Depending on the answer, how does that guide one’s thinking about future trade agreements?
Relatedly, for those who promote greater military restraint but are also pro-free trade, how much of a military footprint does the United States need to possess to uphold a global free trade order?
Any serious effort to rebuild a bipartisan foreign policy consensus along new lines will require conservatives and progressives to answer two sets of questions more explicitly.
First, with respect to the use of force, how do one’s views of post-Cold War American military interventions affect one’s view of future missions?
Jackson writes of the need for “a more relaxed attitude toward economic protectionism” when fairness or labor practices require that.
Given the stated objectives of Trump voters, at least with respect to domestic inequalities, that position is not one to be found solely on the left.However, many conservatives who are pro-free trade could presumably support institutions like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank to buttress and regulate global financial and trade flows — after all, they have done so in the past.Progressives are focused more on using institutions to address poverty, inequality, and racism at home and abroad, but at least with respect to domestic concerns, neither side can afford to ignore the economic inequalities that have exploded in recent decades.It’s fairly easy to say the Gulf War was justified, staying out of Rwanda was not, the 2003 Iraq War was a colossal blunder, the mission in Afghanistan should have ended long ago, and Libya was a debacle.But a more difficult case that ought to be revisited is the 1999 Kosovo War: For reasons discussed below, it is hard to imagine broad support within the U. political establishment for a similar mission 20 years later.Those scholars (and politicians) still fighting the foreign policy establishment over the folly of the Iraq War should take note of the growing belief among many progressives and conservatives that the United States should be engaged in fewer military interventions in the world given the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.What is missing from the essays in these roundtables is noticeable: There is very little concrete discussion in either roundtable of the conditions under which the United States use military force, especially for missions not tied strictly to the national defense, or of the type of trading relationships the United States ought to maintain, beyond general references to free trade or protectionism.New America’s Heather Hurlburt writes of “fostering a patriotism in which diverse identities belong and flourish.” This should not be controversial, but we have seen in American politics that it has become so in some quarters, particularly in the ugly sentiments underlying Trump’s fixation on a “wall” on the southern border.Nevertheless, when Fonte talks about “America’s sovereignty and way of life,” this could certainly be consistent with Hurlburt’s notion of a patriotism consisting of diverse identities.published two roundtables on the future of conservative and progressive foreign policy, featuring essays by some of the leading figures on both sides of the debate.While one might expect a vast chasm between these two visions for American foreign policy, what is striking about the roundtable is not the differences but the commonalities that such a range of scholars and analysts from the left and the right share, and the unstated potential for agreement on a number of topics.