In his post at Defense One Stewart M. Patrick makes one good point:
What Trump proposes is essentially a return to what the scholar Walter Russell Mead terms the “Jacksonian†tradition in U.S. foreign policy. This populist strain in U.S. diplomacy, dating from the presidency of Andrew Jackson, depicts the outside world as an alien and dangerous place. Jacksonians tend to advocate an insular foreign policy, while lashing out with a “don’t tread on me†ferocity when challenged from abroad.
This detached, unpredictable and reactive style stands in stark contrast to the dominant strain of internationalism that has marked U.S. foreign policy since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman—and which has long reassured partners and allies.
While I think it’s possible for transnational progressive internationalists to convince Americans that less national sovereignty, more international agreements, and more globalization is in their interests, I think they must take some painful steps to accomplish that. They must arrange international agreements and increased globalization so that they benefit themselves and their patrons less and ordinary Americans more.
I’m also curious. Does Mr. Patrick think that our latest international agreements are the best that could have been accomplished? Or are they just the best that could be accomplished easily and without our notional allies complaining?
I’m thinking of the latest Doha round of international trade negotiations which essentially died on the vine. We were pushing for stronger intellectual property controls which practically definitionally benefits the few rather than the many. Brazil and India were pushing for greater special and differential treatment for developing countries.
(Off-topic, sort of) Dave, I’d be interested to read your take on what Russian-language sources have been printing about the US election and its many potential consequences.
It hasn’t been a topic of burning interest for them. Not as important to the Russians as it is to us, obviously.
Some commentators think it could lead to a thaw in relations between the U. S. and Russia. Most think it won’t make any difference. A lot of what commentary there has been has been focused on the Middle East and generally speaking the Russians don’t seem to think Trump will make much difference in our policy there.
I’ll monitor it and report on it in a few days. There’s a lot more commentary in the more tabloid-y outlets than in the official ones.
They must arrange international agreements and increased globalization so that they benefit themselves and their patrons less and ordinary Americans more.
There’s a greater chance of winged King Kongs flying out of my butt than this happening.
Hey, they’re riding the crest of history, you know. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Other people’s eggs, natch.
I would be surprised if Trump changes much in the ME. he people being suggested for key roles in his admin don’t sound like people who will make big changes. Same for relations with Russia. Could even get worse if he names Bolton to some position.
Steve
Y’know these international confabs would be more interesting if say Alphabet, Facebook, the Rothschilds, Illuminati, etc would at least issue lapel pins to the negotiators.
One another note, a lot of the big work (e.g mail (IPU), telecom (ITU), shipping (IMO), public health (WHO) etc) has been done off stage, more or less by subject matter experts without ruffling feathers.