Posted on 06/08/2021 4:24:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Take away this pudding; it has no theme," is a comment attributed to Winston Churchill, when a disappointing dessert was put in front of him.
Writers have used Churchill's remark to describe a foreign policy that lacks coherence or centrality of purpose.
For most of our lifetimes, this has not been true of the United States. The goal of our foreign policy has been understandable and defined.
From 1949-1989, it was Cold War containment of the Soviet Empire and USSR.
Ronald Reagan believed in a "rollback" of communism, once telling an aide that his policy might be summed up as: "We win. They lose."
At the Cold War's end, George H. W. Bush said America would now lead mankind in the creation of "a New World Order."
George W. Bush was going to deny to all "axis of evil" nations -- North Korea, Iran, Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- access to the "world's worst weapons," with our ultimate goal being "ending tyranny in our world."
According to the Biden Democrats of today, America's goal is the preservation of "a rules-based international order," which is less inspiring than "Remember the Alamo!" or "Remember Pearl Harbor!"
What are the causes that actually animate Americans?
A March survey of 2,000 registered voters, done by the Center for American Progress, reveals that most Republicans still share the foreign policy priorities of Donald J. Trump.
Asked to identify their first three foreign policy priorities from a list of a dozen, two-thirds of Republicans, 65%, gave as their principal concern "Reducing illegal immigration." And 57% of Republicans put "Protecting jobs for American workers" right behind it. Independents agreed that these should be the top twin goals of U.S. foreign policy.
What does this tell us?
Economic nationalism is alive and well in the GOP, and securing the border remains a central concern of America's center-right.
In third position, at 31% among Republicans, was "Taking on China's economic and military aggression."
Only 9% of Republicans listed "Fighting global poverty and promoting human rights" as top foreign policy priorities. Last among GOP priorities, at 7%, was "Promoting democratic rights and freedoms abroad."
Indeed, this was the least popular foreign policy option among all voters.
Conclusion:
The priorities of the Bush presidencies and the neocons -- democracy crusades, free trade, the New World Order, open borders -- have failed to recapture the constituencies they lost in the Trump years.
While "Combating global climate change" rests near the bottom of Republican concerns at 10%, it is the No. 1 priority of Democrats, with 44% listing it first.
When it comes to "Ending US involvement in wars in the Middle East," that goal ranks 5th among all voters. Democrats, Republicans, and independents all support that objective.
Since the last CAP survey in 2019, the greatest change is the reduced concern over "terrorist threats" from al-Qaida and ISIS. Fewer than 1 in 4 voters now view this as a top priority.
As Matthew Petti writes in an analysis of the CAP survey, today, Americans "prioritize getting out of Middle East wars over confronting Middle East adversaries."
This survey would thus seem to provide public support for the Trump-Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan, and for Biden's effort to reengage with Iran and renew the 2015 nuclear deal.
Also ranked high among Democrats and independents, but less so among Republicans is "Improving relationships with allies."
What does the survey tell us?
Illegal immigration and economic nationalism energize the GOP rank-and-file; climate change does not. There is no enthusiasm in either party for new democracy crusades. And there seems to be no enthusiasm in either party for a clash with Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China.
Only 14% of Democrats wish to address China's "military and economic aggression," though 31% of Republicans do.
But the overall impression here is one of democratic confusion.
We Americans are all over the lot about what our foreign policy should be and what it should do. One is reminded of insight from Walter Lippmann about U.S. foreign policy confusion before World War II:
"When a people is divided within itself about the conduct of foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or safeguard successfully its peace. Thus, its course in foreign affairs depends, in Hamilton's words, not on reflection and choice, but on accident and force."
Should we energetically promote democracy worldwide, because it is the right and moral thing to do, though the American people clearly do not see this as America's cause?
Should we intervene to help Ukraine retrieve Crimea?
Should we fight to prevent China from consolidating rocks, reefs, and islets of the East and South China Seas?
Is preserving the independence of Taiwan, which we conceded half a century ago is part of China, worth a war with a nuclear-armed China?
What role should U.S. public opinion play in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy?
Unfortunately , these days , Anerica’s cause seems to be to concede defeat of our nation’s political future to the worse, most despicable , gang of morons and charlatans this world has ever seen. Without a fight....
I support economic nationalism.
I support leaning toward autarky where possible.
I support disengaging from Globalist enterprises (UN, WEF, etc.)
There are two facts that leave our foreign policy is in a troubled position right now:
1) The rise of China is an existential threat. Without action they replace us as the world’s leading power.
2) No one has a plan to deal with 1. A few policy ideas to slightly slow China’s rise, but nothing that would reverse it
I hate to say this, but with the rise of Critical Race Theory (along with a lot of other Woke garbage) signals the death of common sense in the US. Short of outright genocide, it makes me think we should not be lecturing the rest of the world on anything.
We have become an immoral people. Sadly, for many, the answer is, "Kill Whitey, and give me free money!"
>>From 1949-1989, it was Cold War containment of the Soviet Empire and USSR.
It surrendered the task of keeping Communists out of our government (especially unelected offices), and academia, and not fully prosecuting terrorist traitors of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Now they are given positions in academia themselves poisoning future generations.
1) Kill the Goose that lays the golden eggs.
2) Give me an unending supply of golden eggs.
>> it makes me think we should not be lecturing the rest of the world on anything.
When other nations were warning us NOT to go down the path of Socialism, it signaled an end to the “us” lecturing the world. Today the extreme Left in America sets foreign policy to advocate for BLM and Homofascism around the world.
Not just with flags but with policy and protests.
Also Voice of America ceased to advocate on behalf of America.
bump
When the generals refused to go after the poppy fields some 15 years back Afghanistan was then a futile endeavor. Give Iran more pallets of cash so they can finish their nuclear project? Hell no - Trump took the right path maintaining sanctions which toned their "Death to America" fervor.
If Pretend-esident's masters had real intelligence they'd have the puppet make SOME moves that don't harm our nation. Unfortunately their agenda seems totally about undoing all the good Trump accomplished, no matter the consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.