Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had a semi-competitive primary to win his nomination for another term in the upper chamber. He finished with 57% of the vote, but businessman Mark Lynch came second with nearly 30%. The primary was dominated by foreign policy. Graham is known for his interventionist outlook, and Lynch ran on a more isolationist platform.
The result in South Carolina represents a broader trend. A so-called “America First” foreign policy has been on the rise. Weary of international involvement, the policy demands that the United States become more self-focused and largely abandon the world stage. It opposes support for countries such as Ukraine and Israel and involvement in international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO.
Recommended Stories
There is a problem, however. The America First foreign policy actually puts America last. America isolating itself would be just as harmful to it as it would be to the rest of the world.
There are, of course, the practical concerns. America sidelining itself would be a dream come true for its enemies. Russia no longer has to deal with the eagle’s eye being on Eastern Europe. Iran and its proxies can do as they please without Uncle Sam’s chastising. China would no longer have to compete with an engaged superpower. Nicholas Maduro would never have been held accountable for his actions.
“So what?” one might ask.
The answer is that bullies do not stop unless they are stopped. If American-aligned nations are swallowed up, America itself will eventually stand encircled. Not even the strongest soldier can hold off an assault alone (something that our allies also need to realize). Our self-centeredness would inevitably be our downfall. Hence the words of Aristotle: “We make war that we may live in peace.”
There is also a deeper issue, however. Imagine a pillar of your community — a mayor or a pastor, perhaps. Now imagine if this pillar decided one day that they were no longer going to perform their function, but would instead do as they pleased for their benefit. Besides the inevitable deterioration the community would experience, the pillar will have deteriorated, too. Shirking one’s duties is a moral failing.
America has similar duties because it is a pillar of the international community. It is the leader of the free world and guardian of the Pax Americana. It is the arsenal of democracy and the shining city on a hill. It possesses the most powerful military and economy of any free nation. Its power comes with responsibilities, whether they are wanted or not.
This outlook does not demand nation-building in countries with little interest in democracy. It seeks to take an appropriate stand for friends of freedom defending themselves against tyranny. Trying to westernize Afghanistan is a world away from sending aid to Ukraine, or steering strategically relevant Timor-Leste away from China (which we have abandoned).
AMERICAN PRESENCE IN EASTERN EUROPE REMAINS IRREPLACEABLE
There are problems at home we must attend to; this is true. However, to say we must turn away from the world to do so creates a false dichotomy with grave consequences. Not every action abroad is successful, but throwing in the towel on those grounds is effectively surrendering. America cannot become an atomized individual in a global community — for its own sake at least.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of what he called “self-interest properly understood,” which sees that “a man may think about his fellow men for reasons of ambition and may often find it in his own interest to forget himself.” Concern for others often benefits ourselves, and foreign policy is no exception. We must not put aside our duties as the free world’s leader, and all that encourages us to do so must be rejected as a siren song.