What Is Americas Cause in the World?
"Take away this pudding; it has no theme," is a comment attributed to Winston Churchill, when a disappointing dessert was put in front of him. Writers have used Churchills remark to describe a foreign policy that lacks coherence or centrality of purpose. For most of our lifetimes, this has not been true of the United States. The goal of our foreign policy has been understandable and defined. From 1949-1989, it was Cold War containment of the Soviet Empire and USSR. Ronald Reagan believed in a "rollback" of communism, once telling an aide that his policy might be summed up as: "We win. They lose." At the Cold Wars end, George H. W. Bush said America would now lead mankind in the creation of "a New World Order." George W. Bush was going to deny to all "axis of evil" nations  North Korea, Iran, Saddam Husseins Iraq  access to the "worlds worst weapons," with our ultimate goal being "ending tyranny in our world." According to the Biden Democrats of today, Americas goal is the preservation of "a rules-based international order," which is less inspiring than "Remember the Alamo!" or "Remember Pearl Harbor!" A March survey of 2,000 registered voters, done by the Center for American Progress, reveals that most Republicans still share the foreign policy priorities of Donald J. Trump. Asked to identify their first three foreign policy priorities from a list of a dozen, two-thirds of Republicans, 65%, gave as their principal concern "Reducing illegal immigration." And 57% of Republicans put "Protecting jobs for American workers" right behind it. Independents agreed that these should be the top twin goals of U.S. foreign policy. Economic nationalism is alive and well in the GOP, and securing the border remains a central concern of Americas center-right. In third position, at 31% among Republicans, was "Taking on Chinas economic and military aggression." Only 9% of Republicans listed "Fighting global poverty and promoting human rights" as top foreign policy priorities. Last among GOP priorities, at 7%, was "Promoting democratic rights and freedoms abroad." Indeed, this was the least popular foreign policy option among all voters. Conclusion:  The priorities of the Bush presidencies and the neocons  democracy crusades, free trade, the New World Order, open borders  have failed to recapture the constituencies they lost in the Trump years. While "Combating global climate change" rests near the bottom of Republican concerns at 10%, it is the No. 1 priority of Democrats, with 44% listing it first. When it comes to "Ending US involvement in wars in the Middle East," that goal ranks 5th among all voters. Democrats, Republicans and independents all support that objective. Since the last CAP survey in 2019, the greatest change is the reduced concern over "terrorist threats" from al-Qaida and ISIS. Fewer than 1 in 4 voters now view this as a top priority. As Matthew Petti writes in an analysis of the CAP survey, today, Americans "prioritize getting out of Middle East wars over confronting Middle East adversaries." This survey would thus seem to provide public support for the Trump-Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan, and for Bidens effort to re-engage with Iran and renew the 2015 nuclear deal. Also ranked high among Democrats and independents, but less so among Republicans, is "Improving relationships with allies." Illegal immigration and economic nationalism energize the GOP rank-and-file; climate change does not. There is no enthusiasm in either party for new democracy crusades. And there seems to be no enthusiasm in either party for a clash with Iran, North Korea, Russia or China. Only 14% of Democrats wish to address Chinas "military and economic aggression," though 31% of Republicans do. But the overall impression here is one of democratic confusion. We Americans are all over the lot about what our foreign policy should be and what it should do. One is reminded of an insight from Walter Lippmann about U.S. foreign policy confusion before World War II:  "When a people is divided within itself about the conduct of foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or safeguard successfully its peace. Thus, it course in foreign affairs depends, in Hamiltons words, not on reflection and choice, but on accident and force." Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM