In 2024, foreign policy will no longer be a conflict between Republicans and Democrats, but a conflict between Republicans and Republicans and Democrats and Democrats.
Israel is a fault line for President Joe Biden’s party, with the Democratic Party divided between supporters of a Jewish state and those sympathetic to Palestine.
For former President Donald Trump’s party, the internal conflict over Ukraine is so serious that it threatens to cost Mike Johnson the chairmanship.
These crises in the Middle East and on NATO’s borders have triggered the highest tensions within the two-party coalition since the end of the Cold War.
The United States is by far the most powerful country in the world. What obligation do we have to use our power to promote our values?
What exactly are those values?
Anti-colonial leftists believe America is too evil to do good on the world stage.
The anti-interventionist right believes that the world is too dissimilar to us to benefit from our crusades, but rather that it makes us special and strong at home. It only damages what is there.
The more internationalist right, on the other hand, sees our institutions and way of life at greater risk from insufficient engagement with a dangerous world, and which we actively promote. If we don’t, we will turn our backs on our values and interests.
To do that, they say, we need to support our friends and allies around the world, ultimately use military force if necessary, and confront adversaries by any means necessary for now.
Interventionist leftists, on the other hand, are as confident in their governments’ ability to improve the world outside their borders as they are in their domestic governments.
And even if engaging with the world undermines America’s identity, as some on the right fear, that is an advantage, not a disadvantage, as far as these progressives are concerned.
These are basic mindsets.
They are complicated by some harsh realities that cannot be avoided by any ideal policy. One is external threats, and the other is the limits and limitations of America’s unprecedented, but not unlimited, wealth and power. public morale and political will to support long-term projects;
Serious debate is needed on both the left and the right.
But as is typical on the political left, protests often replace serious debate, especially on college campuses.
Judging by social media, one might think that the right can’t even have an adult conversation about foreign policy.
But a recent event I moderated suggests that conservatives can be smart about their differences.
The University of Texas at Austin, sponsored by UT’s Civitas Institute and my employer, the Institute for Interuniversity Studies, published the proposition, “Resolution: America’s defense of Ukraine is essential to preserving the liberal international order.” A discussion session was held regarding the following.
National Review’s Noah Rothman endorsed the proposal, while former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Anton opposed it.
Although Rothman and Anton disagreed by the end of the debate, each made points that probably worked in the other’s favor.
After an audience member asked Rothman how his concerns about further Russian aggression beyond Ukraine differed from the Vietnam-era “domino theory,” Singaporean leader Lee Kuan Yew said He added that he had a reputation for saying that he really won.
Why?
The resolve America showed in this war meant that even if the US government proved unable to save South Vietnam, the broader Indo-Pacific region knew that communism could not easily expand without resistance. I made it known.
This message strengthened the willingness of other countries, including Singapore, to resist communism.
I asked Anton if this lesson also applies to Ukraine.
Even if American support was not enough to defeat Russia, the increasing costs of Putin’s war would deter further plunder by Moscow or anyone else and strengthen other countries’ tendency to resist Russia. I wonder?
Anton was not convinced that this precedent applied to today’s situation.
Nevertheless, by sharing Lee’s opinion, he successfully complicated the discussion.
On the other hand, Rothman said that even if Anton’s claims that nothing else would ensure Ukraine’s victory prove correct, support for Ukraine would not be sufficient to send U.S. troops to fight for Kiev. I admitted that it was not enough.
But Rothman believes that supporting Ukraine is the best way to keep the U.S. out of the European conflict, since Russian success would add to the chaos at NATO’s borders and weaken the alliance structures that keep peace in Europe. I believed.
Although there were no concessions on either side, the debate showed how conservatives with very different views can productively compare the two.
It also showed that university campuses can hold mature discussions, not just protests.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. For more information about Daniel McCarthy, please visit: www.creators.com.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or our partnership, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
