Why Isolationists and Interventionists Are Both Wrong | Yoram Hazony

The theory is that there's only two types of foreign policy, which the American media constantly reinforces. I don't think the administration buys that. Did American strategic missteps ultimately empower tan and Beijing? What do both isolationists and interventionists get wrong? And how is Trump defying these old foreign policy labels? In this episode, I sit down with political theorist and philosopher Yurum Hazone. He recently released a revised edition of his 2018 seminal work, the virtue of nationalism. He's also the founder of the Naton conference which is meeting in Washington DC early next week. The old American, British, European value of having independent nations was eliminated after World War II through this despicable maneuver of allowing Hitler to teach us political theory. And the result was fueling the move towards eliminating borders. >> This is American thought leaders and I'm Yany Kellik. >> Yuram Hzone. So good to have you back on American Thought Leaders. >> Good morning. My pleasure. Yan. >> So I really want to talk to you about Trump's foreign policy after we saw the reactions to his actions in Iran. There's a kind of almost like a schism among his supporters. What happened? And what is Trump's foreign policy? Well, the there's a lot of confusion about it. Uh, which which stems from a very old um misperception about foreign policy which which the the American media constantly reinforces. Um the the theory is that there's only two types of foreign policy. One of them is, you know, isolationist, which means the US basically has no in no real significant interests in Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, wherever. Uh, and and therefore whenever there's trouble anywhere, the the uh uh the prescription is supposedly to stay out of it. So there's that. And then opposed to that is neo neoconservatism. The neocons sometimes also called neoliberalism confusingly but whatever you call this this theory the liberal internationalist theory is the one that says anytime anything happens anywhere you know whether whether it's Ukraine or Iran or Taiwan or the Red Sea anywhere according to the liberal internationalist theory the United States has primary responsibility for securing you know just about everything on earth and um the problem with both of these theories is that they don't work. I mean, the the the the neoconservative theory, that's the one that ended up miring the United States in interventions in an endless series of of of conflicts. uh Iraq, Afghanistan, but also Libya, Yemen, uh Syria, uh Egypt, the change of government, but also in Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, most of the the public, at least the public that's supported Donald Trump uh and and the Trump fans taken and brought them to power uh is correctly sees these uh decades of American hyperinterventionism all over uh Europe and the Middle East and and South Asia as uh as a tragic mistake, a an incredible waste of of resources and human life and and without that much to show for it. So, if you have to choose between a uh a a hyperactive interventionist um liberal internationalism, that's one choice. And the only alternative is the United States should do nothing and let the world, you know, just go along its course. And if the Chinese want to take over, fine. If that's the choice, there's an awful lot of people who are going to choose the second one because we've already done the first one. I I I don't think that that uh President Trump or any of the principal members of his team, Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, and the the top 20 people beyond them, I don't think that they see the world through the lens of that dichotomy. Even though the media, both the mainstream liberal media and also a lot of the media on the right, constantly talk in terms of that dichotomy, I don't think the administration buys that. And in fact, there there there has been at by this point a a tradition of how to talk about Trump's foreign policy. In 2019, um Mike Anton, uh who was in the first administration and is now an important figure in the State Department, um he he coined a phrase, uh the the Trump doctrine. And uh I I think that his description was was accurate. I recently commented on it in an essay that I wrote on the subject. Um the Trump doctrine roughly is uh begins with the with the assessment that the United States has to prioritize in in thinking about foreign policy. It can't be everywhere. It can't invest its resources in every arena at all times and especially just just cognitively the the president and the administration cannot focus on all things simultaneously. And so there's there's one security uh challenge which no other country on earth can deal with other than the United States and that's China. So the the the Trump doctrine begins by recognizing uh that China is the the primary concern for Americans. And it goes from there to saying well so what should we do? Should we uh just ignore the rest of the world? um or or is there an alternative? And the alternative uh that's been developed under this Trump doctrine is to uh to seek regional allies uh independent countries that can be empowered to secure themselves to defend themselves and secure their regions. uh in that way if the United States allies with such powers then the US doesn't have to be taking primary responsibility for uh for for the security of of Europe. So let's say if countries like uh Britain and Poland uh would shift from being effectively protectorates of the United States, they would uh incre dramatically increase their investment both financially and culturally uh in in a uh in remilit remilitarization, re uh reestablishing themselves as as powers that can be uh relied upon to to take primary responsibility for for a crisis like Ukraine, then the United States would not have to be directly involved in it. Um so that that that is what we see uh Trump doing uh in the Middle East where his theory is uh that you can create a security architecture uh an alliance built on an alliance between Israel's um military abilities and technological abilities. uh ally that marry that to uh the wealth and the prestige of the Gulf States and between them they can they can um create a a uh an alliance system that's capable of taking care of Iran that's capable of taking care of the Red Sea that's capable of taking care of of uh security issues in general so that the United States doesn't have to do it so that that is the Trump doctrine and it is a third alter alternative to uh to um liberal internationalism and isolationism. But uh among Trump's uh supporters, there are uh at least at least some who were expecting uh non-involvement in the world entirely like you know like we just shouldn't be there. meaning um why why is Trump trying to build an alliance system uh in uh in in in Europe that can defend Europe? Why is he trying to build an alliance system in in the Middle East or in South Asia that can secure those regions? He should just, you know, ignore them. And uh it's been a pretty wild debate. >> The concept of peace through strength, I think some people just view as militarism. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm not sure exactly what the word militarism means. I mean, people use it at different different ways. >> Well, you're going to, you know, you you keep you you you saw during the uh uh the time when Iran strikes were planned and so forth, this is World War II because the military action is being taken. We're starting a new war. It's World War II, >> right? I think the camp that's being called isolationist and they themselves are now calling themselves restrainers, which is also not accurate. I I actually think that that the most accurate term is pacifist. The um the question of whether um whether the use of military power uh is uh something to be avoided at all times at all costs. Um that that leads you into the old pacifism discussion. And those of your viewers who are who are uh a little bit older um like me uh re remember what the anti-war movement was um during the 1970s and 1980s. The anti-war movement the it was a pacifist movement. It was associated with the democratic party. I mean it really really began with uh you know George McGovern and the and the Vietnam War. But uh but by the time that um you know that Reagan and Thatcher are around um the Vietnam War is long gone and the issue was whether the United States um should be uh challenging the Soviet Union and the debate was between um liberal pacifists who made all the same exact arguments you know that somebody like you know Dave Smith just is a liberal pacifist. he just is George McGovern. If you're a pacifist, your intuition is to say, you know, what's the point of having any war since every time there's military action, you're always killing innocent people. So, so that there's this kind of um uh implication that the use of military force is primmaaccia always wrong because because you know it's okay as long as you don't harm anybody but you always harm somebody who who who didn't deserve to be harmed. um that old argument in which um the the Reagan administration and and Thatcher and her people and and uh uh Pope John Paul II um there was this strong leadership that supported uh confrontation with the Soviet Union which was not primarily direct military confrontation but it but it was did involve a dramatic military buildup. involved destabilizing technologies like the strategic defense initiative. Uh it involved a willingness to to uh risk war in order to uh to deter and ultimately uh defeat defeat the Soviet Union. And you know, that's something I think that that President Trump um remembers those years, you know, ju just like we do, just like the the the older audience does. And um and I think he he sees it as a model. Ra, President Reagan uh succeeded in defeating America's uh greatest foes without war because of the fact that he was the slogan peace through strength which was um uh attached to let's make America great again. Those both of those slogans were were Reagan slogans and um and they uh that policy worked. It succeeded in defeating the enemy uh eliminating a horrific threat to to America but without in going and invading you know a dozen foreign countries. I mean the the largest thing that Reagan directly invaded was Grenada. You know it was a two-e operation. That's what that's what the Trump administration looks like right now. It is not, you know, anti-war in in the sense in the pacifist sense. They they're willing to fight when necessary, but the goal is to uh to minimize the direct reliance on force and to maximize the reliance on deterrence and diplomacy. And deterrence and diplomacy means constructing uh constructing um uh alliances that are capable of uh that are strong enough to to deter uh America's rivals and enemies. >> Yurum, we're going to take a quick break right now and folks, we're going to be right back. Thank you for tuning in to American Thought Leaders. In a world where spin and agendas dominate the headlines, I'm proud to bring you unfiltered insights from the brightest minds in America from a relative outsider Canadian perspective. To keep this possible and to access even more exclusive content, in-depth documentaries in our daily digital newspaper, consider subscribing to the Epoch Times today. It's your way to support independent journalism. Just hit the link in the description below to subscribe and unlock the full American Thought Leaders Experience and so much more. You can try it today for just $1 a week. So just hit the link in the description below. And now back to the interview. And we're back with Yuram Hzonei, author of The Virtue of Nationalism. This idea of imperialism, right, is often conflated with the idea of nationalism. I I and but you would argue they're, you know, completely completely different things. >> Yes. I think I think nationalism and imperialism are are actually opposite things. Um nationalism is a it's a theory of political order. It's a a theory that says that the world is governed best uh when there are many independent nations and they'll do things their way and they'll try to improve their lives according to their lights. That that's nationalism. That view is the opposite of imperialism, which is a view that says no, peace and prosperity will come to the world when there's global governance. when when when there's a a single um elite with a single set of principles and values and those are imposed u by soft power if necessary by war on as much of the globe as possible when my book the virtue of nationalism when it was published in 2018 pe people were were telling us that you know Trump and Brexit that these are you know it's it's some kind of mental illness it's it's a a a throwback to barbarism or or it you know that the Trump doesn't believe anything. He doesn't stand for anything. So now it's seven years later. The second edition of the book has come out and I'm grateful to my my publisher for uh uh for allowing this expanded and updated edition of the book. Now we know that um that the first edition of the book was correct. There there actually is a political theory of nationalism and there is a a a history, you know, going going all the way back to the Bible, a history of nationalism in in the West that has contributed a great deal of of of positive things. And um and it's the opposite of imperialism. Why why do people, you know, confuse them? It's actually pretty simple. Um Adolf Hitler uh wrote a book called Minecom, which I don't recommend to readers. I don't suggest people read it. But if they did read it, what they would see is that Hitler's worldview is is uh what um uh what you could call a biological imperialism. Um that there he's he's concerned with uh with races as the fundamental building block of politics. the different races competing with one another and uh and the goal is for you know the the highest race the m the master race to become lord of the earth this is that that's a quote from Mike Camp lord of the earth and mistress of the globe that that's his theory does that theory leave any room for for nationalism for a world of independent nations no he writes about independent nations and he says this is this is a and and a feat corruption of politics is to to to have nations recognizing one another and allowing one another to be independent. He has no interest that in that at all. So what's thetick here? The sticktick is that that Hitler thought that it would be convenient to take the word nationalism which had meant a world of independent nations and to to I guess today people say to appropriate it. So he appropriated the word nationalism for himself. Instead of saying I'm a biological imperialist, which he was, he says, "No, I'm a nationalist." The content is biological imperialism, but the word is nationalism. After World War II, uh there there there was this a cultural revolution uh in in in America that replaced the old, you know, Protestant Christian America uh with with uh with liberalism. Like eventually they invented the term liberal democracy. The the the liberals allowed the Nazis to take over the word nationalism. You can say aloud, maybe they did it on purpose. Whatever. The the result was post World War II, liberal and uh liberal and Marxist writers pounced on this opportunity to say, "Look, nationalism is, you know, it's it's the ultimate evil. It's the devil itself because Hitler used that word." And the the result was fueling the move towards eliminating borders, right? So, you know, there was the the Hitler was blamed for the nation state, you know, like the people people didn't say uh George Washington and John Adams and and Alexander Hamilton, those are nationalists. They they they they declared the independence of of an American nation. They united the disperate tribes, the 13 colonies, and and uh built them up as a a new independent national state. And instead of saying, "Wow, look, that's a that's a good thing. We should want that for other peoples, you know, like like uh Greek independence and Polish independence and and Indian independence and the independence of the Jews. I mean, that that was like the old nationalism is is allow peoples to be free, the freedom of nations." And instead after World War II um the word nationalism was um pushed into use by the 1960s by intellectuals liberal and Marxist and turned into a synonym for for Nazism. So then the argument turns into well we're gonna you know we're going to go ahead and start eliminating all the borders uh among nations and having global governance. Um there was a bit of that in the 1960s through the 1980s but it really gets off the ground in 1990 when they get finally got rid of Thatcher and Reagan who were both nationalists and uh uh and then said that's it like the moment's come European Union. We're we're we're we're going to erase all the borders. One new world order. George HW Bush called it the new world order where there's only going to be one law for all nations and anybody who opposes it is like a Nazi. You say you want nationals and you want independent nations. So you're some kind of Nazi. Now that was never true. It was never fair. It's I if if it's possible to uh speak about a um a exploitation of a redefined word for the sake of evil ends. That's what happened is that the old uh American British, you know, uh European value of having independent nations um was eliminated after World War II through this um despicable maneuver of allowing Hitler to teach us political theory. I mean, that's fascinating. Also, this redefinition of words, convenient redefinition of words to mean sometimes the exact opposite of of of what they originally meant without the populace realizing that that that has happened. It seems to be like a common Marxist and neo-Marxist uh ploy. It turns out if you can get everybody to use the new definition, you can change what everybody's thinking. I I mean, you know, today it's not such a uh you know, a brilliant new insight. You know, or Orwell was, you know, famous for for describing this in in 1984, the the the way that new speak. It changes the way people are able to think because you can only think using the words you have. um not being able to use the word nationalism is a particularly striking example because if you think about it, let's say that your view is the old view. You support a world of independent nations. You think that's the best political order. So if you can't use the word nationalism because nationalism means Nazism. Uh then what word would you use to describe that? You can't use patriotism because the word patriotism only means you know I love my country. Nationalism is a theory of political order and if you don't have the word nationalism then you you don't have any way of describing it. Well, Yuram Hzone, such a pleasure to have had you on again. >> Thanks for having me. >> If you enjoyed what you just watched, support our independent journalism by subscribing today to the Epoch Times and get access to all of our exclusive content. Just click the link in the description below and we'll see you next time. [Music]