An ideological divide within the Republican Party emerged in the 1970s, contrasting the foreign policy views of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger with those of Ronald Reagan. Kissinger favored realpolitik – a pragmatic, power-focused approach that de-emphasized morality – while Reagan believed American ideals were a source of strength and should be central to national security strategy.
A Shift in American Ideals
Reagan publicly differentiated himself from Kissinger, promising to prioritize human rights and liberty. In 1983, he famously labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” consistently framing the Cold War in moral terms. This approach extended to direct engagement; during a 1988 trip to the Soviet Union, Reagan met with over 100 dissidents, despite protests from Soviet officials who deemed it a breach of protocol, as reported by The New York Times.
Reagan viewed America as a “shining city on a hill,” a moral example for the world, and believed the nation’s ideals provided a standard for self-assessment. This perspective echoed the sentiments of America’s Founders, who envisioned a “new order for the ages” rooted in universal ethics, and Abraham Lincoln, who described the nation as the world’s “last, best hope.”
A Departure from Tradition
This historical emphasis on ideals appears to have shifted under the current administration. Donald Trump has openly expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders – including Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin – even stating that Putin is “at least a leader” despite reports of his actions against journalists and political opponents. He questioned why the United States should be considered “so innocent” when “our country does plenty of killing also.”
This approach has translated into policy, with Trump openly discussing potential military interventions in Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico, and even suggesting the possibility of “taking back” the Panama Canal and acquiring Greenland – potentially by force. He recently stated, “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” citing the presence of Russian and Chinese vessels in the region.
Potential Consequences
Such actions could destabilize long-standing alliances, particularly NATO, as any attack on a member state could trigger Article V, the collective defense clause. However, the effectiveness of this clause is uncertain given the unprecedented nature of an attack *by* a NATO member. European allies, including Denmark, have already affirmed their commitment to defending Greenland’s sovereignty.
Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee defended Trump’s position on Greenland by describing the United States as the “dominant predator” in the Western Hemisphere. Stephen Miller, a senior advisor to Trump, articulated a worldview where “strength, force, and power” are the governing principles of international relations.
A New Ethos
Trump has openly stated that his own “morality” is the only limit on his power. This assertion is concerning, given his described characteristics as a “malignant narcissist” and his reshaping of American perceptions of right and wrong. Many who once championed Reagan’s ideals now appear to embrace a cynical worldview, prioritizing the interests of the powerful, echoing the philosophy of Thrasymachus.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the difference between Kissinger and Reagan’s approaches to foreign policy?
Kissinger favored realpolitik, a pragmatic approach focused on power, while Reagan believed American ideals should be central to foreign policy and the promotion of human rights.
What actions has Trump taken that demonstrate a departure from traditional American foreign policy?
Trump has expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders, discussed potential military interventions in multiple countries, and openly questioned the importance of international norms and alliances.
What is the potential impact of Trump’s policies on NATO?
An attack by a NATO member on another could potentially trigger Article V, but the effectiveness of the collective defense clause is uncertain given the unprecedented nature of such an event and could ultimately destroy the alliance.
Given these developments, how might the long-term perception of American leadership and values be affected by this shift in foreign policy?
Related reading