Out of the bubble
Program takes foreign policy conversation to the country. First stop: Pittsburgh
Like many folks in the nation’s capital, I’m not originally from Washington. I grew up in the suburbs of Detroit and return home to the Midwest at least a couple of times every year. For the 20 years that I’ve lived and worked in Washington, I’ve considered myself to be relatively grounded and attuned to the sentiments and perspectives of everyday Americans. I have also been operating under the assumption that the divide between the right and the left is one of our greatest challenges.
It turns out that I was wrong, on a number of counts.
The election of Donald Trump last November revealed many things, but for me, one lesson stood out: the widening disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country.
For the record, I still worry about the widening disconnect between the right and left but at least in my field of national security, there exists a strong bipartisan consensus on the basic tenets of U.S. foreign policy. Republican and Democratic leaders working on national security, whether that’s in the government, think tanks or in Congress, tend to agree on the value of global trade, democratic governance, human rights, and global and regional alliances. Do they argue over what to do about the Iran deal and North Korea? Absolutely. But both parties have worked for decades to preserve and promote U.S. values and protect the world order that we helped create with our European allies some 70 years ago.
That’s exactly why so many of us working in foreign policy in Washington were stunned by both the outcome of that election and what we heard from voters during the campaign. We were stunned to learn that the bipartisan consensus on the importance of American engagement in the world was under attack from detractors on both sides of the aisle.
Many factors have contributed to this divide between the “foreign policy establishment” and the rest of the country. First and foremost, many Americans today simply aren’t feeling the benefits of global trade deals like NAFTA or globalization in general. According to a recent poll with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, only 50 percent of Americans believe trade deals between the United States and other countries benefit both countries. In the wake of the costly and long-term missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as missions in places like the Balkans), Americans aren’t necessarily convinced about the utility of promoting democracy, reconstruction efforts, and providing aid around the world. They want to focus on challenges at home, which is why Mr. Trump’s “America First” resonated so strongly. In terms of international organizations, Americans do support alliances like NATO (80 percent, according to a recent Gallup poll) but are tired of carrying most of the burden, especially for our allies in Europe.
These and other conclusions from last fall’s election have given the foreign policy community in Washington pause and triggered a considerable amount of selfreflection. While many of us pride ourselves on our roots in Nebraska or Texas or Florida, we have had to acknowledge that there is more than a grain of truth in the accusation that we live in a “bubble.” The question is what do we do about it? In other words, how can or should Republican and Democratic national security experts in Washington respond to the grievances and sentiments of the American public today? Do we work to defend the status quo? Do we assume that today’s trends are just another chapter in America’s history of swinging between what author Stephen Sestanovich calls a “maximalist” foreign policy and retrenchment? Do we wait for today’s skepticism about U.S. engagement in the world to fade?
My small bipartisan think tank, the Center for a New American Security, has settled on an approach, and it starts with getting outside of Washington. Over the course of the next three years, we are going to take small groups of Americans and Europeans to 12 cities — not on the coasts — across the United States. The goal of this project is simple: to hold discussions and debates on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy and the trans-Atlantic relationship with diverse audiences across America with the hope that we can help close the gap between Washington and the rest of country. We aren’t coming to town to lecture folks, though. Instead, we want to foster a genuine exchange of ideas that will allow the residents and leaders of those 12 cities to ask the hard questions and challenge some of our long-standing, core assumptions about the transAtlantic relationship. We’re coming to listen.
Our first stop is Pittsburgh, today and Friday. We’re hosting a series of public engagements and meetings with business leaders, political leaders, students, journalists and the public. We look forward to starting a new conversation and getting outside the bubble. For more information, visit cnasinthefield.org