Former Secretary of State John Kerry, who lost the presidential election in 2004 in part because he spoke of submitting U.S. actions to a “global test,” is criticizing President Trump for his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement — and he’s trying to use Trump’s “America first” idea to do so.
“The President who promised ‘America First’ has taken a self-destructive step that puts our nation last,” Kerry wrote on Facebook. “This is an unprecedented forfeiture of American leadership which will cost us influence, cost us jobs, and invite other countries to walk away from solving humanity’s most existential crisis.”
Set aside the silliness about an “existential crisis” for “humanity,” (who thinks climate change is going to wipe out human existence?) Kerry is either being slippery or clumsy when he blends the ideas of American leadership with “America first.”
American leadership in the world is a theme of Kerry’s statement. “America pulling out of Paris will … result in lost leadership. … America doesn’t have to cede leadership even if its President has. America will not abandon the global community …”
This is a theme of the freakout over Trump’s withdrawal. “This will be the day that the United States resigned as the leader of the free world,” CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said. “[A]bdication of America’s global leadership,” tweeted the former ambassador who pushed America to (“from behind”) lead NATO countries into a regime change in Libya that helped empower the Islamic State.
Because “leadership” and being “first” are similar concepts, Kerry sort of blended them to suggest that giving up this role as “global leader” was undermining the idea of putting America first.
The two concepts are very different, though.
“America first,” as Trump uses it, and as the Trump supporters I met throughout the country used it, has little to do with the U.S. setting up its relevant opposition vis a vis other countries — either in a collaborative or competitive way. “America first” doesn’t primarily mean America has to beat other countries, or that America has to call the shots in multinational undertakings.
“America first,” as it’s understood today, has to do with whom the U.S. government will look after. Will our trade policy be about helping developing countries and maximizing global productivity, or will it be about looking after American workers? Will our immigration policy be about welcoming the downcast from other countries, or will it be about the needs of those in this country? And will we wage wars of the Susan Rice type, aimed at helping or ordering other parts of the world, or wars that protect Americans?
In the real world, I think serving American interests necessarily involves cooperation with other countries, military alliances such as NATO, free trade, and many immigrants. But on the prior question, whom does the U.S. government serve, is one where “America first” seems the clear answer. Government leaders, in their official capacity, are trustees of the American people. Their duty is to help the American people.
The voters attracted to Trump’s “America first” talk mean that. They suspect that the elites in the U.S. care more about their fellow global elites than about the bitter clingers in the U.S. The notion of “global leadership” is irrelevant to them.
Those like Kerry (who supported U.S. regime changes in Iraq and Libya), Rice, and Zakaria (a major war hawk, as well), who want Americans to care about global leadership, need to explain why that helps Americans.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s commentary editor, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
