Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order — John J. Mearsheimer

Abstract

The liberal international order, erected after the Cold War, was crumbling by 2019. It was flawed from the start and thus destined to fail. The spread of liberal democracy around the globe—essential for building that order—faced strong resistance because of nationalism, which emphasizes self-determination. Some targeted states also resisted U.S. efforts to promote liberal democracy for security-related reasons. Additionally, problems arose because a liberal order calls for states to delegate substantial decisionmaking authority to international institutions and to allow refugees and immigrants to move easily across borders. Modern nation-states privilege sovereignty and national identity, however, which guarantees trouble when institutions become powerful and borders porous. Furthermore, the hyperglobalization that is integral to the liberal order creates economic problems among the lower and middle classes within the liberal democracies, fueling a backlash against that order. Finally, the liberal order accelerated China's rise, which helped transform the system from unipolar to multipolar. A liberal international order is possible only in unipolarity. The new multipolar world will feature three realist orders: a thin international order that facilitates cooperation, and two bounded orders—one dominated by China, the other by the United States—poised for waging security competition between them.

John J. Mearsheimer is a foreign policy realist.

MIT Press
Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order
John J. Mearsheimer | R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago

See also

The Geopolitics
The Best of Both Worlds: Chinese Foreign Policy Through the Lens of Realism and Liberalism 

Shubham Swaroop

Maj. Tulsi Gabbard receives surprise deployment orders to Antarctica [satire] — Yossarian

Pretty funny, and very apt. Tulsi is the only foreign policy realist that is running against endless, so far at least.

Duffel Blog
Maj. Tulsi Gabbard receives surprise deployment orders to Antarctica [satire]

Yossarian

Kevin Gosztola — Tulsi Gabbard’s Presidential Campaign to Challenge US Military-Industrial Complex

Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end there.…

“We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you actually stand for?” she said on “The Jimmy Dore Show.” “What is your vision for this country? That’s the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or win more seats in the Senate.

“Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you’ll have lobbyists who have more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for the people,” she concluded....

So far, Tulsi is the only anti-war candidate on the Democratic bench. The rest are either war hawks like HRC, or non-committal.

Her platform is similar to the "populist" platform that Donald Trump ran on successfully against the establishments of both parties — foreign policy realism and "drain the swamp." This is the policy that most Americans on both sides of the political divide seem to favor. Her candidacy will influence the national debate and draw the opposition of the Establishment, which profits from endless war and controls the narrative through fear-mongering.

The Anti-Media
Tulsi Gabbard’s Presidential Campaign to Challenge US Military-Industrial Complex

Kevin Gosztola

Martin Sieff — Woodrow Wilson Goes to Europe: One Hundred Years of Delusional American Madness

We are now in the dubious position of “celebrating” – if that is the word – the 100th anniversary of US President Woodrow Wilson’s departure on December 4, 1918 on the liner SS George Washington for the Versailles Peace Conference where he was confident he would dictate his brilliant solutions that would end war in the world for all time.

Historians and psychiatrists – including Dr. Sigmund Freud himself who co-authored a book on Wilson – have endlessly debated whether Wilson was sane and just deluded or raving mad. Freud clearly inclined to the latter view. And he had ample evidence to support him. What is most alarming is that, as Henry Kissinger – significantly not born an American at all – points out, all US presidents either share Wilson’s ridiculous messianic fantasies or feel they must pretend to....

Wilson is the father of liberal internationalism in international relations, and it's progeny, liberal interventionism and US global hegemony because American exceptionalism. I am not sure that delusion madness is the only factor, although it is a chief factor. The other chief factor is tying this madness to neo-imperialism and neocolonialism as concomitants of capitalism American-style.

Liberal internationalism is also called liberal idealism in foreign policy, and both liberal internationalism and liberal idealism are called Wilsonianism.

Wilsonianism is opposed by foreign policy realism, which sometimes equated with Realpolitik, although foreign policy realism is a broader category than Realpolitik. Realism focuses on national interest as the criterion in foreign policy and international relations. It is conservative in the political tradition of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli. Its chief proponent recently is Henry Kissinger. Of course, in speaking of "national interest" the question arises over exactly whose interests, since nationals are not homogenous.

Martin Sieff offers an appraisal of the insanity of some US Wilsonian presidents.

Strategic Culture Foundation
Woodrow Wilson Goes to Europe: One Hundred Years of Delusional American Madness

Martin Sieff, senior fellow of the American University in Moscow, former chief foreign correspondent of The Washington Times, and former managing editor, international affairs, for United Press International

John J. Mearsheimer — The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

Great powers are rarely in a position to pursue a full­-scale liberal foreign policy. As long as two or more of them exist on the planet, they have little choice but to pay close attention to their position in the global balance of power and act according to the dictates of realism. Great powers of all persuasions care deeply about their survival, and there is always the danger in a bipolar or multipolar system that they will be attacked by another great power. In these circumstances, liberal great powers regularly dress up their hard­-nosed behavior with liberal rhe­toric. They talk like liberals and act like realists. Should they adopt liberal policies that are at odds with realist logic, they invariably come to regret it. But occasionally a liberal democracy encounters such a favorable balance of power that it is able to embrace liberal hegemony. That situation is most likely to arise in a unipolar world, where the single great power does not have to worry about being attacked by another great power since there is none. Then the liberal sole pole will almost always abandon realism and adopt a liberal foreign policy. Liberal states have a crusader mentality hard­-wired into them that is hard to restrain.…

The key to understanding liberalism’s limits is to recognize its relation­ship with nationalism and realism. This book is ultimately all about these three isms and how they interact to affect international politics....

John Mearsheimer is an influential voice in international relations and a foreign policy realist. He is worth paying attention to.

In this excerpt from his book, he fails to recognize that what the West calls "terrorism" is viewed by the so-called terrorists and those that support then in terms of national liberation from Western dominance and endless war to impose Western standards on traditional cultures.

Mearsheimer also fails to mention that Western liberalism is neoliberalism joined with neo-imperialism and neocolonialism, so that so-called liberal internationalism and liberal interventionism are in service of imperial interests.

Of course, if he did mention that, no one would pay any attention to him, other than to demonize him. As it is, foreign policy realism has been marginalized in the US, and Professor Mearsheimer is out of the loop.

The National Interest
The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities
John J. Mearsheimer | R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago

See also

President Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, was confirmed by the Senate 50 to 48. Kavanaugh is the fourth ‘minority justice,’ meaning that the senators who voted to confirm him got fewer votes in their last election than did the senators who opposed him. The other three such justices were Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s other choice, Samuel Alito, selected by George W. Bush, and Clarence Thomas, selected by George H. W. Bush. Of course, George W. Bush and Trump are minority presidents having received fewer votes than their Democratic opponents, but assuming the presidency thanks to the Electoral College.

In the cases of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh the senators who opposed him got almost 20 million more votes than his supporters. Such an anti-democratic outcome is the result of two factors. First, each American state gets two senators whether their population is California’s 39 million or Wyoming’s 580,000. The smaller states are mainly rural and vote Republican while the most populous states are mainly urban and, except for Texas, vote Democratic. Second, those four minority justices were highly contentious choices and aroused massive opposition that ensured they would be confirmed with narrow majorities composed of almost only Republicans....

Valdai Club (Russia)
What Does Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation to the Supreme Court Mean?Richard Lachmann | Professor of Sociology Department, University at Albany, New York

Also
LobeLog
Trump’s Unprincipled “Principled Realism” Benefits Trump, Not the World

Daniel Brumberg | Non-resident Senior Fellow at Arab Center Washington DC

Christopher R. Hill — Reclaiming American Internationalism

US President Donald Trump has managed to attract support for his "America First" isolationism not by dint of his own arguments, but because the US foreign-policy establishment abandoned its own values. After decades of thoughtless military interventionism, it is little wonder that Americans would seek an alternative.…

A grownup speaks on semi-official channel. The voices of the grownups have been suppressed in the corporate media and only found expression in alternative media.

One can be for liberal internationalism but against liberal interventionism as both against international law unless mandated by the UNSC, and also as not only unproductive but also damaging, without being "unpatriotic" by opposing US foreign and military policy.

Liberal interventionism, neoconservatism, and war hawkishness have all but destroyed American soft power through reliance on hard power.

What US leaders don't seem to understand is that they are killing the goose that lays the golden egg out of lust for power and greed for global hegemony.

Actually, if America created "empire" by pursuit of liberalism through soft power, it would be win-win for all, since it would facilitate commerce and raise the level of global prosperity while also increasing the level of collective consciousness.

Empires have advantages but those advantages are lost when they get in their own way by decreasing the common good instead of increasing it through greater efficiency and lower transaction costs, while spreading positive values culturally through exchange.

Instead, the US has adopted a policy of "My way or the highway," and "If you are not with us, you are against us." The result is the winding down of the unipolar world order operative since WWII and the rise of a multipolarism that is tending toward a resumption of great power politics.

Dumb and short-sighted. It will end badly.

Project Syndicate
Reclaiming American Internationalism

Christopher R. Hill |  formerly US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009; nos Chief Advisor to the Chancellor for Global Engagement, Professor of the Practice in Diplomacy at the University of Denver, and the author of Outpost.

Also at PS

Mark Leonard makes some good points but puts the US blame on President Trump when the issues began with JFK's invasion of Cuba and Vietnam, LBJ's escalation of the war, Richard Nixon' s expansion of the war to all of Indochina, Jimmy Carter's unwise embrace of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his grand chess board policy, Ronald Reagan's jingoistic foreign adventures, G. W. H. Bush's invasion of Kuwait, Bill Clinton's invasion of Yugoslavia and advance of NATO, G. W. Bush invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Barack Obama's invasion of Libya and Syria. Donald Trump's appointment of John Bolton and Nikki Haley are continuation's of that failed approach. So Leonard's recommendation to return to it is nonsense.

Present at the DestructionMark Leonard | Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations

Henry Kissinger and Donald Trump

Fort Russ

TRUMPS SECRET PLAN? Turn Russia into ‘battering ram’ against China
Paul Antonopoulos

See also

Counterpunch
Trump, Putin & Helsinki: Henry Kissinger Still Calls the Shots
Rajai R. Masri is a former lecturer of Finance at McGill University and Boston University.

Related

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Let Mikey do it? Maybe not.
Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.)

At the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lang was the Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service. He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all the U.S. military attachés worldwide reported to him. During that period, he also briefed President George H. W. Bush at the White House, as he had during Operation Desert Storm.

He was also the head of intelligence analysis for the Middle East for seven or eight years at that institution. He was the head of all the Middle East and South Asia analysis in DIA for counter-terrorism for seven years. For his service in the DIA, Lang received the Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. — Wikipedia

See also

Jacksonian populism. Should read.

Truthdig
American History for Truthdiggers: Andrew Jackson’s White-Male World and the Start of Modern Politics

Danny Sjursen | Major, U.S. Army, formerly assistant professor of history at West Point

Moon of Alabama — Trump Offloads Foreign Policy Problems - Lets EU Grow A Spine

The question is becoming, "Who lost Europe?"

Moon of Alabama
Trump Offloads Foreign Policy Problems - Lets EU Grow A Spine

b

related

Une parole franche
Rex Tillerson in "The New York Times": Pride and PrejudiceGilbert Doctorow | European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd.

Richard Sakwa — Putin and Trump Establish Bilateral Channel to Move Forward

Richard Sakwa is one of the few Russian experts, along with Stephen F. Cohen, not affected by Russophobia. Russophobes denigrate these experts being Russophiles. The actual conflict is not so much between Russophobes and Russophiles, although it is present, but between foreign policy idealists — liberal interventionists and neoconservatives — and foreign policy realists like Sakwa and Cohen. The difference is between equating American leadership and American exceptionalism with US global hegemony and viewing international relations through the prism of pragmatism and promoting US national interests in a multipolar world.

A diplomatic triumph for Russia was viewed as a defeat for Washington – so much for the liberal international order’s vaunted win-win dynamic. For the knavish alliance of liberal internationalists and neo-conservative globalists, this would represent a fundamental challenge to US primacy and its universal ‘leadership’, and could never be allowed. It is clear that Trump has decided otherwise, and quite sensibly Russia and the US are begin to cooperate in Syria to put an end to the suffering of that tragic nation.…

All post-Cold War American leaders from George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have asserted a triumphal reading of American victory in the Cold War, accompanied by the assertion of American leadership in a unipolar world order. This of course has encountered the resistance of Russia, and increasingly also from Beijing (although China’s relationship to the end of the Cold War is rather different and is seen through a different prism). The liberal internationalists and neoconservatives since the 1990s have allied to assert America’s position as the ‘indispensable’ nation, an ideology of exceptionalism to which all other great powers have taken exception, especially since it means that by definition they became the subjects of various soft containment strategies to ensure that they do not challenge American supremacy....

I assess the Trump-Putin meeting even more positively than Sakwa. The two men came to an understanding, which is the most important outcome. The reports emphasize "good chemistry," but coming to an understanding is more significant. Trump and Putin acknowledged political difficulties in their way on both side, including a lot of distrust and a history of adversarial relationship extending back at least to the Bolshevik commandeering of the Russian Revolution. But they agreed to work together to surmount those difficulties as best they could in view of the opposition they face. As a result, they can say what the need to for domestic politics without endangering their personal relationship and communications. This channel at the highest level of government is a very big deal, and it is a win-win, which is why it enrages the zero-sum cohort.

Valdai Discussion Club
Putin and Trump Establish Bilateral Channel to Move Forward

Richard Sakwa | Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent

See also

US foreign policy realism without the Russophobia or Russophilia. It's pro-American but cautions against doing stupid stuff that undermines genuine US national interests in the foolhardy pursuit of nationalistic or globalist unrealistic aspirations.

The Hill— Opinion
Time for the U.S. to modernize its approach to Russia

James Durso | Opinion Contributor

Moon of Alabama — Trump Dumps Pretension Of Altruism From U.S. Foreign Policy

For decades the U.S. foreign policy elite and its presidents played the farce of an altruistic United States that acts for the global good and in the interest of humanity.
That was always a lie. Wherever one takes a deeper look the U.S. acted solely in its (perceived) self interests. But the rhetoric helped to drag others along. Tributary governments could pretend they worked for the "universal good" when they in fact just followed orders from Washington DC. U.S. pressure was applied behind the curtain - through bribes, threats of revealing private secrets or, if necessary, via well managed "democratic" coups.

Those times are over. Thanks to the honesty of the Trump administration the foremost positions of hard U.S interests and deadly threats are now openly declared fundamentals of U.S. foreign policy.

The neo-conservative chaperone in the White House, National Security Advisor General McMaster, and the Goldman Sachs veto holder in the White House, economic advisor Gary Cohn, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that reveals the new true face of the U.S. empire:

The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a “global community” but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.

Translation: "Power is with the strong. We feel strong. Screw you!"

At every stop in our journey, we delivered a clear message to our friends and partners: Where our interests align, we are open to working together to solve problems and explore opportunities. We let adversaries know that we will not only take their measure, deter conflict through strength, and defend our interests and values, but also look for areas of common interest that allow us to work together. In short, those societies that share our interests will find no friend more steadfast than the United States. Those that choose to challenge our interests will encounter the firmest resolve.

From now on the U.S. will only engage in selective, temporary friendships. "Where our interests align", and only there, will the U.S. be friendly because it obviously serves U.S. interests. Wherever a country deviates from that, even partially, it will "encounter the firmest resolve." That is as clear a threat as it can be.

I would not call this a threat. Not only it is finally telling the truth instead of larding it with BS. But it is also straight up Realpolitik that could have been penned by Otto von Bismarck, or Henry Kissinger. Oh, wait. Isn't Kissinger a key Trump advisor?

The McMaster/Cohn op-ed ends with this:

America First signals the restoration of American leadership and our government’s traditional role overseas—to use the diplomatic, economic and military resources of the U.S. to enhance American security, promote American prosperity, and extend American influence around the world.

Cue: USA! USA! USA!

Moon of Alabama
Trump Dumps Pretension Of Altruism From U.S. Foreign Policy

b

Andrew Batson — What is the real driver of the Russian revanche?

Important. Another paradox of liberalism. Liberalism creates its own enemies.

Andrew Batson's Blog
What is the real driver of the Russian revanche?
Andrew

Akhilesh Pillalamarri — The Bitter Fruits of Wilsonianism

Theodore Roosevelt's nationalist realism opposed to Woodrow Wilson's internationalist idealism. Historical backgrounder.

The American Conservative
The Bitter Fruits of Wilsonianism

Akhilesh Pillalamarri, editorial assistant at The American Conservative

Robert David English — Russia, Trump, and a New Détente

This was originally published at Foreign Affairs, an organ of the Council on Foreign Relations. Foreign Affairs is behind a paywall, so the venue here is US-Russia.org.

Foreign Affairs has generally taken the idealistic approach to foreign policy and suppressed the realistic. The publication of this article is counter to trend. Observers wonder if it signals a reversal, or at least a modification.

US-RUSSIA.ORG
Russia, Trump, and a New Détente

Robert David English | Associate Professor of International Relations, Slavic Languages & Literature, and Environmental Studies at the University of Southern California

Originally published at Foreign Affairs

Gordon M. Hahn — REPORT: Towards a Realist American Russia Policy (Revised Final Edition, Parts 1 and 2)

American foreign policy, especially its Russia policy, is a runaway train without rails, driven by a troubling confluence of hubristic ideological influences and bureaucratized sectoral interests networked through Washington. These two kinds of influence too often are neither disinterested, nor in the American interest, and deprive U.S. foreign policy of a strategic imperative. The former influence consists of American democratic messianism and revolutionism that push for regime change on a far too broad basis, weakening our foreign policy’s realist component while simultaneously discrediting its idealist component. Bureaucractic influences is made up of out-of-control bureaucratic, military, military-industrial, think tank, and ideological interests that manipulate or sincerely foster American messianism and revolutionism. The combination of uncontrolled messianism and sectoral interests and imperatives have resulted in an ‘imperial overstretch’ that far outstrips America’s declining capacity and power in the world. This growing gap between American ambitions and capacity is compounded by China’s rise, Russia’s resurgence, and the Sino-Russian strategic partnership. This paper focuses on problems in U.S.-Russian relations and their possible solutions....

Russian and Eurasian Politics
REPORT: Towards a Realist American Russia Policy (Revised Final Edition, Parts 1 and 2)
Gordon M. Hahn, analyst and Advisory Board member at Geostrategic Forecasting Corporation, member of the Executive Advisory Board at the American Institute of Geostrategy, a contributing expert for Russia Direct, a senior researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies, Akribis Group, and; and an analyst and consultant for Russia – Other Points of View

Pepe Escobar — Trump Will Try to Smash the Russia-China-Iran Triangle. Here Is Why He Will Fail

The strategy of Henry Kissinger, Trump’s unofficial foreign policy guru, is a mix of “balance of power” and “divide and rule”. It will consist of seducing Russia away from its strategic partner China; keeping China constantly on a sort of red alert; and targeting Islamic State while continuing to harass Iran.

All this has the potential to backfire splendidly.

South China Morning Post

Trump Will Try to Smash the Russia-China-Iran Triangle. Here Is Why He Will Fail
Pepe Escobar

Mike Whitney — The Trump Speech That No One Heard

Contrasting visions of US foreign policy. Will Trump's foreign policy realism and a focus on US national interests prevail in the coming years, or will it be more of the same foreign policy idealism based on liberal interventionism and attempted global Americanization — because American exceptionalism? The battle is joined, with the US deep state on the attack even before the inauguration.

Counterpunch
The Trump Speech That No One Heard

Mike Whitney

See also

It is an extraordinary situation. The ruling class seems by and large quite shocked by the election result. Donald Trump is surely a representative of the class—in that he’s a billionaire for god sake—but, for the majority of the richest and most powerful, not their preferred choice as chief executive of the USA. This is apparent by Trump’s treatment at the hands of the corporate media (that he continues to insult), by the foreign policy establishment, by the intelligence agencies (which he sometimes disparages), by Congressional leaders of both parties who generally regret that he won. The Deep State seems to have its knives drawn for him.

The Extraordinary Array of Those Questioning Trump’s Legitimacy (and Their Various Reasons)

Gary Leupp | Professor of History at Tufts University, with a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion

US geostrategy under Obama and Trump

How the US is setting up at the beginning of the Trump administration.

The major difference is that the foreign policy establishment apparently wants to take on Russia first and then China, and Trump wants to take on China first which would isolate Russia.

Both are dangerous games for high stakes, no less than world domination, and the people in charge of US policy are high rollers. Apparently their only disagreement is over strategy. Brzezinski/Rubin versus Kissinger/David Rockefeller.

Fort Russ

US tanks pour into Eastern Europe: What can Putin and Trump do?

SvPressa - translated by J. Arnoldski

Can Russia stand by as Trump goes after China?

Rostislav Ishchenko, RIA Analytics - translated by J. Arnoldski

NEO

Is Trump the Back Door Man for Henry A. Kissinger & Co?
William Engdahl

Reuters
U.S. intelligence study warns of growing conflict risk
 Jonathan Landay

Gilbert Doctorow — Letter from India: Local and global speculation about Henry Kissinger

While these two posts are not must-reads, they are important for understanding the subtext rather in order to avoid being taken in by flawed analysis and propaganda. Most Westerners don't understand the Russian world view, which is called Russkiy mir (Русский мир) in Russia. Failure to get this difference in understanding, based on cultural bias, results in the US foreign policy establishment, the US government, and US media in taking a confrontational attitude toward Russia that is based more on imagination than reality.

And this lack of understanding of other cultures doesn't apply only to Russia. Americans generally project themselves on the world and wonder why their analysis doesn't work out as planned, as in Iraqis greeting their liberators with flowers, instituting a Western-style democracy and everyone living happily ever after. Even the American cultural myth of falling in love, marrying a person of one's own choice and "living happily ever after" is fiction instead of reality, judging from divorce statistics and domestic violence.

The first post is a backgrounder on history, international relations, Henry Kissinger and the Realist School (Realpolitik) by an expert and scholar in foreign affairs. Detailed.

The second is a backgrounder on Russia and Russkiy mir (Русский мир) by the Saker, who is from a White Russian emigre family. Detailed.

Une parole franche
Letter from India: Local and global speculation about Henry Kissinger
Gilbert Doctorow | European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd.

The Vineyard of the Saker
Could there be a grain of truth in the Ukrainian propaganda? (repost with new introduction)
The Saker

Two calls for US foreign policy realism

The National Interest
Three Steps to Set the Tone on Russia

Thomas Graham | Managing Director at Kissinger Associates, Inc. and Senior Fellow at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs of Yale University

Russia Is Neither Friend Nor Foe

Nikolas K. Gvosdev |contributing editor at the National Interest and senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute

John J. Mearsheimer — Donald Trump Should Embrace a Realist Foreign Policy

There are many reasons to be deeply worried about a Donald Trump presidency. But if he makes the right choices, he could fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy for the better.

Trump campaigned against America’s powerful foreign policy community—what one of President Obama’s advisors derisively labeled “the Blob.” Its members include prominent Democrats and Republicans with similar views on foreign policy. He accused them of producing “one foreign policy disaster after another,” and promised to “develop a new foreign policy direction for our country.” This was precisely the message many voters wanted to hear, and the president-elect now has the opportunity to change how the United States deploys its power around the world....

The National Interest
Donald Trump Should Embrace a Realist Foreign Policy

John J. Mearsheimer | R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago