Mediaboss Marketing

Will the U.S. continue to play a leadership role in the new world order? Thats the key political question raised by the Ukraine crisis. The answer depends, more than anything else, on U.S. domestic politics.

In the old world order, which took shape after World War II, the defining conflict was democracy versus communism. In the late 1940s, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was aggressive and expansionist, just like Russia today under Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRepublican senators introduce bill to ban Russian uranium imports Hillicon Valley Invasion complicates social media policy Defense & National Security Blinken details Russia's possible next steps MORE. But the confrontation with communism had an ideological edge thats not so clear in the conflict with authoritarianism.

Communism was the ultimate big government menace. It threatened democratic political values and free enterprise economic values. It carried an even bigger threat for Americans atheism. Communism was typically depicted as godless communism. The United States is the most religious advanced industrial society in the world. More Americans say they go to church and believe in God, the devil, angels, heaven and hell than citizens of any other wealthy country.

There is a particular historical reason why that is true. Many groups, like Puritans in the 17th century and Jews in the 20th century, came to America seeking religious freedom. People who seek religious freedom are likely to be personally religious. In the U.S., they passed their strong religious values down from generation to generation. Churchgoing is a powerful norm in the U.S. Religious people are likely to see godless communism as a dire threat.

Authoritarianism is now replacing communism as a threat to Americas democratic values. Some authoritarian regimes are communist (China, North Korea, Cuba) and some are religious but not tolerant (Iran, India). Even here in the U.S., there is a streak of authoritarianism visible in Donald TrumpDonald TrumpGOP talking point could turn to Biden's 'underwhelming' Russia response House Oversight Committee opens investigation into New Mexico 2020 election audit Hunter Biden paid off tax liability amid ongoing grand jury investigation: report MORE and his supporters.

Authoritarians worship strength and have contempt for weakness. Trump has called Vladimir Putin very, very strong. He told a conservative conference last month that Putin took advantage of Biden being weak when he decided to attack Ukraine. Those views are not uncommon. In a YouGov poll taken last month, 57 percent of Americans called Putin a strong leader. Only 30 percent called President BidenJoe BidenRepublican senators introduce bill to ban Russian uranium imports Energy & Environment Ruling blocking climate accounting metric halted Fauci says officials need more than .5B for COVID-19 response MORE a strong leader.

During both the Cold War confrontation with communism and in the showdown with authoritarianism today, U.S. leaders have had to contend with a long tradition of isolationism. When President Harry Truman announced the Truman Doctrine in 1947, the U.S. abandoned its historic isolationism and embraced a policy of containing the spread of communism. Since World War II, whenever there has been a serious threat to international order or humanitarian values, the rule has been that unless the United States does something, nothing will be done.

What would have happened if the U.S. failed to act after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990? Most likely, Kuwait would now be part of Iraq. What Putin is threatening to do now is end Ukrainian sovereignty and make Ukraine part of Russia.

Having acted decisively in Kuwait, the first President Bush left the crisis in Bosnia to the Europeans. The U.S. had no vital interests there. What happened? The Europeans failed to do anything, and a new horror entered the worlds vocabulary ethnic cleansing. After seeing video of Kosovo Muslims being forced into railway cars and sent to concentration camps, the U.S. felt morally compelled to step in and lead a coalition to end the brutality.

Since World War II, the U.S. has acknowledged international interests as well as national interests. That is what President Clinton meant when he called the U.S. the worlds indispensable nation. We protect world order and defend humanitarian values.

During the debate over whether to act in Syria, Ben Rhodes, President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - What now after Zelensky's speech? Senate panel advances Biden Fed nominees to confirmation votes Best way to tackle inflation: Confirm Biden's Fed nominations MOREs deputy national security adviser, said: The U.S. for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. We do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way.

Apparently, the American public agrees. Polls are finding strong support for U.S. sanctions on Russia. In a YouGov poll for CBS News taken just before Bidens State of the Union speech, most Americans said they would be willing to send U.S. troops to protect NATO allies. That is our legal obligation under the NATO treaty. But a solid 71 percent said the U.S. should not send troops to Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO. President Biden drew that line clearly in his State of the Union speech: Our forces are not going to Europe to fight [in] Ukraine but to defend our NATO allies in the event that Putin decides to keep moving west.

President Biden is a traditional Democrat who fully embraces his partys longstanding tradition of embracing international interests. Donald Trumps America First policies are a repudiation of those interests.

At least one Republican is speaking out against him.

Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyEx-RNC chairman blasts Trump: 'Not fit to lead this nation' Watch: Weekend stories you might have missed Will the US continue to play a leadership role? MORE (R-Wyo.) told a Republican group, Those people in our party who are advocating for the United States to withdraw from the world, who are advocating that somehow the United States shouldnt lead in the world any more, the kind of world that we will all be living in, we can see now on a daily basis on our television screens when you see whats happening in Ukraine.

Bill Schneider is an emeritus professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of "Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable"(Simon & Schuster).

The rest is here:
Will the US continue to play a leadership role? | TheHill - The Hill