Domestic Policy vs. Foreign Policy

In her most recent Washington Post column Katrina vanden Heuvel asks a question: will Biden’s foreign policy sap his domestic policy? I will answer that question with an unequivocal “Yes!”. Not only that but achieving his domestic policy goals will actually undermine achieving his foreign policy goals. She opens with this passage:

In his first 100 days, President Biden has rolled out elements of his “build back better” domestic reform agenda, including the American Rescue Plan, his $2 trillion infrastructure bill and a family plan soon to come. Simultaneously, he has turbocharged his “America is back” foreign policy, exchanging insults with Russia and China, striking at Iranian militia camps in Syria, rejoining the Paris climate agreement and more. Both at home and abroad, his initiatives must overcome strong opposition. The larger question is whether the foreign policy will sap the energy, attention and resources needed to rebuild the United States at home.

The scope of Biden’s domestic ambitions has been a pleasant surprise. The president has called for new industrial policy to address the climate calamity, long overdue investments in infrastructure and housing, fair trade and “buy American” policies, tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations, bolstering economic rights, and beginning to redress racial inequities.

Everything is going swimmingly from her perspective. But with respect to foreign policy? Not so much:

At the same time, Biden has long held that the United States remains the “indispensable nation” across the world. Although his national security aides acknowledge the priority of rebuilding the United States’ strength at home, they also say that the nation must lead. Climate, pandemics and global economic structuring are new priorities. These are in addition to an emerging great power faceoff with China and Russia, an effort to rally democracies against authoritarianism, a continuing war on terrorism, and a renewed commitment to enforce the “rules-based international order,” which translates into the United States continuing to police the world.

She seems to fail to apprehend, as I believe so does the Biden Administration, that our notional allies do not simply follow our lead. America’s role in the world is based on its military might and that in turn is based on its economic might. The diminution of “brown industries” in favor of “green industries” which so many progressives seem to favor will have the opposite effect.

The reality is that, if we are either to “build back better” or maintain anything resembling our position in the world or even maintain our own sovereignty, we need to produce more of what we consume. EVs with most of the components produced in Asia are no solution. Solar power with the solar cells manufactured in Asia aren’t, either. Contrary to what the Department of Energy would lead you to believe, most windmills and the components used to build them are made in China or Germany. The towers and, increasingly, the blades for windmills may be made here but the supply chains run through China and may be disrupted at will by the Chinese authorities who also control their cost of product through their control over the production of rare earths.

I am not one of those who is particularly fearful of Chinese (or Russian) military might. But Chinese economic power is another matter.

Here’s Ms. Vanden Heuvel’s prescription:

Surely, Biden’s team would be well advised to lower its sights. Reduce our commitments abroad, end the forever wars, shutter much of the empire of bases. Make it clear to allies that America’s priority is rebuilding its strength at home. Engage China and Russia in efforts to address climate change and contagion and to curb the accelerating nuclear and cyber arms races. Focus the competition on which country best provides for its people.

Most pleas to cut U. S. military spending are not accompanied by commitments to reduce U. S. military commitments. I’ve suggested reducing U. S. military spending myself but always with a matching commitment to reduce our military deployments. It’s hard for me to imagine the Biden Administration doing that while assuring our European and Asian allies that we’ll bear the burden of their defense for them or while trying to stamp out global terrorism from forward bases.

I’m afraid her formula is one for continued waning not just of American military might but of its economic strength as well.