Michael Gerson had a column in yesterday’s WaPo which was a full-throated defense of the use of American military might to extend and protect American political values. He argued in the column that Obama was more motivated by “realism” than his predecessor, and that Trump is simply taking this approach to a new level.
There is some truth to this. Obama always made his preference for the foreign policy of Bush 41 over Bush 43 very clear. He supported the traditional concepts of the Pax Americana, but he wanted to do it on the cheap, and he put more of an emphasis on the avoidance of stupid stuff than on putting out fires in order to avoid squandering American resources. Whether this was a good idea in the long run will be for historians to judge.
Trump shares some of Obama’s skepticism about large-scale military entanglements, nation-building, and the value of some of our Sunni “allies” in the Middle East. His neo-mercantilist “realism,” on the other hand, is unique to him, and is in no way an extension of Obama’s foreign policy ideas.
I have espoused an approach to foreign policy that is based more on interests than values, but Trumpian “realism” is a bridge too far. Here is what I would say about it:
- Casually dissing your friends in the world is not “realism.”
- Basing your foreign policy on bizarre economic ideas about the trade deficit is not “realism.”
- Simply ignoring your country’s traditional values, instead of doing your best to balance and accommodate them whenever possible, is not “realism.”
- Trashing your country’s values at home and then saying that foreigners should admire them from afar is not “realism;” it’s just stupid.