Calls for a progressive-oriented U.S. foreign policy have been gradually growing since at least the end of the Obama administration. One such argument recently made in Foreign Affairs by Megan Stewart, Jonathan Petkun, and Mara Revkin epitomizes the inconsistencies that inevitably accompany a distinctively left-liberal vision of strong American global leadership.
The problems begin with their three “fundamental principles” that the United States must embrace in international relations: the broad promotion of political/economic egalitarianism, anti-imperialism, and opposition to war/excessive militarism. The first two are inherently contradictory while the third demonstrates naivety about the intractability of international conflict
A world defined by national self-determination instead of American hegemony contradicts the active spread of egalitarianism because the latter, particularly in its most progressive form, tends towards a form of intrusive cultural imperialism. The egalitarianism many leftists hold to is obviously Western in origin, acutely secular in orientation, expansive in application, and universal in objective. It seeks to supplant the convictions and social structures of traditional and conservative religious states and societies. Progressives presume that foreign states and societies desire Western social standards and structures and are just waiting to be converted.
Consider their expansive notion of egalitarianism. Progressives elevate sexuality and sexual practices to the category of “rights.” It is expressed by same-sex individuals being given the right to marry and acquire children despite being incapable of having children biologically their own. The progressive, 21st century civilizing mission is anathema to many societies, if not an existential threat. It challenges the importance of conservative religious traditions that are critical to societal cohesion, identity, and legitimacy in much of the world.
For example, Rahm Emanuel, former Ambassador to Japan, caused a diplomatic stir with the leading Liberal Democratic Party by insisting that Japan legalize gay marriage. Additionally, the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations have all sought to fund abortion access in developing countries despite how offensive abortion is to socially conservative nations in the global south. There is also the issue of flying LGBT pride flags on official U.S. government buildings, like embassies and consulates, which give the impression that America is inseparable from progressive social liberalism. This included such infamous incidents as flying a pride flag at the U.S. embassy to the Vatican in Rome, needlessly antagonizing hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics around the world.
The contradiction and impudence of this progressive thinking and its objectives raise serious questions about its effectiveness. How does America advance its interests and maintain security while belittling and insulting others? At a minimum, promoting offensive beliefs and ideas foments distrust with allies and distances potential ones. Especially as the U.S. competes with China and Russia for influence in places like Africa, the Middle East, and India, antagonizing the majority will not be helpful.
Besides the contradiction between anti-imperialism and imperious liberalism, the belief that dialogue and diplomacy are always preferable to armed conflict rests on two faulty assumptions. One is the existence of moderation in the leadership of states and societies. The other is that military force cannot be a legitimate tool for the promotion of stability and prosperity.
Similar to their belittling of traditions and conservative cultures, a progressive orientation fails to recognize the significance of ideology, identity, and religion in the policies of many states and societies. Progressives also fail to recognize that an exclusively defensive war posture can put countries and people at the mercy of aggressors.
An astute observer of the Middle East would recognize that the progressive fealty to dialogue and diplomacy has backfired in the face of absolutism. Instead of facilitating peace and stability, in recent years, the approach created an environment of temporary appeasement that placed American allies in vulnerable situations.
Two examples are Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, with whom the Biden administration pressured Israel and Saudi Arabia, respectively, to pursue diplomacy despite continued aggression. In the case of Hezbollah, the militia cannot coexist with the state of Israel. Multiple resolutions failed to end violence at the Lebanese-Israeli border. The latest “settlement” is a U.S.-mediated ceasefire that remains unfulfilled. On February 23, a leader of Hezbollah once again threatened Israel and refused to surrender the militia’s weapons.
The Yemen-based Houthis remain obstinate as ever, seeking complete dominance of Yemen and power projection across the region. The Saudis and their Yemeni state allies made concessions to the Houthis to help realize a resolution to a civil war. Despite these goodwill measures, the Houthis failed to fully comply with a 2022 ceasefire and while also demanding the ceasefire be extended. The Houthis proceeded to escalate violence in Yemen, take hostages, threaten Saudi Arabia, launch rockets at Israel, and conduct piracy around the Bab al-Mandab.
Prioritizing dialogue proved destructive, failed to effectively mitigate threats, and allowed an aggressor to determine the scope of violence, leaving allies vulnerable. Once again, how does a progressive approach advance U.S. interests and security when it undermines relations with allies?
Stewart, Petkun, and Revkin struggle with developing a rubric for progressive U.S. engagement. Their zeal for a U.S. foreign policy to be “a force of good” in the world exhibits confusion, myopia, and foolishness. Their case is constructed on principles that inhibit U.S. interests and security while also expecting robust American presence abroad. Despite the authors’ “refinement” of the idea of progressive American leadership internationally, the problems with a progressive-oriented U.S. foreign policy endure.