The Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) brings out the big guns for its second week of the On the Ballot project to undermine Trump’s campaign for president. This week’s edition is mostly devoted to portraying Trump as an isolationist and to depicting isolationism as an out-of-date and inappropriate basis for foreign policy.
Kori Schacke is the most blatantly and explicitly Trump critic with the essay “The Case for Conservative Internationalism,” in which she initially reviews Trump’s status as a felon, accuses him of various “lies” and goes into GOP “disarray,” none of which have anything to do with foreign policy.
She then laments that GOP voters ranked foreign policy fourth among their political concerns behind the economy, inflation, and immigration (and even “others”). How she expects people to be concerned about the rest of the world when their own houses are burning down, she does not explain. Neither does she explain how an issue can be fourth behind three plus “other” concerns, but I suppose that would be considered a quibble.
At this point, one is tempted to just put the essay aside. But then, one would miss her advocacy for trade agreements, increasing military spending, reducing the national debt, and ending chaos at the border, all of which are Trump’s objectives, about which she may be a bit confused.
Charles Kupchan’s essay “The Deep Roots of Trump’s Isolationism” reviews the long history of American isolationism and its basic, longtime appeal for so many Americans. He notes the vestiges of those times and reasons which still have appeal to Trump voters. He then argues that the Democrats should adopt for themselves the parts with the most appeal to defeat Trump.
Condoleezza Rice uses her long essay “The Perils of Isolationism” to review American post-WWII foreign policy, the Agreements that led to much of it, its successes, commitments, outcomes, changes, and winds up describing current threats and possibilities. She seems to believe most of our international involvement was necessary and successful as opposed to isolationism. She describes the current threats, chaos, and conflict in the Middle East. She does not mention how much of the current instability evolved from the destabilizing U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1983, of which she was so much a part as National Security Adviser. This was undoubtedly one of our greatest international foreign policy blunders, yet she ignores it. While she does not mention Trump, she describes populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. That seems a bit over the top, but she obviously hopes the reader will think Trump is riding in a chariot driving them.
Walter Russell Mead’s essay “The Return of Hamiltonian Statecraft” advocates a pragmatic foreign policy, as described originally by Hamilton, which is not over-committed to either internationalism or isolationism, but is based on a “grand strategy that actively promotes U.S. commerce, American patriotism, and enlightened realism in foreign affairs.” He strongly advocates for the planning and implementation of foreign policy by a combination of government and private sector participants, in order to use the skills, experience, and economic strengths of the private sector to augment government action. His presence here is a bit surprising because it is non-partisan, but advocates for an approach to foreign policy which has not been part of American practice since the Eisenhower Administration. Maybe CFR hopes he will be considered anti-Trump by association.
The American private sector includes many experienced international negotiators and operators. The collective experience of this group includes interaction with every culture, religion, and political system on the planet. Their skills and expertise are well demonstrated by the extensive presence and success of American companies operating internationally. Yet, these assets are largely ignored by government – to their detriment. Secretary of State Blinken is obviously a high-ranking amateur negotiator and deal-maker. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is even worse.
I submit that, if the pier in Gaza had been built by a company that builds offshore oil platforms, it would still be there in the next century – not collapse in nine days, as it did as a government project.
This week’s CFR group of writers presents a review of foreign policy with explicit to subtle criticism of Trump – with the exception of Read. No one mentions the Harris foreign policy goals or policy positions. I presume that’s because she has none and certainly no one knows what they are. CFR is anti-Trump and doing what it can to defeat him, but has no knowledge of what the alternative. Kamala Harris certainly has no international experience and even had trouble finding Gaza on a map. CFR is hoping the voters will vote for a mystery – buy a pig in a poke, to use an old expression.