The history of American foreign policy since World War II has been marked by debates within the two major political parties rather than between them. In the early stages of the Cold War, both Republicans and Democrats agreed on the need to contain the Soviet Union. However, their debates centered around the mechanics of containment. The Republican Party, in particular, had to address the issue of McCarthyism within its ranks.
During the Vietnam War, there was a general consensus among Republicans and Democrats that the United States needed to be involved. However, as the war progressed, a divide emerged within the Democratic Party. The establishment supported the idea of “peace with honor,” while a younger faction aligned themselves with the anti-war protests of the radical left.
After the 9/11 attacks, there was a bipartisan consensus that military action was necessary not only in Afghanistan but also in Iraq. However, when things went wrong in Iraq, leading Democrats distanced themselves from the neoconservative project. This bipartisan consensus extends to the current debate on imposing tariffs and technological restrictions on China.
The most significant foreign policy debate in recent years has been within the Republican Party regarding Ukraine’s war against Russia. European leaders, except for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, believe that Ukraine would be greatly impacted if Donald Trump were to be reelected. JD Vance, Trump’s potential running mate, has expressed ambivalence towards Ukraine, questioning its importance. He aligns himself with elements of the Republican Party and MAGA movement that cast doubt on the Ukrainian government’s honesty.
However, it would be a mistake to view Vance’s selection as a victory for isolationists and Putin apologists. In an interview with The New York Times, Vance made realist arguments rather than isolationist ones. He argued that sending weapons to Ukraine was necessary to deter China from invading or blockading Taiwan. He also expressed skepticism about the viability of Ukraine’s counteroffensive last year. Vance proposed a three-point plan to end the war with American leadership, which includes freezing territorial lines, guaranteeing Kyiv’s independence and neutrality, and providing long-term American security assistance.
These arguments align with the realist school of thought, which emphasizes deterrence and acknowledges the limits of military and financial resources. It is not isolationism but a return to foreign policy realism. Trump himself has expressed similar views, stating that Biden’s administration has failed to deter the Axis of Ill Will, consisting of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
As the world assesses the strategic direction of a potential Trump administration, it is crucial to pay attention to his choices for key positions like defense secretary, secretary of state, and national security adviser. These figures are likely to be anything but isolationists, such as Robert O’Brien, who served as NSA in Trump’s first term.
In contrast, the Biden administration represents a continuation of the Democratic tradition of idealism in foreign policy. However, this idealism has led to the United States engaging in numerous wars throughout history. A second Trump administration would signify a long-needed return to foreign policy realism rather than isolationism, which has proven ineffective in the past.
