What’s more important when it comes to foreign policy: Our Hegemony or Liberal Internationalism

[OSR stands with Israel]

Assuming both differ on a particular action, what do you think is more important . I would say easily American Hegemony and it’s great that we are defying the WTO to take actions to preserve our Hegemony .

Btw this is also why support for liberal internationalism is dropping because it was way easier for us to be in favor of liberal internationalism when we were the unquestioned superpower in the world with unchallenged hegemony as the rules were set by us and internationalism could he used to increase our power .

It’s much more different to support it now given our hegemony is being challenged and global institutions limit our ability to respond to that threat .

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Option 1, marginally.

[America Needs R'hllor]

A loyal soldier of George Soros

[Battista Minola 1616]

I'm sure the many non-Americans on this forum are all eager to protect "our" hegemony at the expense of liberalism and democracy, definitely.

[PSOL]

Destruction of both

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm sure the many non-Americans on this forum are all eager to protect "our" hegemony at the expense of liberalism and democracy, definitely.

Well this forum is majority American and number 2 it’s an interesting question because it sort of tells you the difference between neocons/realpoltick supporters and liberal internationalists . The former just supports liberal internationalism because of the fact that we believe that it’s a good tool for preserving our hegemony while the latter supports it because they actually believe in it .

For example when the WTO makes a ruling against us on an action we are taking against China , I absolutely believe we should ignore that ruling(like we have under Trump and Biden) and take those actions anyway . If intervention is required, UN support would be good but I don’t think it should hamper us from taking actions either.

[buritobr]

I'm sure the many non-Americans on this forum are all eager to protect "our" hegemony at the expense of liberalism and democracy, definitely.

In a Chinese Forum, we will see many Chinese writing that the most important issue is the Chinese hegemony

[TheReckoning]

From a moral standpoint? Both are problematic, but the latter preserves democracy at least.

From a pragmatic standpoint? The former.

Overall, I prefer the latter.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm sure the many non-Americans on this forum are all eager to protect "our" hegemony at the expense of liberalism and democracy, definitely.

Well this forum is majority American and number 2 it’s an interesting question because it sort of tells you the difference between neocons/realpoltick supporters and liberal internationalists . The former just supports liberal internationalism because of the fact that we believe that it’s a good tool for preserving our hegemony while the latter supports it because they actually believe in it .

For example when the WTO makes a ruling against us on an action we are taking against China , I absolutely believe we should ignore that ruling(like we have under Trump and Biden) and take those actions anyway . If intervention is required, UN support would be good but I don’t think it should hamper us from taking actions either.

Yeah, it's an interesting paradigm and it also reflects in some ways the divide between the two parties too on foreign policy (though far from perfectly).

[Blue3]

There are other priorities more important than either of these two… whether when taking the more pragmatic approach, or when taking the more idealistic approach. There’s also the priority of pure whats in our National self-interest, which isn’t always the same as our hegemony. There’s also the approach of “shining city on a hill” instead of active liberal internationalism/interventionism. There are many other alternative approaches/priorities too, whether if thinking pragmatically or ideally.

[Ferguson97]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

[Vosem]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

I stand in awe of a thread where you are absolutely correct and everyone else is talking nonsense. Couldn't have said it better, actually.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

Read the question again , as i clearly mentioned in the cases when they do differ.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

I stand in awe of a thread where you are absolutely correct and everyone else is talking nonsense. Couldn't have said it better, actually.

Aren’t you a neocon when it comes to FP and wasn’t the neocon argument for Iraq that it doesn’t matter what the UN or the world community thinks .

[Vosem]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

I stand in awe of a thread where you are absolutely correct and everyone else is talking nonsense. Couldn't have said it better, actually.

Aren’t you a neocon when it comes to FP and wasn’t the neocon argument for Iraq that it doesn’t matter what the UN or the world community thinks .

I have some sympathy to neoconservatism, but in hindsight I think their goals were impossible because of the general incompetence of the American intelligence establishment, and I think they critically misidentified what the foreign dangers to America actually were. I go over this in point 4 of my post in the thread "Stories about how you changed politically".

[ingemann]

Russia and China use the first model and USA use the second model, it’s pretty clear that selling a ideological model is vastly better way to get global influence than naked self interest.

[Del Tachi]

American hegemony is the only way to support a liberal world order.  Institutions like NATO or the WTO are powerless without strong American sovereignty to enforce them.   

[Ferguson97]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

Read the question again , as i clearly mentioned in the cases when they do differ.

If you think that we should just ignore the WTO/NATO/UN whenever they do something we don't like, then why even bother being a part of those organizations at all?

[Sirius_]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

Read the question again , as i clearly mentioned in the cases when they do differ.

Just because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't connected, as a strong America is good for global liberal democracy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bump given recent events

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

Read the question again , as i clearly mentioned in the cases when they do differ.

If you think that we should just ignore the WTO/NATO/UN whenever they do something we don't like, then why even bother being a part of those organizations at all?

So we can obstruct bad decisions from taking place. Also NATO isnt comparable to the other two as China, Russia or Iran(and these nations allies) dont have influence over them

[vitoNova]

Liberalism, secularism, multilateralism.  

Always and forever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 2 (not a cartoon villain)

[Mr. Smith]

Opt. 1 is closer, but the old Taftian/Cleveland [and aspects of anti-'Nam/Iraq pacifism] sort of isolationism I lean towards is rather homeless in this binary.

A bit ironic.

[President Johnson]

Both should go hand-in-hand, and not as two competing options.

Obviously I would prefer a "Western hegemony" in general, of which the Transatlantic alliance is the most important cornerstone. The US and the EU would obviously have somewhat different priortities (I'm also counting in Canada and the UK for both sides of the Atlantic), but as about equal economic powers stand united in pushing back against China, Russia and other illiberal actors.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Both should go hand-in-hand, and not as two competing options.

Obviously I would prefer a "Western hegemony" in general, of which the Transatlantic alliance is the most important cornerstone. The US and the EU would obviously have somewhat different priortities (I'm also counting in Canada and the UK for both sides of the Atlantic), but as about equal economic powers stand united in pushing back against China, Russia and other illiberal actors.

I think there is a difference between organization like say NATO then the UN/ICC/WTO. The later give China/Russia/Iran(and their allies) way too much power and make it very hard to counter them as well.

Really I think the question comes down to whether you use the cold war era definition of liberal internationalism (which was mainly NATO and our allies not part of NATO) or the post cold war definition. The post cold war definition is way too broad and way too utopian as well and has clearly not worked .