undefined | American Foundations

“America First” is one of the most contested phrases in modern political debate. To some, it’s common sense — a recognition that elected officials owe their primary duty to the citizens who sent them. To others, it conjures images of isolationism or worse. And in between, there’s a serious, substantive argument about what America’s role in the world should be — one that conservatives have been having among themselves for decades.

Today, on our first World View column, we’re not going to resolve that argument. We’re going to lay the groundwork so you can follow it intelligently.

Why Foreign Policy Matters to You

Most people tune out foreign policy. It feels distant — a domain of diplomats and generals and policy wonks, with no obvious connection to gas prices or school boards or the things that affect daily life.

That’s a mistake.

The foreign policy choices made in Washington over the past century shaped the world every American now inhabits. The decision to enter World War II determined whether fascism or liberal democracy would dominate the 20th century. The Cold War strategy of containment, sustained over four decades, eventually caused the Soviet Union to collapse. The failure to establish order after the Iraq invasion sent shockwaves through the Middle East that are still reverberating.

And on a more direct level: foreign policy affects trade, which affects jobs and prices. It affects alliances, which affect whether threats have to be faced alone or with partners. It affects energy markets, immigration flows, and the security of the homeland. Foreign and domestic are not separate worlds.

The Basic Framework

American foreign policy has always been shaped by a tension between two competing instincts.

The first is engagement: the belief that America has both the interest and the responsibility to be an active presence in world affairs, promoting stability, democracy, and the international order that protects American prosperity and security.

The second is restraint: the belief that America should focus first on its own house, avoid costly foreign entanglements, and be skeptical of military adventures that don’t have a clear, direct connection to American national interest.

These two instincts have existed in American politics since the founding. George Washington warned against “permanent alliances” in his farewell address. Theodore Roosevelt was an ardent internationalist who believed American power should be projected forcefully onto the world stage. Every administration navigates the tension between them.

The American-Led Order

After World War II, the United States made a deliberate choice to build and sustain a global order. This meant establishing institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and NATO. It meant stationing troops in Europe and Asia. It meant using American power to protect sea lanes, resolve disputes, and deter aggression.

This wasn’t pure altruism. A stable, open international order was good for American commerce, good for American security, and good for spreading the liberal values — political freedom, rule of law, free markets — that Americans believed in.

The results, by historical standards, were remarkable. The post-World War II period saw the longest stretch without a major-power war in recorded history. Global trade expanded. Hundreds of millions of people escaped poverty. Democracy spread to countries that had never known it.

Conservatives have generally supported this order — not without criticism, but as a framework worth preserving. The argument is that American strength, credibility, and engagement are what keep the order stable. Weakness or retreat invites rivals to fill the vacuum.

Where Conservatives Disagree

Here’s where it gets interesting. American conservatism includes a serious debate about what this commitment to international engagement actually requires — and when it goes too far.

Neoconservatives, prominent in the Bush-era GOP, believed that American power should be used actively to spread democracy, including through military intervention. The Iraq War was the fullest expression of this vision. The results were mixed at best, and the lesson many drew was that the limits of military nation-building are real.

Realists argue that America should focus on its concrete national interests — security, prosperity, protecting allies — and not try to remake the world in its image. They are skeptical of idealistic crusades and more comfortable working with imperfect partners who serve American interests.

Restrainers argue that America has overextended itself — maintaining too many bases, fighting too many wars, bearing too much of the burden for allies who could do more for themselves. They want a leaner, more focused foreign policy that spends less blood and treasure on places that don’t directly threaten American security.

America Firsters, reinvigorated by the Trump presidency, prioritize bilateral deals over multilateral institutions, are skeptical of the foreign policy establishment, and want to ensure that international commitments actually serve American citizens rather than abstract global interests.

These are real disagreements, rooted in genuine differences about American interests, American power, and American purpose. They don’t break down cleanly along party lines, and they’re worth engaging seriously rather than dismissing.

The Threats America Faces Today

Whatever one’s view of grand strategy, the current threat environment is real and significant.

China is the defining geopolitical challenge of the 21st century — an authoritarian great power with an expanding military, a revisionist agenda in Asia, and a sophisticated effort to expand its economic and technological influence globally. Managing that challenge requires strategy, resolve, and alliances.

Russia demonstrated in Ukraine that it is willing to use large-scale military force to revise European borders. Whatever one thinks about the specifics of U.S. support for Ukraine, the broader question of how to deter Russian aggression in Europe is not going away.

Iran has spent decades pursuing nuclear capability while sponsoring proxy militias across the Middle East. Its relationship with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis directly affects regional stability and the security of American allies.

Terrorism, though diminished since its 9/11 peak, has not disappeared. Failed states, ungoverned spaces, and ideological movements that recruit across borders remain a persistent concern.

None of these challenges has an easy solution. All of them require a United States that is capable, credible, and willing to act when its interests demand it.

What the Conservative View Comes Down To

At its core, the conservative view of foreign policy rests on a few convictions.

America’s strength — military, economic, and moral — is a force for good in the world, and its decline would be costly not just for Americans but for everyone who has benefited from the stability American power provides.

International institutions and agreements are tools, not ends in themselves. They are worth supporting when they serve American interests and worth reforming or abandoning when they don’t.

Allies matter — but alliances require reciprocity. America cannot bear the full burden of collective defense while partners free-ride on American security guarantees.

Military force is sometimes necessary, but the decision to use it should be made with clear objectives, serious assessment of costs, and genuine commitment to seeing the mission through.

And finally: the world does not organize itself. The choice is not between American engagement and a peaceful, orderly world. It is between American engagement and someone else filling the vacuum — with no guarantee the alternative is better.