We must continue American leadership in this increasingly volatile world.
Left-wing political streamer Hasan Piker speaks at the YPU in April. (Credit: Sygne Stole)
Milad Davaran
Staff Writer, The Buckley Beacon
Last spring, left-wing Twitch streamer Hasan Piker spoke at the Yale Political Union in favor of the resolution, “End the American Empire.” During Piker’s speech, he described the fall of the USSR as “one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century.” Soon after, a student further argued in favor of the resolution, disagreeing with the assumption that, if the United States ceased to be the world’s dominant superpower tomorrow, power would necessarily have to be transferred from one international hegemon to another.
Instead, the student argued that the hierarchical structure of the international order should be dissolved and that power should ultimately rest with “human beings.” But this thinking, which is increasingly prevalent on the left, is not based in any sort of reality.
The reality is that we do not live in an ideal world, and history shows us that when great powers decline, others compete to fill the vacuum. Power has shifted throughout the centuries, moving from Portugal and Spain to the Netherlands, then to France and the United Kingdom, before the United States assumed the role of uncontested global hegemony following the fall of the Soviet Union.
In the absence of American dominance on the world stage, countries such as China and Russia would expand their influence. These countries have demonstrated little regard for human rights abroad, as they restrict the rights of their own citizens.
While Russia and China do have constitutions, they are what the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia called “parchment guarantees.” The citizens of these countries do not have the same individual liberties and political rights that Western nations value and strive to protect.
Many progressives today approach foreign policy from an idealistic perspective. Those who hold this view believe the world can move beyond power, politics, and national self-interest. However, thousands of years of human history have shown us that this is simply not the case; in a world driven by imperfect, self-interested humans, realism is the only logical theory of international relations.
Progressives who do not believe that a global power vacuum would be filled should read about what happened when America embraced isolationism in the 1930s. The result was neither peace nor stability, but a massive conflict that took tens of millions of lives. We do not live in a perfect world with altruistic state actors, and we never will. Therefore, we must operate within reality while still working to create a better future.
As the theory of realism posits, states are driven by self-interest, and these interests often diverge from the greater interests of humanity. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, “Great powers don’t mind their own business. They try to shape the world. And if we don’t shape it, the great powers that will shape it are authoritarians like China and Russia.”
This self-interest is exactly why it is important for the U.S. to lead on the world stage. Values matter, and the values of countries that have significant influence on the world stage have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the world and its people. The values that the U.S. espouses, not only at home, but also on the world stage, such as individual liberty, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, are better than those of the countries that seek to replace it as the global hegemon.
Piker and his followers, who no doubt would refute this fact, should read about the millions of deaths caused by communist regimes and the long-lasting consequences that many people in post-Soviet states continue to face today. Too many people romanticize these systems and ideologies without comprehending the tragic human cost behind them.
Although the left has vocally condemned the American empire for decades now, what is increasingly concerning is the calls for isolationism on the right. These efforts, although somewhat better-informed than leftist calls for isolationism, still lack a full understanding of the gravity of the situation.
If America does not tackle global problems when they arise, they will come close to home, leaving America with no choice but to act. There are fair critiques to make of U.S. foreign policy, and my argument surely is not that we should get involved in every country around the world. Instead, I argue preserving America’s position as the world’s hegemon is fundamentally in the American interest, and that any ground ceded on this front will be gleefully taken by those who wish to see a totalitarian, captive world.
A clear example of this philosophy can be seen through America’s involvement in the Persian Gulf War. Without the leadership of President George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein and his regime would not have only maintained control over Kuwait, but potentially invaded Saudi Arabia as well, putting the Middle East into an interminable conflict that would have affected all Americans back home. Instead, President Bush’s decisive action to build a coalition, enforce international law, and stop Hussein helped prevent additional deaths and a broader regional war from developing.
As Americans, and especially as Yale students who may go on to shape the nation’s diplomatic and political leadership, we have to ask ourselves who we want shaping the future of global politics. We can and should criticize American foreign policy, but we also have to recognize the value of the international system we have. We should not want a world where the CCP or the Kremlin calls the shots internationally.
We should focus on strengthening America’s role in the world, not abandoning it, because when power disappears, it does not remain vacant for long.