go it alone. This is true as well. But I think most Americans would be comfortable with a mutual security guarantee (like NATO's article 5) that includes the US, Canada and the EU, provided that the latter either builds a unified strong military or its member states increase their military budgets to 2% of GDP as promised.
Beyond that, the world will largely have to figure out how to sort out its own problems. I don't think this needs to be a disaster. It will give regional organizations like ASEAN or the African Union a chance to grow and assume greater responsibilities.
17
@Erik Your comments would be correct if we hadn’t taken the role of policeman to the extreme of attacking Iraq, for example. It is our actions that triggered the creation of ISIS and put us in the position of continuing to have to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. For all the talk of pulling away, we budgeted billions more for the military. The president talks about increasing the number of navy ships and a Space Force. Europe contributes military support for our hairbrained wars and host our bases. Are they receiving credit for those? Doesn’t appear that we are stepping back. As for infrastructure, there seems to be no will in Congress to consider funding infrastructure, and where will the money come from based on the Republican priorities? We have been ill served by current and previous Republican Presidents and Congresses.
119
@Erik - "Policeman" or hegemonist? Defender or invader? Protector or pillager? Sadly, it's not easy coming up with examples where we were clearly acting altruistically.
It's been said that we know another's values by how they spend their money. Here in The Land of The Free (old, white men) we spend about 1/3 of our income on the military - and, yeah, I know that the DOD is only +/- $700B, but we also must include interest on Chickenhawk George's unfunded invasions, VA, DOE's nuclear, ad nauseam…
3