'America First': The troubling history of a dangerous phrase | Christopher Preble | Big Think

America First': The troubling history of a dangerous phrase

New videos DAILY

Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

America seems to know what it's against, but what is it for? American isolationism has a checkered past, and not participating in global institutions is no longer a realistic option, says Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, and author of numerous foreign policy books. "When we hear President Trump and others talk about 'America first,' it raises a number of important questions," he says, defending America’s engagement in the world through trade and diplomacy. The Charles Koch Foundation aims to further understanding of how US foreign policy affects American people and societal well-being. Through grants, events, and collaborative partnerships, the Foundation is working to stretch the boundaries of foreign policy research and debate by discussing ideas in strategy, trade, and diplomacy that often go unheeded in the US capital. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRISTOPHER PREBLE :

Christopher Preble is the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author of The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free (Cornell University Press, 2009) and John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap (Northern Illinois University Press, 2004). He co-edited, with John Mueller, A Dangerous World? Threat Perception and U.S. National Security (Cato Institute, 2014); and, with Jim Harper and Benjamin Friedman, Terrorizing Ourselves: Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Is Failing and How to Fix It (Cato Institute, 2010).

Preble has also published articles in major publications, including the New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Financial Times, National Review, The National Interest, and Foreign Policy, and is a frequent guest on television and radio.

In addition to his work at Cato, Preble teaches the U.S. foreign policy elective at the University of California, Washington Center. Before joining Cato in February 2003, he taught history at St. Cloud State University and Temple University. Preble was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy, and served aboard the USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) from 1990 to 1993.

Preble holds a PhD in history from Temple University.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIPT:

CHRISTOPHER PREBLE: I think for those of us who have a certain skepticism of military intervention and focus on the last 15 to 20 years and really see—notwithstanding the heroic efforts of members of our military and the sacrifices they have made—just how difficult it is to achieve rather ambitious political objectives through the use of force, we have a tendency to focus therefore on what we’re against.

We’re against intervening in wars that do not serve a clear compelling national interest and have a clear and achievable military objective.

But it’s equally important for us to think about what type of engagement we are for. And I think that’s why it is so important to talk about trade, to talk about cultural engagement, to talk about why the United States is made stronger and better by regular interactions with the rest of the world.

When we hear President Trump and others talk about “America first,” it raises a number of important questions.

The first is: the first time this was really used in the United States was in the interwar period in the 1930s, which is understandably rather fraught. A result of that isolationism and separation from affairs in Europe and Asia is seen as one of the great failings of U.S. foreign policy. And so not being aware of sort of the historical baggage that comes with the term “America first” is bad enough.

More importantly I think in the modern era, in the 21st century, it’s simply impossible and not wise for the United States to think that it cannot to be engaged with the rest of the world.

They’re probably was a time early in our history where we were so focused on developing our own internal affairs and sort of building our markets here in the United States that we could trade with others but mostly be focused here at home. I don’t think that’s a realistic scenario anymore, and frankly I don’t want to live in the United States that’s not actively engaged with the rest of the world. So the real question is not so much “America first,” but what brand of American engagement with the rest of the world do we want? How do we get there?

For the full transcript, check out