Preferred foreign policy?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Thought this could be interesting…

[OSR stands with Israel]

A Combination of 2 and 3

[Schiff for Senate]

Hard to choose one, but I generally tend to be globalist/for free trade, and would probably be a more internationalist/interventionist than isolationist. I support nuclear deals for mutual nuclear disarmament / a decrease in nukes in theory, but I also believe a large and powerful military is not a bad idea (though reform is probably needed and big, overly-generous government contracts reconsidered). I like international agreements and institutions like NATO and the UN and the US' participation in such groups is important, both for it and the rest of the world.

I think any of the main options but number 4 (the crazy option that only insane isolationists like BG-NY and Pieman would go for) wouldn't be that wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm thinking a mix of 1,2,4, and 5, depending on the situation.

[Ferguson97]

Combination of 1 and 2, leaning towards 2.

[Aurelius]

Interest-based foreign policy that seeks to maintain the US as the foremost global power. Don't go to war unless there's a damned good reason to.

Voted 2.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Interest-based foreign policy that seeks to maintain the US as the foremost global power. Don't go to war unless there's a damned good reason to.

This is close to it.
But I also favor a dose of liberal internationalism in there as well. And especially institutionalism.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

The Trump presidency (really more of what Trump didn’t do) made me realize the good that America can do by swinging its weight diplomatically in a good way. No needless wars, but strong commitments to our allies in NATO and the western Pacific Rim are necessary to counterbalance authoritarian powerhouses like China (and Russia, though they’ve proven to be rather wimpy).

Admittedly I was more isolationist before 2016 and that was why I liked Gary Johnson’s foreign policy planks (Aleppo gaffe aside). Neocons are bad though and Biden did right by finalizing our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Voted option 1, but I still see merits in option 2 and some in option 5. I would’ve preferred if we had voided the patents on mRNA vaccines internationally so that countries with a robust medical industry, like India, could cheaply manufacture Covid vaccines.

[HillGoose]

3 all tha way

[Pink Panther]

Before the Ukraine War, I was starting to lean towards 4, but nowadays I am mostly in Camp 2, with maybe some slight bits and pieces of 1 and 6.

[Mr. Smith]

1, 2 and 4 combined.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

One. I support free trade and think the best way to promote American interests and interest in American goods is to not be a laughingstock.

[brucejoel99]

Voted Option 1.

At the outset, I'd argue that countries must be as responsible to their own people as human beings must be to each other, so my preferred foreign policy is one in which one's own resources aren't spent on other countries when they could be better used to help one's own, provided that other countries aren't deliberately f**ked over for one's own short-term gain (potentially begetting internal crisis), & that good trade/defense opportunities that benefit everybody aren't missed out on.

In the status quo, given recent conflicts, it's very easy to be disheartened by American internationalism. The problem isn't inherently our intervention but that our leaders often lack the nuanced understanding of foreign events that'd be necessary to properly engage in the responsible use of American force. There've been numerous examples of successful foreign policy interventions. NATO in Yugoslavia is a good one, in which American force was only employed to cease further bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, & destabilization of the region. Employment of diplomacy is key as well; open dialogue & communication between countries never hurt anybody. Good ends can be achieved through internationalism if engaged in properly, through the use of diplomacy & employment of force only in good judgment predicated upon a sufficient understanding of the complex issues at hand. Moreover, comprehensive aid programs for developing countries have arguably yielded almost exclusively positive effects. This again comes down to the aforementioned universal human responsibility to one another: the haves should help the have-nots, & those blessed with sufficiently superior economic positions like the U.S. ought to feel an obligation to help those countries that are less fortunate than them. (Not to mention, when it's often the West's dalliances that are responsible for the present economic conditions in many underdeveloped countries to begin with, we should empathetically always attempt to help those whom we can, no matter that benefits can be derived for all involved.)

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

None of the above, really.

tldr: good diplomatic relations with everyone; functional international institutions are a net positive; be part of a resilient web of nations that practice freedom, representative government, and rule of law; an effective Navy is necessary for America; encourage democracy, freedom, and rule of law via leveraging international commerce and helping our allies have effective militaries; stop capital accumulation because its corrosive; recognize that democracy and rule of law need to grow over time, not be wished into existence; global warming is a massive and immediate problem that is not treated with the urgency it deserves

[Spark]

Combination of 1 and 2.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Restrained realism.

[Make America Grumpy Again]

Combination of 2 & 4. I think we should focus on diplomacy and bilateral, case-by-case relationships in order to protect our allies during times of conflict/war while  trying to remain as self-sufficient as possible during rare times of peace. Even if self-sufficiency should be the goal, it would be reckless to abandon international ties. America first is not the same thing as America alone or allies last.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not 3 and not 4.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Proud to be the first person to vote #5.

We desperately need a West that isn't shy about throwing its weight around to stem the tide of authoritarian ethnonationalism worldwide, and is willing to pay the (at least economic, and if necessary military) price for that.

[Del Tachi]

Pan-Americanism

[All Along The Watchtower]

Pan-Americanism

Party like it's 1899!

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

1. is what I am closest to, but (I suspect for all of us) none of the options describe our outlooks neatly enough.

The focus on international institutions is why I picked it, not because I have much respect for them but because (as the post-globalisation crises have shown) most are in dire need of reform or replacement.

Problems like international agreements on taxation are barely even discussed, despite being more impactful than maritime disputes or trade wars. Isolationism is a (fairly bleak) fallback option for some of them, but it can't do much about global warming, among other issues.

[Person Man]

Let's look at what works and what doesn't. Neoconservatism sounded great until W totally bungled Iraq and Afghanistan and showed them to be a waste of time. $2 trillion dollars literally set on fire, 6000 dead soldiers, a million dead terrorists and civilians,  and the people in those countries still don't respect us.  Nationalism, like or not, is putting millions of lives and livelihoods in danger. I believe that the inflation started to increase before the pandemic because of Trump's trade wars. The war in Ukraine could have been avoided if we avoided an "America Alone" concept. Libertarian-based neoliberalism has not improved the civic lives of the people in authoritarian regimes and has only caused dictators to gain undue influence over the economies and governments of more liberal countries. Realism, whether or not you agree with the way Kissinger dealt with Vietnam,  could only predict 1 of 4 of the major crises/opportunities of the last 30 years.  

I don't think #2 will work. It sounds like the simplest option up there, but you can't deal with the world at arms length in a time where we don't know what's going to happen with the environment, technology, or even demography. Let alone the fact there are at least a dozen of world leaders who want to be the next Hitler.

I'm going with 5 here. Playing nice doesn't work. Going at it alone doesn't work. Being afraid of bullies because they have more guns doesn't work. Bribing people into being good doesn't work.  It's that simple.

I'd prefer 1 after watching the History Channel for a few years(back when it was the Hitler Channel) after being teased for being too old to watch cartoons when I was 13.

However, after 9/11, Iraq, Syria and the commies and racists that stopped us from helping, Trump, the Pandemic, the general assholery of China and Russia and how big of a let down free trade has been, yeah. I'm going with 5. We have to be tough on predators, whether at home or abroad. Not for our sake, but for everyone's sake.

[Beet]

The Trump presidency (really more of what Trump didn’t do) made me realize the good that America can do by swinging its weight diplomatically in a good way. No needless wars, but strong commitments to our allies in NATO and the western Pacific Rim are necessary to counterbalance authoritarian powerhouses like China (and Russia, though they’ve proven to be rather wimpy).

Really? For me it was the opposite. The Trump presidency made me realize how easily we could be hijacked by a madman and that the Bush presidency was no aberration. Thus the less we "throw our weight around" for the sake of it the better. One of the few saving graces of Trump's (first?) term was that even though he was nuts, he didn't really start any wars.

IMO the best foreign policy is subservient to a domestic policy that looks after the interests of our people, so I vote 2 and 4.