How the West Ends?

 

Anne Applebaum writes,

Back in the 1950s, when the institutions were still new and shaky, I’m sure many people feared the Western alliance might
 never take off. Perhaps in the 1970s, the era of the Red Brigades and Vietnam, many more feared that the West would not survive. But in my adult life, I cannot remember a moment as dramatic as this: Right now, we are two or three bad elections away from 
the end of NATO, the end of the European Union, and maybe the end of the liberal world order as we know it.

I share that feeling. “Not only is Trump uninterested in America’s alliances,” she writes,

he would be incapable of sustaining them. In practice, both military
 and economic unions require not the skills of a shady property magnate who “makes deals” but boring negotiations, unsatisfying 
compromises, and, sometimes, the sacrifice of one’s own national preferences for the greater good. In an era when foreign policy
 debate has in most Western countries disappeared altogether, replaced by the reality TV of political entertainment, all of 
these things are much harder to explain and justify to a public that isn’t remotely interested.

To which the standard answer is blah, blah, blah, patronizing coastal Ivy-educated elite, what has the West done for us lately.

She tries:

Western unity, nuclear deterrence, and standing armies gave us more than half a century of political stability. Shared economic 
space helped bring prosperity and freedom to Europe and North America alike. But these are things that we all take for granted, 
until they are gone.

But none of these arguments work, do they. No matter what, all people hear is blah, blah, blah, patronizing coastal Ivy-educated elites —  what have the Romans ever given us in return? Yeah, yeah, yeah, besides half a century of political stability, prosperity and freedom …

Foreign Policy is beginning to reckon with this idea, too: Obama wasn’t an aberration; he was a faithful expression of the American desire to have nothing to do with the world:

President Barack Obama, who as a candidate spoke of the imperative to help shore up weak and failing states, has repeatedly had to promise an impatient American public that he will do his nation-building at home rather than abroad. If he drew down forces too deeply in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he did so in part because he knew the public wanted out. Drones, yes; soldiers, no. A President Hillary Clinton might face an even surlier mood than Obama has.

I don’t think foreign policy elites have fully absorbed this collective attitude.

I don’t either. But nor do I think the American electorate has fully absorbed what it’s risking.

It probably won’t happen. Trump won’t be elected. But the signal his campaign has given the world has been received already: Even Americans don’t believe in the liberal world order as we know it. I don’t think Hillary’s capable, intellectually or as a politician, of dealing with the fallout she’ll face after eight years of her own foreign policy incompetence. The American electorate has already told the world in no uncertain terms, “Go to hell.” She’ll be presiding over a near-ungovernable country.

Surely there’s got to be a way out of this?

Published in Foreign Policy, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 126 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Xennady Member
    Xennady
    @

    Randy Webster:

    kylez:

    Hercules Rockefeller:It’s stories like this that are disconcerting to Americans. It’s not only spending that counts, it’s about readiness, and the ability to accomplish multiple tasks. The Belgians have trouble securing their own Capital.

    They’re in unions. The people who are supposed to defend a nation at the government’s command are in unions.

    I couldn’t quite believe that.

    That’s because the people who are really supposed to die on behalf of Belgium are Americans.

    • #121
  2. Bucky Boz Member
    Bucky Boz
    @

    #120- If the Belgians love freedom and help in the war against radical Islamic terrorists, why shouldn’t we take the lead in that fight to provide a distant front in that war and protect our civilians from 9/11 2.0?

    • #122
  3. Xennady Member
    Xennady
    @

    Bucky Boz:#120- If the Belgians love freedom and help in the war against radical Islamic terrorists, why shouldn’t we take the lead in that fight to provide a distant front in that war and protect our civilians from 9/11 2.0?

    Why should we need to take the lead in saving Belgium from terrorists?

    Terrorists who- by the way- wouldn’t even be in that country if not for the idiocy of the people ruling it.

    You go to Belgium- and tell them you’re there to lead their fight against terrorism.

    I wish you the best.

    • #123
  4. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    Claire – I hate to say it, but you are falling prey to the same irrational  fears that many here and in Europe are without looking at the facts – which is what we are supposed to do.

    I do not believe for one second that Trump is a xenophobic racist who hates our alliances and does not share our values.  The problem is, the Western elites have redefined Western values in such a manner that makes it impossible to actually defend Western values.  This is what the rot that is multiculturalism does.  It makes it so that the only value you will ever hold, in the end, is multiculturalism itself.

    And that is why European elites are going mad.  They are so completely wedded to that idea of multiculturalism, that when an existential threat to it arises, the lose it.

    Just ask the German public.

    • #124
  5. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    Claire- You are completely wrong on Trump’s view of European national security.

    Here is the quote from the Washington Post article:

    “Trump has advocated torture, mass deportation, religious discrimination. ..“I don’t like what’s happening with Ukraine. But that’s really a problem that affects Europe a lot more than it affects us. And they should be leading some of this charge,” he said, criticizing Germany for “sitting back” and “accepting all the oil and gas that they can get from Russia” while the United States is “leading Ukraine.””

    That is EXACTLY the Obama administration policy on Ukraine, only he just says it instead of keeping quiet.  I admit, it’s a horrible policy.  But note that the European, Asian and Middle East powers-that-be do not publicly convulse over the actual policy of the actual President, but they throw a conniption over the potential (and undefined) guess at a policy of one candidate in the race.

    And yes, some Washington Post reporter calls it “torture”.  Ummm, the U.S. and every other European nation has been putting the screws to combatants for generations.

    Some Washington Post reporter calls it “mass deportation”.  Ummm, that actually just enforcing the law.  It shouldn’t matter it is one person or 20 million.

    Some Washington Post reporters calls it “religious discrimination”. Ummm, since when are we blind to cultural and religious affiliation of immigrants?  The answer to that is NEVER.  It has always been part of the code to include hard limits on nationalities and to exclude persons with ideologies that are contrary to American principles.  It’s already in the Code that way!

    That is the quote that leads people to fainting spells over NATO.  First of all, it’s about Ukraine, not NATO.

    But more importantly, you (and many others), are applying your own fears to Trump the same way his supporters are applying their own dreams, regardless of his actual rhetoric and intentions.

    Here is his quote on Russia:

    “In an August 14 campaign event, Trump said U.S.-Russian ties have become “pretty well-destroyed” under President Barack Obama and that if elected, he “would have a great relationship with Russia and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”…Asked whether he would roll back sanctions against Russia, Trump said: “It depends, depends. They have to behave also.””

    We all agree that Obama destroyed ties with Russia.  Unless we are warmongers, we all think a better relationship with Russia would help the US.  Even Reagan did that with the Evil Empire.  And a sound policy on sanctions should be (and currently is, at least on paper), roll them back if Russia behaves.

    • #125
  6. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    When it comes to European objections, its 100% about Trump’s rhetoric on multicultural matters.  He is the threat to that world-view that could eventually draw a split between America and Europe.  And it would not be because America abandoned Western values, it would be because Europe traded away those values for multiculturalism, while the U.S. stayed faithful to the original Enlightenment values.  He is causing alarms because WE are different, because WE have abandoned Western values.

    Trump, probably by complete accident admittedly, has laid that out for them to see.  What you have is an American president who holds opinions and values that are completely in line with Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan, but adds to that an abrasive anti-intellectual, anti-multiculturalism, and very harsh, tone.  But since Europe and the left (including the cultural left that dominates in polite society in the States) has abandoned Western values, he now seems like a nutjob to them.

    Remember the European protests about Reagan and the nuclear warheads he was placing all over Europe and the claims that he was destroying the Western alliance and the claims that he is crazy?  I do.

    Add into that the legitimately disgusting things that Trump says, and its basically the same.

    • #126
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.