Trump is no isolationist
President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is frequently described as “isolationist.” That’s because he shows a notable lack of enthusiasm for the ways in which the United States has traditionally interacted with other countries.
The description, however, is inaccurate and misleading, as events in Venezuela illustrate.
The socialist regime of Nicolás Maduro has brought the country to ruin. A competitive government has been set up by Juan Guaidó, head of the democratically elected National Assembly which Maduro has tried to dissolve.
“Isolationism” is a pejorative that doesn’t really describe the foreign policy views of much of anyone. Few, and no one of consequence, argue that the United States should cut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
There are those who think that the United States is much too quick to stick our nose into the business of other countries. And that we need to much more narrowly define actionable na-
tional interests that warrant such interventions.
This school of thought is more accurately called “non-interventionism.”
Non-interventionists would say, indeed do say, that what is occurring in Venezuela does not involve any actionable U.S. national interest. We should stay out of it.
That is partly a statement of principle. But also a pragmatic calculation. If socialism is to fail in Venezuela, better that it fails on its own accord, rather than being shoved off a cliff by the United States. The lesson for other countries would be clearer.
That reflects my view on the matter. Trump, however, has been highly active regarding Venezuela.
Early on, his administration slapped sanctions on close advisers and supporters of Maduro.
The United States was one of the first countries to recognize the alternative Guaidó government. Additional sanctions have been put on Venezuelan oil.
The Trump administration is trying to hold assets held abroad by the Venezuelan state in reserve for the Guaidó government. And it is attempting to cabin oil revenues earned in the U.S. by Venezuelan state enterprises for the same purpose.
The administration has put together an aid package of food and medicine for delivery to Venezuela. This is more than just a humanitarian gesture. It is an attempt to get the military to abandon Maduro rather than stop badly needed assistance for the Venezuelan people.
And administration officials have pointedly said that a military intervention by the United States isn’t off the table. These are not the actions of an isolationist or a non-interventionist, to put it mildly.
Trump’s foreign policy doesn’t fit into any of the familiar constructs.
Trump is not a neoconservative like George W. Bush or John McCain. He does not believe that the United States should be an assertive leader everyplace or sees actionable U.S. interests at stake in every conflict. In general, he believes that the United States should be doing less and other countries should be doing more.
He is not a multilateralist like Barack Obama. He doesn’t believe that the United States should act principally through multilateral organizations, such as the U.N. and NATO. Or have our actions constrained by such organizations.
Syria is another illustration of how Trump’s foreign policy is just different. He inherited the threat of an Islamic State in control of vast territory in Iraq and Syria. He authorized aggressive military action to oust it.
That campaign has been successful. Islamic State is no longer a state.
A neoconservative or a multilateralist would now want to help shape what comes next in Syria. Trump seems indifferent about it.
Trump has described his foreign policy as “principled realism.” But “opportunistic nationalism” might be a more accurate construct.
Under Trump, the United States isn’t in retreat from the world. But it will be a more independent, and less predictable, actor.
If other countries conclude that they need to rely less on the United States, that would be sound. And not necessarily a bad thing, for them or us. a successful career are essential to the American dream. Freedom and family trump the more conventional materialistic versions of the dream we often talk about.
What kinds of things foster neighborliness and community well-being? Our survey finds that regularly talking to neighbors and helping them out, participating in a house of worship, walking your dog, and being fairly close to amenities such as grocery stores, parks and libraries are associated with greater sociability, less loneliness, and community satisfaction.
Partisanship divides us bitterly when talking about the direction of the country, but it plays almost no role in how people feel about their communities and whether they are lonely or achieving the dream.
The next time people online tell you to be mad about how things are going, ask yourself whether what they are saying is true about you. And don’t forget to ask your neighbor. It is sometimes said that the evidence of good policy is when no one is completely happy with it. If that is true, SB 1394 has all the makings of good policy.
The public charter school sector, lawmakers, community leaders, parents and stakeholders have worked together, at times making concessions, in order to create meaningful legislation that fosters renewed taxpayer confidence. Equally important, it ensures good stewardship of the investments in almost 200,000 students whose families choose charters.
If ultimately signed into law, the legislation does a good job of ensuring that Arizona’s public charter schools offer an increased level of transparency by meeting the same accountability standards as required by the IRS.
This is good legislation, but is it good enough for the Arizona Legislature? I say yes, but now it’s up to them.