I always appreciate the Twilight Patriot's essays, but here he has excelled himself.
Next to the population implosion, a realistic foreign policy is the main problem facing the US. And both the 'invade the world, invite the world' liberal/neo-con alliance's policies, now widely discredited after Iraq and Afghanistan, and the neo-isolationist "cut 'em loose" wing of the conservative movement, have satisfactory programs.
And here is a proposal that might satisfy the legitimate concerns of both of these tendencies: no 'entangling alliances' where all the benefit is for the other party, but no leaving of a power vaccuum into which the world's Bad Actors would inevitably move.
There must be some objections to this idea, but I can't think of any, except for the possibility that many decades of dependency have so weakened the moral fibre of the countries concerned that they would not undertake the burden of increased defense spending and allied sacrifices. (In other words, a repeat of the Intermarium experience.)
Nevertheless, here is fresh thinking on a critical topic that ought to be widely debated. Is our movement healthy enough to entertain such a debate?
I'm glad you liked this essay. Before I posted it here I tried to get it published by American Conservative (which has published my work before) but they didn't want it - too nuanced, apparently, since they seem to be firmly in the "cut 'em loose" camp. A real pity, since you can't arrive at the truth by just inverting your opponent's value system! You have to do your own thinking.
Hence my conclusion that this isn't a straightforward matter of the US being victimized by freeloaders - America has in many cases encouraged this behavior, or even demanded it (i.e. with Taiwan and nuclear weapons), only to prove, at the final moment, to be an unreliable ally, as is happening with Ukraine right now, when the Biden administration can't decide between (1) bluntly telling the Ukrainians that they need to make peace even if it means accepting territorial losses and (2) trying their darnedest to make Ukraine as strong as Russia (and yes, this means letting Ukraine use American-made missiles to attack bases inside Russia). The upshot is that America's short-term political games make the world more dangerous for everyone, Americans and foreigners alike. Hence my belief that they ought to be replaced with something more serious.
'Foreign policy' is THE issue facing patriots/democrats in the world today, because the consequences of getting it wrong -- catastrophic war and/or the expansion of nasty regimes -- are not reversible, except in a timeframe approaching centuries. Bad economic policy can be changed, although the positive effects of the change will take time. Bad social policy can be changed ( although the negative effects of bad social policy will remain around for generations, they're not 'existential' in the short run).
And yet foreign policy is the least seriously discussed issue among patriots. Perhaps it's because the failure to bring liberal democracy to Iraq, and the absolute disaster in Afghanistan, seem to make such strong arguments for just washing our hands of the world situation and relying on our good friends Atlantic and Pacific to protect us.
You're not the only person thinking about this. Have a look here: https://claireberlinski.substack.com/p/responsible-retreat-part-i (Claire is on the other side of the 'interventionist vs non-interventionist' divide from you and me, but she is a very thoughtful person, and not part of reflexively neo-con clique.)
It would be good to get some discussion going among intelligent people who see the problem.
One interesting fact: before nuclear weapons, some combinaiton of your GNP, population size and geographic locaton correlated roughly with your military capacity. But now, even countries which don't stand out in those regards, can match far larger opponents -- if they have nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea makes everyone nervous. And, as someone said, S. Korea, Germany, Japan, Taiwan .... could all get nuclear weapons over a long weekend.
Of course, there is a downside to nuclear proliferation, but it seems inevitable.
I always appreciate the Twilight Patriot's essays, but here he has excelled himself.
Next to the population implosion, a realistic foreign policy is the main problem facing the US. And both the 'invade the world, invite the world' liberal/neo-con alliance's policies, now widely discredited after Iraq and Afghanistan, and the neo-isolationist "cut 'em loose" wing of the conservative movement, have satisfactory programs.
And here is a proposal that might satisfy the legitimate concerns of both of these tendencies: no 'entangling alliances' where all the benefit is for the other party, but no leaving of a power vaccuum into which the world's Bad Actors would inevitably move.
There must be some objections to this idea, but I can't think of any, except for the possibility that many decades of dependency have so weakened the moral fibre of the countries concerned that they would not undertake the burden of increased defense spending and allied sacrifices. (In other words, a repeat of the Intermarium experience.)
Nevertheless, here is fresh thinking on a critical topic that ought to be widely debated. Is our movement healthy enough to entertain such a debate?
Doug,
I'm glad you liked this essay. Before I posted it here I tried to get it published by American Conservative (which has published my work before) but they didn't want it - too nuanced, apparently, since they seem to be firmly in the "cut 'em loose" camp. A real pity, since you can't arrive at the truth by just inverting your opponent's value system! You have to do your own thinking.
Hence my conclusion that this isn't a straightforward matter of the US being victimized by freeloaders - America has in many cases encouraged this behavior, or even demanded it (i.e. with Taiwan and nuclear weapons), only to prove, at the final moment, to be an unreliable ally, as is happening with Ukraine right now, when the Biden administration can't decide between (1) bluntly telling the Ukrainians that they need to make peace even if it means accepting territorial losses and (2) trying their darnedest to make Ukraine as strong as Russia (and yes, this means letting Ukraine use American-made missiles to attack bases inside Russia). The upshot is that America's short-term political games make the world more dangerous for everyone, Americans and foreigners alike. Hence my belief that they ought to be replaced with something more serious.
'Foreign policy' is THE issue facing patriots/democrats in the world today, because the consequences of getting it wrong -- catastrophic war and/or the expansion of nasty regimes -- are not reversible, except in a timeframe approaching centuries. Bad economic policy can be changed, although the positive effects of the change will take time. Bad social policy can be changed ( although the negative effects of bad social policy will remain around for generations, they're not 'existential' in the short run).
And yet foreign policy is the least seriously discussed issue among patriots. Perhaps it's because the failure to bring liberal democracy to Iraq, and the absolute disaster in Afghanistan, seem to make such strong arguments for just washing our hands of the world situation and relying on our good friends Atlantic and Pacific to protect us.
You're not the only person thinking about this. Have a look here: https://claireberlinski.substack.com/p/responsible-retreat-part-i (Claire is on the other side of the 'interventionist vs non-interventionist' divide from you and me, but she is a very thoughtful person, and not part of reflexively neo-con clique.)
It would be good to get some discussion going among intelligent people who see the problem.
One interesting fact: before nuclear weapons, some combinaiton of your GNP, population size and geographic locaton correlated roughly with your military capacity. But now, even countries which don't stand out in those regards, can match far larger opponents -- if they have nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea makes everyone nervous. And, as someone said, S. Korea, Germany, Japan, Taiwan .... could all get nuclear weapons over a long weekend.
Of course, there is a downside to nuclear proliferation, but it seems inevitable.