The Dangers of "America First"

Image By: MarketWatch

While much of the world's attention has been grabbed by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, in America, Republican presidential hopefuls displayed conflicting opinions on America’s role in the conflict. At a recent New Hampshire primary event, Nikki Haley advocated for a global American presence, vowing to “decimate” the Iranian economy and to continue to support Ukraine. However, her comments stand in contrast to those of other Republican frontrunners–namely, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis–both of whom have voiced isolationist ideals. Under the leadership of Donald Trump, the Republican party shifted away from traditional Republican foreign policy that supported free trade and strong American alliances. Instead, conservatives have moved towards an isolationist “America First” policy, which views American allies as free riders. But, if the US is to remain a dominant foreign power, it needs to reject the “America first” ideology and recognize it has a role to play on the global stage.

Isolationist ideology is dangerous for both America and its allies. As a superpower, America has a great responsibility to protect its allies. Consider the war in Ukraine: American failure to support Ukraine adequately could allow Russia to claim more of Ukraine’s territory and claim a victory. A Russian victory would send a global message that seizing territory with force is tolerated, emboldening other countries. If Putin succeeds, China may decide that, given America’s weak response, they can gamble on using force in Taiwan. 

An emboldened China would be a foreign policy disaster for America. In an increasingly bipolar world, China claims to be an alternative to American hegemony. They offer capitalism and free trade, without the moral strings of an American partnership. Chinese officials aren’t concerned about a country's authoritarian leadership or jailed political prisoners: they're simply interested in a partnership. What’s more, China is the only country that rivals the USA in terms of economic might. This means they can effectively compete with American industry and technology. We have already seen the potential of Chinese markets in the race for 5G, where many experts consider China to be ahead in the development of the technology. We have already seen the appeal of the Chinese approach through their Belt and Road initiative. Many countries in the global south have shown willingness to trade liberal democracy for Chinese one party capitalism. Countries such as Zambia and Ethiopia have accepted large Chinese investment projects in recent years. 

In response, America has engaged in a battle for global influence with China, sending Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to Africa to advocate for American influence. However, American isolationism would involve conceding this fight just as it’s beginning. Isolationists might argue this is a good thing, after all, what can influence buy? Well, it is nothing less than the currency of International Relations. The competition between superpowers for influence now is a competition for defining the character of tomorrow’s global order.

Maintaining an American hegemonic order is important; America’s superpower status has allowed it to advocate for issues it deems morally right, such as campaigns for human rights and democracy. While the United States doesn’t always champion these causes in a consistent way, its position as a hegemon allows it to champion these issues, and sometimes to put weight behind its words. For example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is involved in many notable efforts, such as a global vaccination campaign and democracy-promotion funds. While American hegemony is not flawless, embracing pure isolationism would involve abandoning this American effort to promote democracy. Isolationism involves turning a blind eye to all of the immoral causes American power can fix.  

Importantly, efforts to promote key values go beyond American-centric institutions like USAID. As a hegemon, America has been responsible for creating and maintaining a relative international peace: the Pax Americana. While isolationists often contend that American military support creates wars, it's actually the opposite. American economic and military might has allowed it to act like a global policeman, broadly deterring significant conflict. Consider the first Gulf War: in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, a USA-led coalition was able to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. American isolationism will create a world where might makes right. Without a stable police keeper, nothing will stop powerful countries from taking what they want from smaller countries.

While I am not advocating for America to engage in every conflict, or deal in the “forever wars,” that have defined American foreign policy for the past two decades, it’s clear that America has a vital role to play on the global stage as a leader in upholding and expanding human rights. No matter your political leanings, engaging in the kind of “America first” isolationism championed by Trump and Ramaswamy would be a political disaster that would erode much of the good that American hegemony has achieved.