In his book, World Order, Henry Kissinger writes that a reconstruction of the international system is the ultimate challenge to statesmanship in our time. We stand today in the midst of that reconstruction, with different poles of power and reconfigured zones of interest. The Pax Americana, established after World War II, is being challenged. Whether the United States has the necessary statesmanship and foresight to remain a global superpower remains very much in doubt.
Within the United States, cultural divisions, endless money printing, and massive deficit spending demonstrate a lack of leadership that has substantially weakened the country. Many of the most vocal politicians are rushing to take up the baton of demagoguery by saying what they think most people want to hear. Yet, as is the case with demagogy, what the people want to hear is often far from the truth and may even have consequences to the detriment of the people themselves.
In this context, there is a false dichotomy presented by many politicians that the U.S. has only two choices: either exporting democracy with boots on the ground and involvement with faraway nations, or isolationism accompanied by retreating to American soil and abandoning the world to its fate. The preeminent status of the United States comes not only with benefits (seen and unseen) but, more importantly, with responsibilities. The United States can focus on its internal problems and be at the height of the challenges the world faces at the same time. In fact, by focusing on its border, finding the necessary social cohesion, fighting against cultural Marxism, lowering taxes, cutting red tape, encouraging production, investment and private sector innovation and employment, and ultimately consolidating its finances, it can find the strength to rise to the international challenges of our time.
America can outpace Chinese and Russian advances, both in quantity and quality, if it returns to an updated version of the fusionist principles and policies that enabled it to win the Cold War, and if it embraces a principled realism of peace through strength. The Afghanistan debacle of two years ago was a clear sign that America is retreating from the world in a chaotic manner, leaving behind not only its allies but its own citizens as well. That fiasco doubtlessly emboldened Russia to attack Ukraine a few months later. A Russian victory in Ukraine would likewise embolden China and its aspirations around Taiwan and South China Sea. The current situation in Israel can be attributed to the unstable world order into which we are heading. As America retreats and the world becomes multipolar, such conflicts will become more, not less, frequent.
Of course, this does not mean that the United States ought to send blank checks to every country on earth. A true conservative—and, frankly, anyone with a bit of common sense—recognizes the need for oversight and accountability. Taxpayers need to know what happens with their money. However, the American citizen must understand that victories for China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea will harm American interests. The American retreat from the global stage after World War I contributed to a more complex and less stable international environment. Today, such an isolationist stance would mean a diminished and worse-off U.S., and a more dominant China.
On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the excesses of American foreign policy have contributed to a distrust for international engagement amongst the American people. It falls upon the leaders of the United States to reconcile the need for American leadership on the world stage with the requests of the American people for prudence, transparency, accountability, and better economic and social policies within the country. That is why the right leadership is necessary.
In recent years, the U.S. has pursued a chaotic foreign policy. In the Balkans, for example, it has sought a so-called ‘stabilocracy,’ sacrificing democracy for the sake of stability and delegating decision-making to unelected bureaucrats who are often tempted by lobbying. In so doing, it has damaged the systems of democracy, while risking stability in the medium- to long-term, in a very delicate region. American diplomats are often accused of breaching the Vienna Convention and interfering with domestic policies, profoundly affecting international relationships and harming the reputation of the U.S.
Every time politics is abandoned in favour of bureaucracy, the consequence is more authoritarianism, greater corruption, a decline in the standards of living, and the increased involvement of actors like Russia and China. The United States needs a clear, cohesive, long-term policy in the Balkans that respects these countries and the will of their citizens, truly helps their democratic aspirations, and strengthens their stability, while preventing the further rise of authoritarianism. Other examples of harmful or disastrous policies can be found in the Middle East, in neglecting the allies in the Persian Gulf, and in abandoning Africa and South America to China.
There were attempts by the Trump administration to improve many aspects of U.S. foreign policy. The Abraham Accords should be commended. President Trump was correct to push for each NATO member to pay their fair share, continuing an earlier Obama-era policy, albeit more aggressively. President Trump’s warnings about European appeasement towards Russia were needed and welcomed, as was his stance towards China. However, Trump was wrong to treat Europe as an enemy—a mistake the next Republican president should not make.
The key to Western success during the Cold War was the alliance and cohesion that existed in the West, especially in the ’80s with the coalition of President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. Europe must do more to reform itself. It must abandon its socialist policies, and reverse course economically. Otherwise, it will end up a geographical irrelevance with a zombified economy. Likewise, the NATO member countries need to pay more for their defence and better coordinate with each other. The European Union must be encouraged to do its part in becoming an equal partner with the United States, and the second pillar of the West, by championing democracy, common sense economic and cultural policies, and a principled, realist foreign policy. European countries should look to their interests and strengthen themselves through supply-side policies, limited governments, free markets, and law and order, all whilst cooperating with their allies, trading with them, and strengthening the West’s bulwark against its enemies.
Governor DeSantis of Florida has articulated this vision, however briefly, during his campaign for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. He recognises the need to turn attention towards China and to pursue a decoupling of sorts with the Asian dragon—a stance that has bipartisan support, and which is already a U.S. policy, begun by President Obama and continued by both of his successors. Nevertheless, Governor DeSantis also acknowledges the Russian threat, for which he says higher European involvement and greater cooperation between the two continents is needed. DeSantis knows that for the U.S. to continue being the world’s superpower, it needs to turn towards fiscal consolidation and supply-side policies while fighting cultural Marxism and the irresponsible left-wing policies that are damaging the U.S. from within. He understands the need for an American presence on the world stage, and appreciates how that works to America’s benefit in a multipolar world with ever-growing risks, whilst also recognising the American public’s calls for prudence, accountability, and better management of taxpayer money.
A Western-based world order cannot be achieved solely by the United States. It requires a coalition of strong countries, each maintaining their individual dignity, values, and even interests, whilst nevertheless cooperating on their common goals. History shows that it can be done. Doing so merely requires leaders with enough foresight and prudence to find the necessary equilibrium and to restrain the dogs of war, without falling prey to the fatal allure of appeasement and retreat.
