X Close

The folly of America First Trump doesn't realise the power of allies

Swagger won't solve the China problem. Thomas Peter-Pool/Getty Images

Swagger won't solve the China problem. Thomas Peter-Pool/Getty Images


September 23, 2024   7 mins

In his 2017 inauguration speech, Donald Trump made a vow to the American people: “A new vision will govern our land, from this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.” Every decision on trade, taxes and foreign affairs, he continued, will “be made to benefit American workers and American families”. Today, Trump is campaigning on that same premise: if he wins the election in November, he promises to embrace a foreign policy posture described as “America First”.

The trouble is that “America First” might be an appealing sales pitch, but Trump does not have a coherent foreign policy vision. Instead, the former president has consistent (and concerning) foreign policy dispositions: wariness of allies, admiration for authoritarians, and deep-seated protectionist instincts. Moreover, he is untutored in (and incurious about) most foreign policy questions, is often impulsive, and easily swayed by flattery — attributes that matter because, in contrast to the first Trump Administration which was largely staffed by experienced professionals, the second would likely be populated by sycophants and yes-men.

The fact is, America First is disingenuous, tissue-thin rhetoric. No administration in modern US history did not think it was prioritising the American national interest. Certainly, different presidents had distinct visions regarding how those interests might best be advanced, but none of them — none — however profoundly misguided their actions might appear in retrospect, ever pursued a foreign policy course that they did not think would be the best choice for the country.

What is distinct about America First is its tactics and vision. It is short-sighted and transactional, viewing every interaction with other countries, friends and foes alike, as a zero-sum confrontation in which the objective is to extract the largest possible share of the perceived visible gains. This is to be achieved by uninhibited, sharp-elbowed diplomacy, with little regard for historical legacies or long-run implications. In this vision, alliances are viewed with scepticism, representing an albatross of unnecessary obligations, which, like a protection racket or a mercenary force, only makes sense if they turn a monetary profit.

Some advocates of America First will call this Realism. It is not. The realist approach to international relations emphasises the consequences of anarchy: that international relations are commonly characterised by clashes of interest, and in that context actors in world politics may resort to the use of force to get what they want — and there are no guarantees the behaviour of those others will not descend into horrifying barbarism. Thus states must be prepared to defend themselves and look out for their own interests.

This is admittedly a gloomy perspective, but there is nothing in Realism that implies what America First suggests. If anything, the opposite is true: it is a rare realist indeed who imagines that the path to geopolitical paradise is paved by short-sighted, nakedly selfish measures. Indeed the US tried this approach once before, after the First World War, and it was a catastrophic failure. After victory, an America First disposition led the US to pursue obtusely myopic demands for repayment of the debts incurred by its wartime allies, whose exhausted economies lay in ruins. A young John Foster Dulles urged the US to forgive those obligations, not because he placed priority on the interests of others, but because it was in America’s own best interest to do so. As he argued cogently, pursuing the apparent immediate interest — which the US had every right to do — was foolish, unrealistic, and would undermine “the big objective” of global “political and financial stability”.

Similarly, as the economic going got tough, the US also turned to an America First trade strategy, most famously with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. More than 1,000 economists urged President Hoover to veto that tariff bill, again, not because they were looking out for the interests of other countries, but because they thought it would be bad for America. They were right. Imports to America fell dramatically — but America’s exports fell even more, as the legislation engendered retaliation and contributed to the collapse of world trade and the deepening of the global Great Depression.

And, of course, there was the signature foreign policy of America First, isolationism. It is possible that by withdrawing from Europe and acting timidly in Asia, the US naively thought that the world’s problems would somehow not encroach upon its shores. However, as Jacob Heilbrunn details in America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators, many of the prominent proponents of isolationism were also, at best, authoritarian curious, and, at worst, rooting for the wrong team. “America First” now, in both its politics and its economics, is a direct descendant of America First then.

Neither incarnation is well described as Realism. Indeed, after the Second World War, the US learned the lessons of its previous, self-mutilating policy choices and chose instead to embrace a more far-sighted foreign policy vision. In pursuit of what classical realist Arnold Wolfers would describe as “milieu goals”, it sought, often at some cost, to shape the international political environment in ways that would be conducive to the long-run American national interest. With the generosity of the Marshall Plan and the cultivation of alliances , America’s postwar grand strategy, measured, as Raymond Aron would insist, against the only metric that matters — what otherwise might have been — could not have been more successful.

Of course, all things must pass, and America now is not America then. Its foreign policy disposition should, and must, adjust to present realities. It is not just wise, but essential, to take stock of the National Interest and assess how best it might be advanced. A survey of contemporary world politics suggests that America First, take two, will be as disastrous for the US as it was the last time around.

“America First, take two, will be as disastrous for the US as it was the last time around.”

Nowhere is the folly of American First redux more plainly visible than with regard to the Russia-Ukraine war. Reputable scholars can debate the long-run underlying causes of Russia’s invasion; also up for legitimate discussion is how deeply the US ought to be (indirectly) engaged in that conflict, and whether some of its policies might invite unintended and dangerous risks. There is no doubt, however, that the murderous authoritarian Vladimir Putin initiated this war of conquest, and that it is in the strong interest of the West for the lesson of the war to be that “wars of conquest by Russia do not pay”. Yet team Trump is eager to see this conflict end on exactly Russia’s terms, likely due not to reasoned geostrategic analysis, but the former president’s personal pique at Ukraine’s leadership, and his bizarre admiration for ruthless dictators.

More generally, it is hard to imagine US membership in Nato surviving a second Trump term. Once again, the former president’s analysis is curious, imagining the alliance as a dues-paying organisation in which the Europeans are not adequately kicking back to their American protectors. In his mind, the US would save money by pulling out. The first argument is fatuous, the second somewhat far-fetched, as the US is almost certain to increase rather than decrease its defence spending, regardless of its Nato membership.

Here at least the argument against Nato can be expressed in a more sophisticated way: should the US leave the alliance, some smart scholars argue, its European members would (finally) increase their own defence spending. That is a deductively sound argument, although not necessarily an experiment that most realists, whose watchwords are politics and prudence, would want to run. A post-Nato Europe might emerge as a more coherent and capable force, or the withdrawal of American participation might expose and invite political rifts across the continent; in either event it would surely reduce US political influence there. Given that Europe is one of the world’s political and economic epicentres, those are not risks to be embraced casually.

In marked contrast, the one region of the world where the isolationist instincts and alliance wariness of America First make the most sense is the Middle East. US security commitments in the Persian Gulf might have had an underlying logic to them in the Seventies, but they are plainly anachronistic today, given basic changes to world energy markets, the nature of security threats to the region, and limits of American power. In addition, if Israel explicitly renounces any commitment to a two-state solution, or devolves into its own version of a radical theocracy, it becomes increasingly hard to understand how that special relationship would continue to reflect the American national interest.

Here the experiment of withdrawing American power and risking what might follow makes much more sense. Unfortunately, and uncharacteristically in US history, Trump’s foreign policy instincts are more similar to those of a personalist authoritarian than the temporary steward of democratic state. Thus for reasons of family business (Saudi Arabia has a multi-billion-dollar investment in his son-in-law, for example) and domestic politics (for the crucial conservative Christian base of his support, an unconditional US commitment to Israel is an inviolable act of faith, not the cool calculation of strategic interest), even under Trump the US might remain deeply enmeshed in the region, preventing the often-strained logic of America First from prevailing in the one part of the world where it might actually well apply.

Setting aside the prospect that a second-term President Trump — now unrestrained by anything remotely resembling “adults in the room” — might do something impetuous and outlandish (such as bombing Mexico), a proper reckoning of the consequences of America First must look to Asia. Here again the prospects are less than heartening. Trump talks forcefully about confronting China, and on this one issue, there does seem to be a general bipartisan consensus in the US. The barriers to success of an America First approach in this new epicentre of the world’s geopolitical chessboard, however, are formidable. Rhetoric, swagger, and more militarised confrontations are ill-suited to the challenge at hand. As American diplomat George F. Kennan emphasised during the Cold War, the problem — and the prize — are political. The danger is not that China will serially invade its neighbours, in a foolish and self-defeating bid for regional hegemony; the danger is that China might come to dominate the Asia-Pacific politically.

But America First is not very good at politics. A sound China policy will require close political partnerships with key countries throughout the region. And here is where Trump’s hatred of allies (or freeloaders, as he imagines them) might prove most catastrophic. The former president previously made noises about abandoning Korea, and his foreign policy instincts cannot but raise concerns in Japan. Moreover, if the US indeed undermines Nato, actors in Asia might further question whether the US would stay committed to the region. Whereas China is going to stay in the region, indefinitely, for obvious reasons of geography. Thus the risk is that US heavy-handedness with allies, alongside assessments of its reduced reliability more generally, might lead some states to “bandwagon” with China — that is, reach some political accommodation with Beijing that cedes to its preferences on major international issues. Such an outcome would not be in the US national interest, no matter how narrowly defined.

Compounding all of this, enormously, will be the Trump Tariffs, a centrepiece (indeed obsession) of both his domestic and foreign policy vision. There are precious few consistencies across Trump’s political thinking over the decades, but he has always been a passionate protectionist. And, as noted, if Trump is re-elected, it would be shocking if we did not witness what will surely be celebrated as Huge Tariffs. Again, one can responsibly debate the fine grained tactics of trade policy. The protectionism-as-panacea fantasy, however, will swiftly prove to be a nightmare. It will be both very bad for the US economy, and very bad for the world economy — miseries likely to be compounded by retaliatory tariffs imposed by others, which will likely not bring out the best in an administration that prides itself on “toughness”.

Worst of all, perhaps, is that the enormous economic distress caused by Trump Tariffs, among otherwise friendly states in Europe and Asia, will further undermine the broader goals of US foreign policy, and likely spark a growth inhibiting trade war that will contribute to a panoply of geopolitical stressors globally. In sum, America First will likely lead to America Alone, getting less of what it wants, in a more dangerous world, populated by players increasingly disposed to find distance from the madness of its king.


Jonathan Kirshner is Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Boston College. His most recent book is An Unwritten Future: Realism and Uncertainty in World Politics.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

129 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
19 days ago

“Indeed the US tried this approach once before, after the First World War, and it was a catastrophic failure.”
As opposed to what the catastrophic failures of the last three decades resulting from the foreign policy views of clowns like Kirshner? Neoliberal interventionists like the author can go on and on about how changing course might have terrible consequences. Fair enough. However, what they cannot do is excuse away disaster after disaster. There is no “realism” in their world view. If there was then they would not be caught with their pants down so often. I mean look at his whole diatribe on Ukraine. Putin is murderous and horrible… blah blah blah. Not one single actual argument for why the conflict is important to America’s interests. A lot of intellectual heft there! You have to make reasoned arguments once in a while instead of just relying on your “credentials” for everything. Finally the whole Trump as authoritarian dictator thing again… Hey moron look! We heard it all before. In fact he was actually president for four whole years! Cool it with the high school theater kid hyperbolae already.

Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
19 days ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Spot on – awful article. Trump has it right in two areas- He doesn’t want war and he wants to implement “Washingtonian Realism” as Blueprint for the future of US ie keep out of other countries affairs, cut back on the trillion dollar military spend and the 800 military bases and focus on the welfare of US citizens. This is why the Deep state want him dead.

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
19 days ago
Reply to  Jeff Watkins

You must be dreaming, there is zero chance of cuts in military spending with Trump or anyone else in the white house, regardless who is there, the budget will be much higher in 4 years

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago
Reply to  Dave Canuck

Thank heavens for that! The US is likely to need its military in the near future!

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
19 days ago

I don’t recall much of the sky falling between 2017 and 2020. Indeed, geopolitical rivals were relatively well behaved (Putin, Kim), or killed (ISIS), and I can’t imagine the 5th column regulatory state being to do again what it did with COVID. The political left, which can always be counted on to commit acts of violence to further their ambiguous tantrums, I mean, “revolutions” , may want to chill out, let Kamala lose, let the recession show up during Trump’s term, and usher in Newsom (conservative SCOTUS isn’t going anywhere soon).

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
19 days ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

The better way to consider the Trump trade position is to think of a real world negotiator pushing a tough demand to achieve a reasonable result. Which is what he did, successfully, in his first term.

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
19 days ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

Probably because ISIS was mostly wiped out by then and all North Korea does is posture and rave.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
19 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

And he forced China to actually negotiate. And he got large multinationals to return some production to the US. And he incentivized multinationals to repatriate money from abroad. And he created race-bkind policies to help all Americans. And he had serious foreign policy to force Europe to start paying for its own defense. And he made America the largest oil producer and vastly increased energy exports.

Steve Houseman
Steve Houseman
18 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Yes sure changed the focus on China.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve Houseman

And Trump did not invade the US with illegal immigrants.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
19 days ago

Lord knows I tried, but I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t slog my way through the entirety of this essay. Got about two thirds through and had to stop.

More of the same hyperbolic nihilism that we know and love from neoliberal establishment – all the while ignoring the relative peace under Trump and the foreign relations crap show over the last four years.

What annoys me the most is not the superficial critiques, but the reluctance to discuss some real danger of Trump policy. He’s talking about across-the-board 20% tariffs on all trade with the U.S. This is batshit crazy. It would destabilize the global economy and lead to potential hyper inflation.

But this is where we are – more of the same old blather and speculative doomerism.

Brett H
Brett H
19 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I had exactly the same experience. So many “facts” which are just the writer’s thought bubbles.
his bizarre admiration for ruthless dictators.
This because he goes and talks to them; some isolationism.
imagining the alliance as a dues-paying organisation in which the Europeans are not adequately kicking back to their American protectors. In his mind, the US would save money by pulling out. The first argument is fatuous
I fact they have been negligent about paying for their own security.
Unherd, I don’t mind criticism of Trump and his policies but pay someone who cares enough to actually write well and thoughtfully instead of cut and paste from the MSM. There’s too many shallow, long winded articles like this and you’re just wasting my time with them.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
19 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Unherd has gone sadly downhill. There are less articles and those that there are, are less well-written or pure propaganda such as this one. I enjoy contrary opinions, but not lazy writing, facts pulled from necessary context, and suchlike. When the author takes shortcuts, the readers must do the difficult work or research and fact-finding. I find it exhausting after a while. I pay a subscription so others can do the work, but if I have to do the work anyway, I may as well save my funds.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
19 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

My subscription moved from manual to automatic without my changing it. Not nice Unherd… and now I have to post my comment on my phone as the laptop does nothing after ‘I’m not a robot’ check.

martin ordody
martin ordody
19 days ago

Unherd is less and less worth the money. Try the American Spectator!!!

Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
19 days ago
Reply to  martin ordody

Now owned by the same person!

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago

Maybe it thinks you are a robot.

Liam F
Liam F
18 days ago

ah. thanks for that. I thought it was just me

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
19 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Where does UnHerd find these people? Seriously.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
19 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

There are numerous articles you claim not to be able to finish. Perhaps this isn’t the right website for you? An echo chamber that only writes articles that you already agree with may be more up your alley?

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
19 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Lazy articles with cherry-picked information and propagandistic writing are exhausting to read and make the reader dumber, not smarter. I find the current batch of Unherd articles don’t make the grade.

Brett H
Brett H
19 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

That’s not the point JV and I are making. As we said, it’s not the opinions, it’s the lazy writing, Maybe if you’d thought about it before jumping in you’d understand what we meant. We’re not looking for an echo chamber, we’re looking for intelligent, informative writing. This is not it.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
19 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

I suppose it’s merely coincidence that this “lazy writing” only seems to become apparent in articles that are vaguely critical of Trumpy Boy?

Brett H
Brett H
19 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I have commented on the standard of writing in other subjects. But this laziness is very common on political issues, that’s true. But don’t expect us to swallow obvious distortion. If you’re prepared to accept them then fine. But why do you accept statements that are obviously untrue? Even you saying “Trumpy Boy” reveals a bias on your part which makes your comment exactly what you protest at.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
19 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Don’t fall into the trap of assuming that just because I think Trump is an imbecile, one who would struggle to get a job on the bins if his dad wasn’t incredibly wealthy, that I’m automatically an ideological lefty. I’ve no skin in the game and personally think both candidates are incredibly weak, however I simply find it rather pathetic the amount of comments threatening to cancel their subscription every single time an article is slightly critical of their preferred side

Brett H
Brett H
19 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

But your comment was addressed to me and I didn’t say anything about cancelling. I don’t assume you’re anything and I don’t care what you are. However i’m still interested in why you excuse this sort of writing. The writer purports to address Realism and the Trump isolationist policies. But he gets tied up in smearing Trump with things that are clearly inaccurate, just so he can criticise the policies. If he wants to challenge the policies themselves then do it rationally without attacking the man.
his bizarre admiration for ruthless dictators.
What does this have to do with isolationist policies? How does it prove their folly? What it looks like is that the writer doesn’t like Trump and builds his case on that. It’s lazy.
Trump’s hatred of allies
Pure hyperbole. How does it help explain the weakness of an isolationist policy, how does it contribute to the Realism?

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
18 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

The man is a dolt pretending to be a fool.

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
19 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Exactly

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
19 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

The article is brilliant, face it it’s just not what you want to hear. Trump is a babbling fool , totally incoherent. He has no understanding of foreign policy and no vision for the future. There is no hiding from the world, isolationism is a moronic and suicidal policy, so is starting trade wars. Four more years of Trump will lead to lost years at best, total chaos likely.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
19 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Sorry, I find it annoying when we get the same old blather about Trump saying nice things about American enemies – because all the smart people are supposed to talk trash about their enemies. What does that get you? Biden groveling at the hand of Saudi Prince MBS to increase oil production after trash talking him on the campaign trail. And MBS saying eff you. Here’s a thought. Maybe flattery is a negotiating tactic. But guys like the author are too simplistic to see merit in things like that.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
17 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The author specifically mentioned high tariffs as a real risk of another Trump presidency. As to Trump being transactional, often dismissive of allies including in East Asia, this is all obvious isn’t it?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
19 days ago

Yawn. More TDS filtered rhetoric posing as *deep thought*.

michael harris
michael harris
19 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Barely even TDS. Word salad, an overlarge bowl of it. I started to regurgitate after the ‘experienced professionals’ bit.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
19 days ago

There is a lot of windiness in this essay but one wouldn’t need any further than “which was largely staffed by experienced professionals” to realize the writer doesn’t know what he is talking about. Trump didn’t expect to be elected and was astonished when he was. There was no organization in place, no recruitment of specialists or experts in their field. The deep state had thousands of jobs to be filled and he didn’t have a clue how to do it. The result was he was sabotaged by the permanent bureaucracy that preferred the regulars of the UniParty and business as usual. He is better prepared this time with a deep bench of people who can begin the attempt to control the unelected people who decide things under the present relationship. The left has tried twice to kill him and who’s to say there won’t be a third and successful attempt.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
19 days ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Totally agree. “Experienced professionals” are for preparing and delivering analysis and advice. Decisions are for those who are up to bearing the terrible responsibilities of leadership. Left to themselves, as under a Harris/Walz administration, the experienced professionals will sleepwalk us into oblivion.
Unfortunately, I too think Trump will be lucky to survive the year.

David Butler
David Butler
19 days ago

B****cks.
God knows, Trump has many faults, but his foreign policy was the most coherent of a long line of incoherent foreign policy disasters.

AC Harper
AC Harper
19 days ago
Reply to  David Butler

And in all probability the second Obama puppet would be worse.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
17 days ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Trump has an awful foreign policy. Harris has no foreign policy, indeed no policies at all.
God help us.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
19 days ago

“America First” means this: “Charity begins at home.” You’ll find many authoritarian nations where concern and money is lavished abroad, while citizens starve on its streets. America must not and should not be one of these nations.

J Bryant
J Bryant
19 days ago

This comment is somewhat off-point, but it’s what occurred to me while reading this article: I wonder if Unherd will survive as an independent publication?
For me, Unherd is beginning to lose its edge. Back in pandemic days Unherd published numerous articles that were sharp, original, and unherd, or unheard. They truly challenged the status quo, and the prevailing group think, with interviews and articles by leading experts who were often shunned by other outlets.
Increasingly, Unherd now publishes articles like the current one which, as other commenters have noted, could have been lifted straight from the msm. I don’t object to articles presenting a range of opinions, such as the issue of Trump’s suitability for the presidency. But many of the articles, such as the current one, that seem to be published for “balance” away from a purely conservative point of view, are tissue-thin and laden with tropes. They say nothing the msm isn’t saying every day.
I begin to suspect Unherd is losing its way; it no longer has a clear vision of its place in the media landscape. At the back of my mind is the recent acquisition of The Spectator by Sir Paul Marshall who also owns Unherd. Indeed, Freddie Sayers will now be publisher of both Unherd and The Spectator. I think I read there are plans to move The Spectator’s offices next door to Unherd.
Is it unreasonable to suspect that one day The Spectator and Unherd might merge, with Unherd being junior partner to the more established Spectator? Both Sir Paul and Freddie have said the two publications will remain separate, but that decision could be revisited. As Unherd loses its focus (in my opinion), it becomes harder for me to differentiate its content from the more sedate Spectator, and the case for their eventual merger might grow.
I would certainly be interested to read the opinions of other long-time Unherd subscribers about where this publication might be headed, and whether it still has a distinct personality and perspective.

Brett H
Brett H
19 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

It’s just one of the herd now. The comments section is more informative than many of the articles.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
19 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

No surprise here. Where but the comment section would you expect to find the non-herd perspective?

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
19 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Interesting thoughts. My mind goes back to when Unherd came under scrutiny from a media quango a few months back (can’t recall the precise name of it). Sayers et al may have been left feeling overexposed and once the Labour government was elected that exposure may have taken on an even more sinister aspect, such that it can’t even be publicised. The move to join forces with the Spectator may well have been to provide a layer of ‘insulation’ against outside interference, but also caused a rethink of editorial policy.

For me, there’s still enough really searching articles to remain on board. (Today’s article on why girls become tomboys is an example.) Samuel Ross has commented about there being “fewer articles” but i don’t think that’s the case. In fact, i’d prefer there to be three instead of the usual four (on weekdays) to maintain quality. Once certain esoteric topics have been aired, it can be difficult to keep things fresh. The shorter articles are often more interesting, and more succinct. As others have pointed out, some main articles become unreadable due to perhaps trying to fulfil a certain number of words.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
19 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Paul Marshall is emerging as a mini Elon hate figure amongst the chattering classes but he was a Liberal Democrat for much of his life. He fell out with them over Brexit and has identified immigration as a problem. He’s only right wing in the tribal definitions employed by the left.

I agree this article is poor, though I learned some things I didn’t know about the history of US isolationism. Generally I’ve noticed a tendency to more credentialed writers. I used to enjoy people like Tom Chivers and Paul Embery, whose work seemed less polished but often more interesting for that.

I think Unherd gave a platform to Kathleen Stock when others wouldn’t and that is something to be grateful for. Mary Harrington was also ‘launched’ on here. I find Poppy Sowerby’s articles amusing. It’s unlikely I’d ever read anything by Terry Eagleton anywhere else. Occasionally it is good to be reminded of the vacuity at the heart of left wing intellectualism.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
18 days ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Mary Harrington’s recent work has suffered from being asked to bend her shoulder to the wheel too often. Her early stuff was better thought out and more cleanly written. Nowadays, it is little different than clotted academic prose. Give her more time, UnHerd. If she is doing piece work, pay her a regular salary. She is a Thoroughbred not a plow horse.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
19 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Regrettably the Speccie lost its way years ago, as did Andrew Neil who really should now retire.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
19 days ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

Didn’t he stand down (or announce he would) after the acquisition?

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
19 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

Yes, from the Speccie but not otherwise.

Now he’s another clown promoting the “Storm Shadows should be allowed to be used by Ukraine” line…presumably he thinks Putin is bluffing…but he’s gambling with other people’s lives, as they all are…

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

I think most people think Putin is bluffing. Anyway, Ukraine is having a lot of success in mounting attacks well within Russia even without Storm Shadows.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
18 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Fine…then they should go and put themselves at risk he’s not bluffing…not others…and it seems Storm Shadow isn’t needed which is even better…

Martin M
Martin M
17 days ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

Although those Ukrainian jet drones are good, the Storm Shadows would be better.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
19 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Ah, this explains a lot. I started noticing a weird shift in quality over the last year. When I first subscribed, Douglas Murray was a frequent contributor, but he has been missing for quite some time.

Now that free speech and “mean” social media posts can get one jail time in Britain, I guess it’s no wonder that nearly everything coming out of that unhappy land sounds the same as the government-approved messaging.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
19 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

UnHerd and Freddie kept me going during my forced“isolation” during COVID. I loved the interviews with scientists, especially from Sweden, who weren’t part of the Herd of the MSM and stood against all the unscientific scaremongering of governments. As an instinctive Libertarian, I thought I found my niche and became one of the first subscribers. I hoped that Freddie and his team would now continue and tackle the so-called 97% proven Science of Man Made Climate Change, which is in my opinion as flawed as the “COVID Science” of four years ago. Also NetZero isn’t the saviour, but one the biggest threats to the future well-being and wealth of the planet .
As far as the political essays are concerned, I enjoy the comment section often more than the actual essays. But I will stick to my subscription and hope that UnHerd will find its voice again as it did during COVID.

Steve Houseman
Steve Houseman
18 days ago

Totally agree with all you said.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
18 days ago

I was thinking that there are plenty of Science puzzles that the Establishment thinks are ‘settled’, but it does need some knowledge of Science to sort the Wheat from the Chaff.

And then I read your post! 🙂

I’ve been concerned about the politicisation of
Climate ever since a BBC weather forecast tacked on some climate information at the end of a weather forecast, in 2001. Was it information, or a warning, or even a threat? I’ve concluded it was part of the plan.

The Earth’s magnetic field is weakening, so any solar event has a greater effect than it used to. It will affect human health and animals as well as the climate. Then we have endless String Theory, with little advances after 40 years of study and a lot of taxpayers money and the yearning for an internationally funded $100 billion particle collider; the NHS is still pushing low fat diets for all, with synthetic plant based diets appearing to be given a pass, and there is the obvious inability for Westminster or Whitehall to accept anyone with the ability to use a plan, in the manner it should be used, in any infrastructure project.

The Legacy Media can’t summarise any of these topics in a few sound bites, so they don’t.

What about hearing Andrew Bridgen’s take on the ‘medical intervention’ that is still ongoing, if not in the news?

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
18 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Maybe the Liberal Left are unable to write ‘articles that are sharp, original, and unherd, or unheard’.

Santiago Saefjord
Santiago Saefjord
14 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Dare I say it, there should be randomly selected unherd commenters editorial where we loonies get to have a better say… But it’s not a comment section! I think it would promote people to write and to think better as well as generate new writers and ideas for these tough times.

But that might expose the logic of paid for media consumption just a little too much, even for unherd.

Obadiah B Long
Obadiah B Long
13 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

No, you’re very much on-point.

Andrew F
Andrew F
13 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

I agree with you re Unherd loosing it in terms of quality and as challenge to MSM.
I subscribed during covid after it was recommended by someone on Spectator forum.
I am actively looking for alternatives to Unherd while staying with Spectator for now.
I am worried by Gove becoming editor. His views on covid don’t inspire confidence in his judgment.

Kerry Davie
Kerry Davie
19 days ago

Does this guy get paid for this drivel?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
19 days ago

Kirshner’s essay here leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, at the level of basic theory, he’s right – it’s not in America’s interests to have no allies, or for other countries to view the US as a fickle, unreliable partner that’s only interested in transactions. And it’s true that a Russian victory in Ukraine would be bad for US interests (in that it would signal to signal to the rest of the world both that alliances with the Americans are of little value, and that predatory wars are an effective way for a country to expand its influence).
And yet, at the end of the day, I still want to see America move toward having a smaller role in other countries’ defense, in both Europe and Asia. The fact is that over-reliance on the faraway Americans has led a lot of countries to neglect their own defense and neglect to form useful alliances with their immediate neighbors – and at the end of the day that makes the world more dangerous, since whether the United States will actually come to the aid of countries like Ukraine or Taiwan, or even if it’s capable of doing so effectively, is uncertain, and enemies are likely to test that uncertainty or even (as in the case of Russia and Ukraine) call our bluff. Hence my belief that what the United States needs is a careful drawdown of foreign commitments, while keeping arms sales, joint military drills, and the like going for long enough that the countries that are really willing to prioritize their militaries have opportunity to do so. I’ve written all about this in one of my own substack posts:
https://twilightpatriot.substack.com/p/the-poland-paradox
And the thing is, Trump is moving American policy in that direction. Even if he is doing it in a blustering and egotistical and chaotic way, the fact is that countries like Poland and Japan and Taiwan have higher defense budgets now than they did before Trump came along, and meanwhile the disastrous situation in Ukraine happened under Biden’s watch, not Trump’s.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
19 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The biggest issue will be the violent swings from one side to the other. Foreign policy (however you want to conduct it) is best applied consistently, letting friends and foe alike know what will be the results of their actions. You can tweak it as you go but to veer from free trade champion to massive protectionism, or a key player worldwide to a hermit kingdom means eventually you’ll be seen as untrustworthy, with allies and trading partners looking elsewhere.
With Americas eye watering levels of debt it really needs to try harder than most to maintain its place at the top of the pile. Lose or alienate too many friends and see China and co increase their influence and the results could be catastrophic financially for the States

j watson
j watson
19 days ago

A painful article for much of the Unherd ‘base’. Infantilism comes face to face with reality and a few home truths. Numerous fingers in ears I suspect and a few rants about Unherd not being what it was etc.
But Articles like this, injected into a Right Wing Populist echo chamber invaluable. The smart will ponder.

Brett H
Brett H
19 days ago
Reply to  j watson

What are the home truths you refer to?

j watson
j watson
19 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Importance of Allies, and what happens economically if US retreats into itself – just two amongst a number.

Brett H
Brett H
19 days ago
Reply to  j watson

The allies of the US today are the Quad, Canada and the UK. There doesn’t seem to be any attack on them from Trump. They are long standing, reliable allies. Retreating needs definitions in regard to the economy. No one has defined what exactly is meant by retreat. So what do you believe will happen economically? No thought bubbles please.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
19 days ago
Reply to  j watson

Funny. Allies are useless if they just feed off you. Where does that come into your reckoning?

j watson
j watson
18 days ago
Reply to  Bret Larson

£900b in annual trade between US and Europe.
As the Article outlines, the US has a vested economic interest in it’s form of capitalism and freedom around the Globe. You have much too narrow a perspective on what is ‘useful’.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
18 days ago
Reply to  j watson

It’s form of capitalism? I thought trade was good for both parties? Or do you think the us should pay for trading partners? Your idea of an ally sounds a lot like somebody you can use.

Peter B
Peter B
19 days ago
Reply to  j watson

Let’s put aside what Trump says (often for effect and to get a reaction) and look at what he actually did in 2017-2021.
There must be some factual tests we could apply to help us decide if Trump weakened US alliances. Let’s have a go then …
Were there fewer/more/the same US allies in 2021 compared to 2017 ?
Did EU countries increase/decrease/not change their defence spending between 2017 and today ?
Did the US close any overseas bases or withdraw troops stationed abroad during 2017-2021 ? (I genuinely don’t know here and haven’t checked – but he certainly didn’t do the farcical withdrawal from Afghanistan).
Feel free to add your own objective tests and answers.

j watson
j watson
18 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

The Article wasn’t so much about Trump was it? More broadly my reading was it was about what will anchor much US foreign policy regardless of election rhetoric. The sense one gets from Republicans is they’ve moved, Trump and Johnson too, much more back towards this view.
I think Trump’s push for more reciprocity not without some validity. If he’s surrounded by adults I suspect some of the doom-mongering on foreign policy won’t come to pass, much as last time. If he’s not…

B Emery
B Emery
19 days ago
Reply to  j watson

Apart from the fact you could argue that American foreign and trade policy on both sides of the fence is neither right wing, nor populist.

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
19 days ago

Mostly a good article, but I’m not sure why the author feels the need to defend the utterly failed stance of ‘Foreign Policy Realism’. Pointing out all the times that blatantly selfish policies have blown up in America’s face and claiming ‘that wasn’t really Realism’ is like a leftist intellectual claiming the Soviet Union wasn’t really Communist.

Saul D
Saul D
19 days ago

I would have expected something starting with more of historical perspective of how American foreign policy has shifted over the years from isolationism, to allied force (WWII), to anti-communism (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba), to backyard policeman (Nicaragua, Grenada, Haiti), to the war on terror (Afghanistan) that spilled into oil interests (Iran, Iraq, Syria), to ‘flipping’ countries to get a pro-liberal agenda.
Along the way America has been used as a Milchkuh, particularly by European countries, both for European under-funding of NATO, and where international competition for sales runs into EU protectionism via non-tariff barriers (ie regulations). And as a funding spigot for civil society groups and NGOs for international projects – from environmentalism to open borders to gender rights – and as a major arms funder and distributor to ‘support’ allied groups. All of which ‘just happens’ without very much public, or even political oversight, under inter-agency consensus.
For years, the traditional left have been questioning what that money is used for? And whether it is well-spent, without conflicts of interest and corruption? Someone has to ask does money deliver value for the US, or should it stop funding forever wars?

B Emery
B Emery
19 days ago

‘. The protectionism-as-panacea fantasy, however, will swiftly prove to be a nightmare.’

‘Worst of all, perhaps, is that the enormous economic distress caused by Trump Tariffs, among otherwise friendly states in Europe and Asia, will further undermine the broader goals of US foreign policy, and likely spark a growth inhibiting trade war that will contribute to a panoply of geopolitical stressors globally.’

FREE TRADE. LIFT SANCTIONS GLOBALLY.

American isolationism with regards to trade will cause serious inflation and carnage in global supply chains. What happened to American Capitalism? Where are the free traders?

‘ Trump talks forcefully about confronting China, and on this one issue, there does seem to be a general bipartisan consensus in the US’

This would be a very bad idea. This would cause very serious disruption to trade too. More inflation. It would take years to recover from. I hope the UK isn’t stupid enough to get involved. I hope our idiots in government are preparing businesses in the uk properly for this.

FREE TRADE. NO CHINA WAR.

Peter B
Peter B
19 days ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s worth remembering that the recent huge US tariffs on Chinese EVs weren’t made by Trump.
Nor did Trump create the “Inflation Reduction Act” and the “CHIPS Act”, both of which are to explicitly subsidise US manufacturing and will invitably reduce free trade and increase prices and inflation.
We need to look at what these people – Biden, Harris, Trump et al – are actually doing far more than listening to their words (which are often literal nonsense).
For me the main shortcoming of the article is that it takes Trump’s utterances quite literally. We know from 2017-2021 that actual practice can be very different.

B Emery
B Emery
19 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

I understand, bidens inflation reduction act seems the same to me as trumps America first policy, reheated and rebranded by the Democrats.
American trade and foreign policy seems to be very similar for either side to be fair.
War with China might be inevitable. I hope not though.
The article is very one sided, you could attack the Democrats with exactly the same comments I think.
I agree that it takes him to literally and is really quite unfair in places by lapsing into character assassination.
At least trump has made an effort on peace with Russia and his team seem to understand business and the economy better, the Democrats have not been responsible with American economy at all and have the same isolationist policies – they are perfectly capable of causing more carnage than the Republicans.

Lennon Ó Náraigh
Lennon Ó Náraigh
19 days ago

I think the USA would be mad to stop overpaying into NATO. The alternative is a more militarized Germany. Whatever the USA is paying into NATO, it’s worth it to stop Germany becoming a major military power again.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
19 days ago

Where is Europe’s responsibility in this?

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
19 days ago

Haha… Germans are peaceniks now. They mostly put their worst politicians in the department of defence (like the “war monger” UvL)

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago

If that is the case, I hope they have all learned to speak Russian.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
19 days ago

I like Germany so much I’d like two of them.

Same goes for Europe.

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago
Reply to  Bret Larson

East and West?

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
18 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Sure, east west north south. The more they are fighting over borders the better.

Steve Houseman
Steve Houseman
18 days ago

Germany couldn’t fight it’s way out of a wet paper bag now. Net zero, de-growth and broke. You needn’t worry about them firing up their heavy industries, they have none. The are suffering and it will only get worse. Nation?

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
19 days ago

Yet another nonsense article by a progressive liberal from Academia who lives in an ivory tower. So lets look at the actual facts. During the last Trump administration, the US embarked on no more forever wars. The Abraham accords paved the way for peace in the middle east had the Biden administration not jettisoned this approach simply because it was initiated by Trump. Seems to me that America First did a lot better than the self-destructive and counterproductive policies being pursued by Biden, Harris and Blinken.

Andrew Vanbarner
Andrew Vanbarner
19 days ago

The invasion of the Ukraine wouldn’t have happened if Biden’s incompetents at the State Department were clear eyed and decisive in regards to the Nordstream pipelines. Trump warned our European allies of this, to eye rolling from incredulous Germans, but as it turns out, he was entirely correct.
At any rate, should we be expected to risk Armageddon, for Sevastopol or the Donbas? American weapons and Canadian troops are already in the Ukraine. We are heavily involved as it is, and need muscular diplomacy to force both combatants to the negotiating table – a task Biden’s State Department has also failed at, miserably.
Biden’s foreign service is heavily compromised by Iranian intelligence, as well. Iran is no friend to the west, less so than even thuggish Russia. Rapprochement with Iran is not the key to middle east peace, but is rather an invitation to war. Obama and Biden’s cuddling up to Ayatollahs is naive, dangerous, and treasonous.
Insofar as trade is concerned, we let China hollow out our industrial base, and will struggle to keep producing shells and bullets for Ukraine. Our industrial workers have been idle for decades, as millions more low skilled laborers (at best) stream over our borders. We’ve outsourced and traded away enough. Our international trade policies must be fair, as well as free, and we are under no obligation to provide jobs for China or any other nation.
We do of course benefit by exporting our own goods and services. To the extent that foreign markets are benefitting us, we should allow imports at reasonable rates of tariff. For loyal, responsible allies there should be few or none.
To the extent that we’re being disadvantaged, we should protect our employers, workers, and consumers from economic wars, as well as armed conflict. That’s America First.

Chipoko
Chipoko
18 days ago

Didn’t Biden’s son, and perhaps Biden himself, have significant (and possibly dubious) investments in Ukraine?
Also, one of Biden’s first actions in assuming office was to unfreeze Iran’s billions of dollars of assets in the USA, reversing Trump’s earlier policy in this regard.

Jonathan Story
Jonathan Story
19 days ago

I can’t agree with this analysis. Diplomacy in a democratic polity has to be country first. Who else would represent the interests of millions of voters. Also, in office, Trump did not seem to be hostile to allies: his first speech in Europe was in NATO, a country heart and soul member of NATO, unlike Germany. He made clear his terms of withdrawal from Afghanistan: if one hair on the head of one GI is touched by Taliban action, all hell will break use. It worked. As did having the seventh fleet park outside North Korean waters. Under his administration, Saudi Arabia and Israel moved into de facto alliance against Iran, now bent on Israel’s annihilation. Putin had no way of knowing what Trump would do, so stayed quiet on the Ukraine. Johbs we’re created at home for American voters. Black and Latin votes drifted towards the Republican cause, because Democrat looniness put them off.
The above piece is best thought of as pro-Harris, but does not say what Harris’ is offering, because she really is ignorant about the world.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
19 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan Story

He doesn’t say what Harris is offering for the same reason none of her water carriers do: what they know about is frightening at best and what they don’t know is potentially worse.

David Sharples
David Sharples
19 days ago

America First.. simply means Immediate family/state/nation First.
Cry all you want.. Europe can fund its own military and the Ukraine conflict if it wants to.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
18 days ago
Reply to  David Sharples

Methinks the Minsk Agreements have been lost in the past. And Merkel confessing they were to give the West time to rearm shows just how despicable, incompetent and dysfunctional the West’s politicians have been. And how patient they have been in Moscow.

Bob Ewald
Bob Ewald
19 days ago

Quite a disappointing article.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
19 days ago

“Jonathan Kirshner is Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Boston College” …Enough said…Mic drop

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
19 days ago

I originally had a longer response but really, it amounted to this: Bullsh*t article.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
13 days ago

Less words are better in this case – this author is lazy. Enough said …..

Tom D.
Tom D.
19 days ago

The Clinton administration prioritized American GDP / big biz and foreign workers over the American worker. The Obama and Biden administrations did the same, as well as prioritizing the Democratic Party and the Biden Family’s grift above all else.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
19 days ago

The trouble is that “America First” might be an appealing sales pitch, but Trump does not have a coherent foreign policy vision.
Let’s see: under Trump’s incoherence, the country did not enter any new wars. The embassy in Israel was finally relocated to Jerusalem after years and years of bipartisan dallying. The Abraham Accords were struck, which may seem meaningless in today’s light but were important then. The US took out an Iranian general responsible for killing Americans. ISIS stopped being a concern. But, sure; incoherent and disingenuous. Says yet another American college professor who is disconnected from real people.
Also, can you please stop with the incessant images of fire hydrants, bicycles, and all the rest. One should be more than enough, though one would think the ‘are you human?’ box would suffice.

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Amen to the last paragraph. The rest, not so much.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
18 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Thanks for the light relief in your last paragraph 🙂

I needed it.

Chipoko
Chipoko
19 days ago

Another ‘bash Trump’ monologue full of left-wing, quasi-academic verbiage!
Come on, Unherd! Surely you can do better than this? Can’t you find someone who can write a balanced, objective piece about Donald?
Just consider some of the ‘good’ things about Trump’s time in office, in contrast to what has occurred under the Biden régime:
A stable and improving USA economyIncreasing employmentTelling North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to put his rocket toys back in his pramFreezing Ian’s financial assets in the USA (which Biden released on attaining office)Putting China in its place and calling Covid-19 the ‘China Virus’ (rightly, so history now confirms)Proposing a wall between Mexico and USE – just like the EU funded, 900km wall erected between Turkey and Syria in 1017, abiout which none of the media foamed at the mouth at the time)Facilitation of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Arab worldZero war in Ukraine or Gaza or LebanonChallenged woke ideology Moved the USA embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in accordance with the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, which none of his predecessors had the balls to do.Challenged the globalist mentality (accelerated by Obama) to transfer vast amounts of capital to China and elsewhere, thereby hastening the disintegration of the ‘rest belt’ industrial base (‘America First’, not China!)
At least Trump has courage, as he demonstrated when nearly killed in July. You want that in a leader in the world of disintegrating values, destroyed western cultural heritage and anti-White racism officially endorsed by progressive entities eagerly awaiting Kamala’s ascension to the White House.

Alexander van de Staan
Alexander van de Staan
19 days ago

Sadly, the word ‘ally’ has become a synonym for parasites, freeloaders, sponges, and hitchhikers—at least when it comes to funding the security of the Western world. All Trump is doing is reminding our dear allies that it’s time to finally ‘pay their fair share’—to borrow a favorite phrase from our progressive ‘elites.’

Will D. Mann
Will D. Mann
19 days ago

I’m not sure why US voters apparently believe Trump’s economic policies would be good for them personally and the economy generally. Given that one of the most commonly cited complaints about the Biden years is the cost of living and inflation (despite the US peaking at a lower rate and declining more quickly than most other countries) why are Trump voters sanguine about the proposed tariffs on imports, in effect a sales tax paid by consumers which would bump up prices for everyone at a stroke, never mind the possible longer term consequences

alan bennett
alan bennett
19 days ago
Reply to  Will D. Mann

They believe because they were better off last time.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
19 days ago

The us wouldn’t be a very good ally if they didn’t stay strong.

Y Chromosome
Y Chromosome
19 days ago

So Trump “might bomb Mexico”. Alrighty then.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
17 days ago
Reply to  Y Chromosome

Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of bad things about Trump, but this was a new one.

Ralph Faris
Ralph Faris
19 days ago

Indeed Matt. What a short memory Kirshner has, or such memory as an ideologically driven author possesses.
“The trouble is that “America First” might be an appealing sales pitch, but Trump does not have a coherent foreign policy vision. Instead, the former president has consistent (and concerning) foreign policy dispositions: wariness of allies, admiration for authoritarians, and deep-seated protectionist instincts. Moreover, he is untutored in (and incurious about) most foreign policy questions, is often impulsive, and easily swayed by flattery . . .”
As his ideological blindness prevents him from acknowledging any successes of Trump’s foreign policy, the author ignores the peace deals that he was about to sign with several surrounding middle eastern countries. Those deals would have put enormous pressure on Iran to pull back from supporting it surrogates, especially since it was clear from the beginning that Trump’s approach to dealing with Iran or any of its death cult surrogates would not have included giving them billions of dollars to expand their terrorism against Israel, and by extension the West. Nor does the author pay any attention to the quieting of North Korea, or the fact that the European countries were in fact living off of our defense budget, and hardly paying their fair share of their own defense or Nato’s. Putin was not thinking of invading Ukraine for the same reason Hamas and Hezbollah thought twice about killing 1200 Israelis, raping and butchering human beings there. Only when the “sophisticated” Biden administration arrived did the world become engulfed in flames. So as much as Trump’s foreign policy was initially amateurish, and not comprehensive, to say the least, he projected an administration that was not going to do business as usual which in past administrations had led to one disaster after another—none of which Kirshner cites as proof of the ‘establishment’s strategic bankruptcy. 
The realist approach of the Trump administration, although not fully developed strongly suggested to those who would harm us that there would be serious consequences for doing so. Killing the Iranian general responsible for developing terrorism across the Middle East, Qassem Soleimani on 3 January 2020 outside of Baghdad International Airport, sent the right kind of message to Iran. It was only after the nonrealist, Biden, took office that Iran advanced its plans to attack Israel, providing the money needed to arm terrorist surrogates with more dangerous weaponry, and permitting them to dig in by building tunnels in Gaza. By not acknowledging the successes of the Trump administration—no wars during his entire four years in spite of multiple charges against him of Russian conspiracies, and multiple politically inspired impeachments, not to mention an entire press core eagerly supporting any and all criticisms of his approach to fighting for the U.S., the author comes off as just another member of the old guard, misrepresenting the “realist” views of previous administrations, and as just another far left propagandist.    
When those views appear here on UnHerd, they should be rightly designated as merely repeating the drumbeat of the propagandists in both the national media and in the Democratic Party. Kirshner should be embarrassed by writing such indefensible trash assessments of a foreign policy approach that is a lot more sophisticated than whatever it is he prefers.  UnHerd can do better than publish this imprudent and unknowing rebuke of realism. 

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
13 days ago
Reply to  Ralph Faris

Well said, Ralph.

M To the Tea
M To the Tea
19 days ago

The issue revolves around foreign policy versus domestic policy.
The U.S. made a poorly defined decision when it moved much of its manufacturing overseas, believing it would be beneficial never thinking long strategic planning – what was the end game? However, it ended up benefiting only a few rich billionaires, rather than the majority. Meanwhile, the countries that gained those manufacturing jobs saw significant development, some even building nations more beautiful and advanced than the U.S., all while producing weapons as capable as America’s and funnily making manufacturing to a new world that even US could not do it today if they all come back! because the US is under-educated for engineering!
At the end of the day, Trump is a builder and commercial real estate developer. His primary strength lies in beautifying buildings and spaces, and let’s be honest, parts of the U.S. now resemble third-world countries. In fact, some third-world countries are more beautiful than the U.S. today. Trump’s focus is on rebuilding America, which could create a boom in construction jobs and products in the short term, potentially more rapidly than bringing back manufacturing jobs…
This is a good thing. The last thing any leader needs is an angry population with nothing to lose, especially when they can’t afford something as basic as another expensive iPhone which is made in China.
Whether you love or hate Trump, he may make domestic policy sexy again.

alan bennett
alan bennett
19 days ago

Some advocates of America First will call this Realism. It is not. The realist approach to international relations emphasises the consequences of anarchy:

Oh, how have the grown-ups done in the world these last few years?

This is utter bilge, there has always been an America First, they were just less open about it.

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
19 days ago

I admit two things: my impression that UnHerd has become rather shrill recently; and that I am utterly confused by and about the heated arguments in both this article and the comments. After reading it I tried to find independent reviews of the author’s work without much success, so I could judge whether he really is a ‘neo-con’ or whatever rather than a humble professor. Politics are not science. Science generally builds on what has gone before as more evidence is gathered. Where it fails to do so, usually this can be put down to individuals who loudly reject innovative hypotheses, continental drift an example. I’m sure economists would agree that economics are not science, even through their propositions more or less move in one direction. But politics seem to me a completely random walk with little or no memory or ability to learn from history. Maybe that is because interests are so deeply entrenched and it is difficult to reliably match policies with their consequences, except in obvious cases like the Versailles Treaty. I’ll keep trying to get some sense out of all this mud-slinging, but in the end only time will tell who is right, by which time it will of course be too late.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
19 days ago

Articles like this convince me that our august foreign policy establishment should never again be allowed within a country mile of the corridors of power.
Here’s an idea. Now and Germany and France are rich and famous, let them form an alliance to push back against Russia. After winning the glorious victory they might he tempted to return to the good old days when Eruope was the domain of the Franks. And why not?
As for the US? I suggest we erect the bleachers and watch as Elon Musk Occupies Mars.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
18 days ago

MPs have studied History, so they can use the nation’s resources to act out their own fantasies, like wanting to be the second Churchill.

The evidence keeps coming 🙂

G M
G M
18 days ago

More anti-Trump propaganda.

It’s getting boring.

G M
G M
18 days ago

I expect the USA president to put the USA and Americans first.

I expect the UK PM to put the UK first.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
18 days ago
Reply to  G M

What about the UK Foreign Secretary, or the UK Secretary for Energy Security and NET Zero?

Only joking! 🙂

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
18 days ago

By the way, in the same post that links to this, there is a link to a piece recalling the movie Threads about a nuclear war that escalates from a confrontation in the Middle East. It’s available on the Web. I’m watching it now. A bit dated, to be sure, but may be worth a visit.

Christopher Matt
Christopher Matt
18 days ago

I subscribed to this website based on the mission statement of being above the fray. when an author proposes that a second term President Trump may “bomb Mexico” I feel that I was duped by more left wing drivel posing as intelligentsia.

Brett H
Brett H
18 days ago

I seen a few comments lately about cancelling their subscription. I feel the same way you do about this writing. I’d suggest to others instead of cancelling, which I’m tempted with, they just ignore certain writers as not worth the trouble. Unfortunately that reduces the reading content available. Nor is this content any worse than a lot of other sites.
Unherd’s mission statement is, of course, rubbish. It’s all about the bottom line. Which is fine, that’s the world we live in. Consequently we get writers trying to make a living by churning out topical dross. The political writing is the worst of all the articles here. Parts of it are enlightening but most is just padded with nonsense to give it some substance. I’d prefer less content (though I wouldn’t be happy with that) and more real in-depth writing. I don’t think we’re getting much for our money as it is. If there was a hard copy of the magazine I’d imagine it would be pretty slim. But the way things are I don’t expect things to get any better, in fact I expect worse.

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago

I suspect that the “bomb Mexico” comment is not intended literally. Rather, it expresses the view that Trump will do any number of extremely stupid things during his second term (should he be elected). It would be difficult to argue that this wouldn’t be the case.

Brett H
Brett H
18 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Trump will do any number of extremely stupid things during his second term 
Like those he did in his first term?

Martin M
Martin M
18 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Yes, exactly.

Brett H
Brett H
18 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

What were they?

Samuel Gee
Samuel Gee
18 days ago

As a non-American and a citizen of one of America’s allies – I think the premise of the article is naive. Most of us realise that our relationship with the USA is transactional. Not that it was my country… but, for example, that not going along with the USA on something will end with your chips being boycotted or renamed and worse. The USA is all business but with a smiley face. “Have a nice day!” is a form of sarcasm here in the UK. It rests on obviously fake bonhomie of American customer service. So we know already that Americans put America first and we don’t really mind. It would be odd if otherwise. The French put the interests of France first. I would too if I were French. But I am British so I put the interests of Britain first. Now Lord Palmerston’s turn of phrase was not that of Donald Trump. But he said the same thing as the Donald..
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And most of us agree and if you can get over the way the Donald speaks and really think about it then he’s on the same page as Palmerston. And we don’t mind. At least he is honest about it.

Peter Spurrier
Peter Spurrier
13 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Gee

We used to believe that America stood for more than that. Defending democracy for example. If they don’t care about us, why should we care about them? ( I’m also non-American. ) Wouldn’t it be better if we looked out for each other? Otherwise, it might not go so well for either of us.

Peter Walton
Peter Walton
17 days ago

Too long have the bankers run the country into the ground, printing money and offshoring jobs. A return to the old values is sorely needed in a world where the President no longer knows what a woman is…

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
14 days ago

This is a superficial, amateurish article, packed with presumptions. How does the author know so precisely what Trump will do in his second term? How can he pretend to know this? We could, if this writer has his way, just skip the next four years altogether and give him the satisfaction of saying I told you so, which seems to be the only reason he’s written this grade-school level essay. This is not serious or even remotely interesting political commentary. It’s not even filler.

Peter Spurrier
Peter Spurrier
13 days ago

I basically agree with this article. It helps America to have allies. And it helps the world if America wants to have allies.
Without those things, America may find that one day some other country has become more powerful than it. And that is likely to be bad news for all of us.