Does Growing Interest in the New Right Indicate Trouble in US Diplomacy?

Published in Global Times
(China) on 24 August 2023
by Li Haidong (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Andrew Engler. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
New Right conservatives, led by Sen. Rand Paul, have recently attracted a lot of attention in political circles. They support policies that are quite different from the political mainstream, such as maintaining stable relations with China and opposing the ban on TikTok. They advocate diplomatic non-interventionism, oppose globalism and any continued aid to Ukraine. Their positions are part of the backlash sparked by Washington's geopolitical maneuvering, and these sober voices of reason are getting louder. What level of influence does the New Right hold over U.S. politics and diplomacy?

First, there is increasing clamor for a new diplomatic narrative, and clearheaded political figures are challenging the long-standing narratives of democracy and freedom, globalism and Americanization of the world. The U.S. has historically celebrated its isolationist policy, which spanned from the late 1790s to the late 1940s, for creating the conditions necessary to refine the free political system. Avoiding entanglement in European-style political quagmires helped. Then in the post-World War II world, the system was ready for export, and the U.S. began to offer a vision of permanent peace if the world would only Americanize, taking on the concepts and models of U.S. governance. The U.S. launched a global campaign to mold international rhetoric and sentiment, striving to indoctrinate the world so it would accept the American vision. This self-glamorizing narrative had a market during the post-Cold War unipolar moment. Currently, however, as chronic domestic and diplomatic issues are deepening, the instability, setbacks and failures are constantly on display for all to see. The U.S. diplomatic narrative is seriously divorced from reality, causing doubt around the world, and the New Right is making a commendable attempt at recalibration.

Second, while the global activity of the U.S. political elite is imperial in nature, the elite defines itself as peaceful cosmopolitans who stand against nationalism. In the last 70 years, U.S. diplomacy has wielded unparalleled power, compelling other countries to undergo significant changes. When countries engage in policies that conflict with U.S. interests, Washington criticizes them and appeals to international systems, rules and standards. Of course, the U.S. deliberately ignores that it itself violates those standards. The U.S. is usually reluctant to interpret its policies in terms of nationalism for fear of undermining the cosmopolitan credentials of its own diplomacy. However, the catastrophic results of U.S. imperial diplomacy and the deceitfulness of this “cosmopolitanism” are increasingly salient and met with hostility. Returning diplomacy to nationalism may be sobering for the U.S., as it realizes that it isn’t an exceptional country, and there is no longer any market for double standards. The New Right’s positions may be a powerful indicator of where U.S. identity is headed.

Third, Paul's nationalism or “nativism" is deeply embedded in the historical soil of the U.S., and there is no shortage of domestic support. Since World War II, the U.S. has developed peacetime military alliances with European countries, and there has consistently been a robust counter-neo-isolationist movement. The New Right wants to focus policy on national sovereignty, improving the domestic system and tackling domestic problems. The New Right opposes large-scale foreign aid and international intervention, and they are especially disgusted with sending troops abroad with the energy of the Crusades. They often are America Firsters, who roughly include the likes of Sen. Robert A. Taft during World War II; President Richard Nixon, who promoted détente between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War; Ross Perot, who ran as an independent presidential candidate in 1992; and Pat Buchanan, who was a senior advisor to three presidents and is still relatively active.

Realists advocating for self-restraint often find it challenging to wield significant influence on policy in an environment dominated by liberal ideology. Yet, the realists’ role is special and offers a beacon through the decaying mess that is U.S. diplomacy. The sudden increase in their influence is a harbinger of setbacks in U.S. diplomacy. The New Right is currently attracting attention, reflecting growing concerns about the dangers brought by current failings.

Finally, Paul's views on China are relatively restrained, which will provide Washington with sobering material for introspection when it considers intensifying competition with China. The New Right is labeled as "populist," but this brand of populism isn’t packaged with extreme political opportunists. They don’t manipulate the masses in elections, but instead offer pragmatic remedies to the issues angering society. They want to focus on developing the domestic economy and society and to strengthen national culture and identity. In this regard, stabilizing U.S.-China relations is more important and indispensable to the U.S. itself. There can be competition between China and the U.S. but not confrontation. The U.S. should not arrogantly or blindly deal with China, thus shackling future self-improvement. The New Right’s policy prescriptions are not unreasonable.

Overall, the New Right is quite different from the liberal miasma enshrouding the U.S. political elite. The New Right is showing a strong commitment to the concept of nationhood, and their calls for restraint and prudence in foreign affairs merit attention. However, it is yet to be seen how influential they will be.

The author is a professor at the Institute of International Relations, China Foreign Affairs University.


李海东:“新右派”受关注,或预示美外交遇挫

以参议员兰德·保罗为代表的新右派保守主义者近期在美国政坛引起颇多关注。他们关于要与中国接触和保持稳定关系、反对TikTok禁令、倡导外交中的不干涉主义、反对全球主义、抵制继续援助乌克兰等政策主张,与当下美国主流政策颇有出入,凸显出华盛顿的地缘政治狂热在其国内激发了反弹,清醒、理性的声音正在不断变大。如何看待新右派在美国政治和外交中的地位与影响力?

第一,美国长期以来的“全球主义”“民主自由”“美国化世界”等主流叙事,正遭遇其国内越来越多清醒政治人士的质疑,需要“外交新叙事”的呼声渐趋高涨。美国将其自18世纪90年代末至上世纪40年代末实施的孤立主义政策,做了在美洲完善其“自由”制度和抵制卷入欧洲权力政治把戏的自我美化叙事,更是将二战后用其治理理念和模式对世界进行“美国化”的总战略,做了国际舆论或话术导向的设计,制造并对外灌输美国制度和规则在世界普及会带来“永久和平”的说辞。在美国处于美洲或全球“单极时刻”阶段,这种自我美化的叙事有一定市场。但在美外交与内政积弊日深、外交挫折失败和内政分裂动荡不断呈现的当下,这种主流叙事就严重脱离现实,引发越来越多的怀疑。可以说,新右派的声音未尝不是美自我校正其不当主流外交叙事的一种有益尝试。

第二,美国外交实践属“帝国性质”,但其主流政治精英却以“世界主义”自我界定,对“民族主义”往往是持反感立场。以绝对的优势实力改造他国和迫使他国进行自我改造,是美国过去70余年外交的真实写照。这种实质上是侵略扩张的“帝国主义”做派,却被美国自我赋予了“世界主义”的“和平”解读。对他国任何不合乎美国利益诉求的政策,华盛顿动辄以“国际规则”“国际制度”“国际标准”等标配话语加以指责,但对自身违反的事实则是有意忽视。美国通常不愿以“民族主义”解读其政策,生怕贬损了自身外交的世界性。然而,“帝国外交”的灾难性和“世界主义外交”的欺骗性如今日益凸显,越来越不得人心,回归“外交为民(族)”对美而言未尝不是一味清醒剂,使其明白自己并非“例外国家”,搞双重标准的把戏已经没有市场。新右派的主张可说是对美国“身份认同”何处去的又一有力提醒。


第三,兰德·保罗的“民族主义”或“本土主义”外交主张在美国存在相对深厚的历史土壤,不乏支持群体。自二战后选择在和平时期与欧洲国家搞军事结盟的战略以来,美国国内始终存在较强的“新孤立主义”力量,他们主张政策聚焦完善国内制度,解决国内问题,保持自身民族性,反对大规模对外援助,更反对四处干涉他国,尤其反感以十字军东征的劲头对外用兵。他们通常持“美国优先论”的外交观,二战时期的参议员罗伯特·A·塔夫脱、冷战期间推动美苏缓和的总统理查德·尼克松、1992年以独立候选人参加总统大选的罗斯·佩罗、曾是三位总统高级顾问且仍较活跃的评论家帕特·布坎南等,大致可归入此群体。

在自由主义意识形态弥漫的美国政治环境下,这些在政策分析中往往具有自我约束性的现实主义者群体,想要发挥实质性的政策影响力通常较为困难,但其作用又很独特,常是观察美国外交衰败乱象的某种信号灯。他们的声音或影响力在政策领域骤然增强,往往是美国外交遭遇挫折或进入转型的先兆。当下新右派受到越来越多的关注,正是反映了人们对美国外交危险性的担忧在日渐增多。

第四,兰德·保罗的对华观点具有较强“收敛性”,它会为华盛顿在考虑更激烈对华竞争战略时提供反省的素材。新右派有时会被贴上“民粹主义”标签,但与极端政治投机分子的“民粹”内涵不同,新右派并非寻求在选举中政治化操纵民众,而是更多带有务实化解民众对现实“愤懑”情绪的色彩。发展自身经济和社会、巩固民族文化和认同,应是其试图达成的关键目标,就此而言,稳定中美关系对美自身比较重要且不可或缺。中美之间可以有竞争,但不能搞对抗,美国不应傲慢盲目地处理对华关系,人为制造美国自我完善的枷锁。新右派提供的这一政策处方不失理性。

总的看,与当下美国主流政治精英群体中“自由霸权”观念依然四处弥漫的病态政治氛围存在显著不同,新右派的主张带有鲜明的民族性、国家性和处理国际事务中的收敛性和谨慎性,值得持续观察。不过,其实际政策影响力究竟会有多大,仍需细致评估。(作者是外交学院国际关系研究所教授)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?