@thomaswright08's piece on the future of Republican foreign policy is an excellent read that captures many of the major strains in a necessary and long-deferred debate. 1/x
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
He sees three camps:
- Nationalists, focused on great power competition, mainly w/ China;
- Internationalists, holding to the verities of the post-war system (whether realist/neocon/other); and
- Neo-isolationists, whose concerns vary.
(All vexed terms but bear with me) 2/x
- Nationalists, focused on great power competition, mainly w/ China;
- Internationalists, holding to the verities of the post-war system (whether realist/neocon/other); and
- Neo-isolationists, whose concerns vary.
(All vexed terms but bear with me) 2/x
In my view, each camp has its own challeges, either risking overcorrection or undercorrection. I'll pose a question for each to tease those challenges out. 3/x
The nationalists focused on great power competition (GPC) see everything in terms of China and almost anything else as either a distraction or lesser included case. There's concision and clarity but the world is vast and complex. 4/x
My questions:
- GPC w/ China is costly, potentially all-consuming. How do you delineate what's most important + how will know when you succeed?
- US resources are not all interchangeable and public concerns go beyond China. What else should US foreign policy prioritize?
5/x
- GPC w/ China is costly, potentially all-consuming. How do you delineate what's most important + how will know when you succeed?
- US resources are not all interchangeable and public concerns go beyond China. What else should US foreign policy prioritize?
5/x
The internationalists focus on a wide array of fundamental instruments of power and the post-war view of American purpose. But they vary internally on what's most important. Consider the range of views you might get on that between, say, Robert Zoellick and Eric Edelman.
6/x
6/x
My questions:
- What lessons should be learned from the foreign policy of the Bush 43 years?
- What commitments need to be deprioritized and where are you willing to take risk?
- How should alliances, trade deals, institutions be revised in light of the past 20 years?
7/x
- What lessons should be learned from the foreign policy of the Bush 43 years?
- What commitments need to be deprioritized and where are you willing to take risk?
- How should alliances, trade deals, institutions be revised in light of the past 20 years?
7/x
The "neo-isolationists" (or more neutrally, the restraint camp) on the Right offers a critique of protracted wars, problematic allies, and executive overreach. But "restraint" is a directional term -- it doesn't tell you where we should be going or what's important.
8/x
8/x
My questions:
- What threats *should* the U.S. prioritize overseas and how should it concretely address them, leaving the Mideast aside?
- Free trade or protectionism?
- What values should we embody at home? How do you plan to protect values at home in global world?
9/x
- What threats *should* the U.S. prioritize overseas and how should it concretely address them, leaving the Mideast aside?
- Free trade or protectionism?
- What values should we embody at home? How do you plan to protect values at home in global world?
9/x
It's important to remember that foreign policy is a discipline practiced over time amid change -- and hopefully anchored by a sense of pragmatism, humility, and American purpose. Those values form their own tradition (though typically w/ an internationalist bent). 10/x
Some of the ideas in this struggle are truly irreconciliable but it's been difficult to practice any of them in undiluted form in perpetuity. It also seems clear that all of these camps must address pressing questions within their ranks as much as without. 11/11
(Might as well take advantage of the platform and engage @KoriSchake and @ElbridgeColby on this, realizing that they've thought extensively about the above per @thomaswright08's article.)
