The first Republican Party presidential debate for the 2024 US election has exposed significant divides among the candidates, particularly regarding foreign policy. While some candidates like Mike Pence and Nikki Haley advocate for America’s support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s aggression, others like Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy express skepticism about such involvement. Even former President Donald Trump, the leading contender, has opposed US engagement in the conflict.
These divisions reflect a broader split within the Republican Party, raising concerns about the potential return of isolationist foreign policy, which could have far-reaching consequences for the international order established after World War II.
In history, American public opinion has fluctuated between international engagement and retrenchment. Following the isolationism of the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated the process that led to the creation of institutions like the Bretton Woods organizations and the United Nations. President Harry Truman further solidified permanent alliances and a US military presence abroad, investing in European reconstruction through initiatives like the Marshall Plan and forming NATO.
Despite ongoing debates over interventions in countries like Vietnam and Iraq, sustaining a liberal international order was generally uncontroversial.
However, the 2016 presidential election saw Donald Trump’s argument that post-1945 alliances and institutions had benefited other nations at the expense of the United States. This resonated with many voters who were also frustrated with economic dislocations caused by globalization and the Great Recession.
Trump successfully linked nativist sentiments to US foreign policy, blaming economic issues on trade deals and immigration. This formula had historical roots, with similarities to populist movements in the 1920s and 1930s when concerns about immigration led to the National Origins Act.
While some argue that Trump’s rise was due to liberal elites’ failure to align with American public opinion, historical data suggests that public opinion has been fairly consistent. Since 1974, surveys by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs have asked Americans whether they prefer active global engagement or isolationism. While a third of the public has consistently leaned towards isolationism, recent years have shown increased support for active involvement in world affairs.
While it’s unlikely that the US will return to full-scale 1930s-style isolationism, there are concerns that failure to support Ukraine could signal a move towards retrenchment, potentially weakening the international order. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of the UN Charter, and if successful, it would challenge the liberal principle against altering a country’s borders by force.
The outcome in Ukraine will have significant implications for Europe and the world. China, in particular, has been cautious in offering material support to Russia, concerned about the risks involved. The world is watching the situation closely, as it may set a precedent for how international conflicts are resolved.
Those arguing against significant US involvement in Ukraine are urged to consider the historical context and the potential consequences for America’s national interests. The future of US foreign policy remains a critical topic of debate in the run-up to the 2024 election.
