“To her America is exceptional at leading comprehensive global efforts that make America look good, but may not be good for America.”
I absolutely understand your point, and whereas I don’t know what she specifically thinks, there are plenty of Republicans who think this way. I personally think that America should lead the world in trying to make the world a better place, but I also think that much of this can and is done at the level of charitable donations of money and time voluntarily by American citizens. Where quick action is required and can only be done using official American resources (e.g. American help when there is a natural disaster somewhere in the world) I think it is what we should do as a nation.
Those things said, I also feel strongly that America is in many ways the great hope of the world, and that as such we are not helping the world by committing national suicide. We have to stay strong. We can’t help anyone if we are imperiled. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not, unfortunately, a universally accepted premise around the world.
Anyway, I think we’re probably on the same page...
The globalist wing of the GOP are the same that dismiss Cruz as a zealot or Lee as an agitator.
They serve the cause of a world order with the US out front, which is just as dangerous as the liberal mindset of the US leading from behind. In both cases, the best interests of other are placed before ours.
She's nice enough and smart enough, but can best serve the country by remaining at her post at Stanford.