If I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d be pointing to the fact that, on the very same day last week, two leading megaphones urging the return to a pre-Trump globalist approach to U.S. foreign policy came out with articles from two leading globalists preaching exactly the same message: The poor responses to the CCP Virus by both the United States and China are leaving the world dangerously leader-less.
Because I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’ll focus instead on the fatal flaws in both these essays.
Beforehand, though, let’s note that at least these items are better than the previous cohort of establishment laments about missing world leadership, which tended to blame President Trump’s America First approach to foreign policy (or, more accurately, an approach that contains lots of America First-ism, as I discussed at length here) exclusively. True, the emergence of the virus in China and the real possibility that it leaked out of a Chinese biological research lab, make it more difficult to let Beijing off the hook for the intensified global tumult resulting from the pandemic. But we do live in an age of widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome, so any progress toward sanity is welcome.
All the same, the articles – in Foreign Affairs magazine, and on the Project-Syndicate.org website (which I like to call the establishment’s op-ed page) – sadly demonstrate the absence of any learning curve on the part of globalists at all, and three ignored lessons continue to stand out.
First, where did these folks ever get the idea that either before the CCP Virus’ outbreak, or before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, there was a world out there full of countries and other actors that either wanted to be led, or that was capable of being led, whether at acceptable risk and cost to the United States or not?
I readily concede that from roughly the end of World War II, the United States, Western Europe, and Japan formed a reasonably orderly grouping of countries with reasonably common objectives and declared agreement over U.S. leadership. Even so, major splits emerged on all sorts of key issues even at the height of the Cold War that provided a crucial common enemy (e.g., Germany rearmament in the early 1950s, the Suez crisis of 1956, nuclear deterrence policy – and especially who would bear the greatest risk and cost of nuclear war – at many different points, exchange rates and related economic and financial issues at many different points, recognizing China diplomatically, continuing the Vietnam War, dealing with the rise of Middle East oil power).
Moreover, as noted by many scholars, other observers (including yours truly), and even political leaders, this order and the version of leadership on which it depended was completely unsustainable for the United States in particular. For the refusal of its leading allies, even long after their post-World War II recoveries were complete, to share the military and economic burdens of the order’s maintenance continually sapped America’s capacity to play this role at acceptable cost and risk.
(It’s really important to recall, however, that Washington was no help, here, mainly because U.S. foreign policymakers and other political leaders liked the notion of running the world, however, illusory, as well as counterproductive for their countrymen. And they didn’t trust their main allies, especially former World War II foes Germany and Japan, to handle their own foreign policies responsibly, either on their own or in formal tandem tandem with others. The Germans and Japanese “going nuclear” was a special – and to some extent understandable – concern.)
Since the Cold War ended, evidence of order worthy of the name, and of support for a definition of U.S. leadership acceptable for U.S. interests, is that much more difficult to find. Indeed, I’m old enough to remember that during the current young century alone, the nation and world have experienced the emergence of global terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons to places like North Korea, a global near-financial meltdown and punishing ensuing recession, the virtual collapse of numerous states in the Middle East and North and West Africa and resulting tidal waves of refugees, the reemergence of aggression from China and Russia). So could the globalists please stop waxing nostalgic about the orderliness of the pre-Trump period?
Interestingly, if anything, the idea and popularity of U.S. leadership actually strengthened. But the reason wasn’t good news for Americans. It stemmed from the willingness of the George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations to keep shouldering excessive burdens and tolerating allied free-riding, and indeed to bask in the glow of allied praise for this position, even as the risks and costs to the United States kept rising. Of course, the Bush 43 administration’s launch of the second Iraq War was an exception. But however loud and angry, it was first and foremost exceptional.
The second ignored lesson: Since the Trump presidency began, evidence remains in conspicuously short supply that any significant countries are seeking American leadership on a basis that’s sustainable for the United States. Obviously, China and Russia are outliers. And as for the allies, their prime reaction to Trump criticisms of defense free-riding and trade hypocrisy hasn’t been to acknowledge their clear legitimacy and move to step up accepting more leadership responsibilities. Aside from some modest, and thoroughly inadequate, increases in defense spending, their response has been to whine about Trump being a “unilateralist” and a “nationalist” and a “cowboy” and an ignorant skeptic of the idea that all international economic transactions are by definition win-win. In other words, they’ve had their chance to put their money where their mouths are regarding leadership and order-taking, and they’ve failed this test miserably.
The third ignored lesson: It’s entirely possible, and even likely, that for most of the world – especially U.S. allies – U.S. global leadership (especially of the Bush-Clinton-Obama variety) is indeed their best hope for attaining acceptable levels of security, independence, and prosperity. After all, individually, they’re incapable of achieving these goals on their own. And although their propects look more promising in combination (especially in Europe), the hope of an early Trump departure from the scene and of a return to pre-Trump U.S. policies has clearly dissuaded them from making the effort required for security and economic self-sufficiency. After all, resumed freeloading will be so much easier.
But as explained at length in that National Interest article linked above, in the crucial respects, the United States is not like these other countries. It doesn’t need to be a global leader, or to lead even any group of countries. For it is entirely able to achieve acceptable levels of security, independence, and prosperity on its own. Even better, a genuine America First strategy will greatly reduce and probably eliminate the rising nuclear risks to the U.S. homeland of its current alliance leadership role.
As explained here, however, globalists have been unable (and maybe unwilling) to appreciate the United States’ distinctiveness because of a fundamental misreading of the nation’s geopolitical position (and advantages) dating to the middle of World War II.
Fortunately, and especially for everyday Americans, these dangerously misconceived globalist views have been largely marginalized under President Trump. (At the same time, some avowed and influential America Firsters seem enamored with some version of U.S. global leadership, too.) The unapologetically globalist former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee this year, has based much of his campaign on a return to Obama-style globalism. That’s the clearest political choice Americans have faced since…their last presidential election!
Alan,
Biden’s not going to get the nomination. I think the DNC will bait and switch given his obvious issues with dementia.
No matter what, a Democrat win is a long shot. Hopefully, there are enough reasonable Democrats in the electorate that won’t vote Biden because he’s incapable of doing the job of POTUS. It they hate Trump, they simply won’t vote.
If the DNC puts in a substitute for Biden, this will alienate the Democrat base because many of them will feel their primary vote meant nothing and not vote in the presidential election in protest.
Then you have the Sanders supporters. I think they’re still getting over 2016 and now it happened again with this go around.
I don’t agree with your premise that there isn’t a conspiracy to forward globalism. The wealthy elites have been attempting to establish a world government for generations. Bilderberg, Davos, WHO, UN, WEF, World Bank, the list goes on, are the vehicles they created to facilitate the “New World Order”. The endless anti-Trump attacks by the media, Democrats, etc. are the manifestation of this agenda. The globalists wanted a Hillary win. If she was in office, the “CV19 pandemic” was going to be the vehicle to institute the “New World Order”. Trump got in the way with “MAGA” and his pro-America agenda so the wealthy elites did everything in their power to neuter him. That way he couldn’t foil their “plan” for us. If Trump gets re-elected, the globalists will continue unabated with their lies, propaganda, and attacks against him.
The entire CV19 fiasco is suspect given China did not limit international flights out of Wuhan yet they restricted domestic flights. This doesn’t make sense. Why would Xi do this? I’m sure he was aware that the fallout would be withering if this got out and it has.
Given my previous point, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if this entire “CV19 pandemic” was orchestrated and had been in the works long before Trump got into office. Consider Fauci’s indirect funding of “bat virus research” at the Wuhan virology lab and his involvement with Gates and the related “vaccine agenda”. Unfortunately for the globalists, looks like the “CV19 pandemic” backfired and globalism got kicked to the curb. Let’s hope. If Trump wins another term, he’ll put the wood to the globalists and hopefully we’ll have an extended period of prosperity. If he doesn’t, get ready for the “New World Order” with all of the rights and privileges thereof.
Bruce Wernek (your neighbor on Queensbury)
Bruce – Great to hear from you, thanks for taking the time to comment, and hope all’s well with you. You may be right about Biden. Or not. My sense is that removing him from the ticket would be too disruptive for the Democrats. You may also be right about Trump’s chances. Or not. My suspicion is that he will win, mainly because of his electoral college strength, and partly because I don’t think Biden can hold up physically or mentally for an entire campaign. But I’m also concerned that Trump doesn’t have a big margin for error. Regarding whether there’s a conspiracy to forward globalism, I choose to focus on something that I either know or can hope to know: globalism’s weaknesses. I don’t think I can hope find strong evidence of a conspiracy. Having said that, there’s another possibility: Rather than holding meetings at which specific instructions are given out, globalism is a classic example of groupthink, powerfully reenforced by the close social connections among leading globalists. And precisely because they mainly went to the same schools and have worked in the same kinds of jobs and often live in the same neighborhoods and even more often know each other well personally, no conspiracy is needed. They just naturally work to advance common goals. As for China’s CCP Virus role, my use of that name means that I do hold the Chinese government responsible. My own sense is that it escaped from a lab with sloppy safety procedures. But I am troubled by the Wuhan travel patterns and definitely believe that more needs to be researched on that score. But I see no evidence that a virus plot was in the works long before Trump’s election – if only because none of the globalists though Trump would be elected. So why would they involve themselves in an effort that could only hurt a candidate they clearly adored, Hillary Clinton?