Is it Stupid to Spend U.S. Money to Help Other Countries?

 

The other day, in an interview with Fox News, President Trump said this: "“[Ukraine has] tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earth, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things. I want to have our money secured. I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion of rare earth, and they’ve essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don’t feel stupid. Otherwise we’re stupid." 

Trump expresses a similar sentiment with respect to funding a military base on Greenland and policing the Panama Canal. He is not alone. There is a common attitude, endorsed by many of his supporters, that the diminution of America's "greatness" has largely been an effect of a (perhaps "woke") tendency to be nice  to others without being transactional about it. On their view, we have been stupid and this has made us weak, indeed a gullible laughing stock that is constantly being taken advantage of by other, more sensible nations. They think the Trump Administration should be thanked for merely taking back what is rightfully ours. For this will not only make our country much richer, but will restore our reputation as a savvy nation around the world.

Others, of course, vehemently disagree with this view. Not only do they think is it cruel for rich countries to fail to lend assistance to poorer ones whenever possible, but, they insist that in the long run, the policy of kindness has made the U.S. seem heroic around the world. Furthermore, it is claimed that cannier adversaries, like China and Russia, will simply step in and take over our good works, and that such activities will result in those countries inheriting our former popularity. In fact, in the view of a lot of Democrats, Trump's alleged selfishness has resulted not only in the self-harming removal of foreign aid from those who desperately need it, but also in a pointless bellicosity to countries that have been our staunchest allies for many years. On this view, it can  never make one stronger to pick fights with, or levy tariffs on, our close friends even if it may improve our balance of payments. And if we act in this way, any new "allies" we make as a result (and they are claimed to not REALLY be true friends) will be equally transactional. That is, they will just take advantage of our new selfish isolationism, by filling our shoes both as benefactors and more generous trading partners. And, naturally, the opponents of MAGA believe that such moves will be sensible on the part of these adversaries, not at all stupid.

How should such arguments be assessed? While the Maga points above are entirely tactical, their opponents here make both moral and empirical/strategic arguments. How one really "puts America first" is thus an deep and difficult question, and, in my view, is not one that should receive only an instinctual response.* In any case, my own limited ability to successfully prognosticate with respect to foreign policy questions, in combination with my general skepticism regarding knowledge of moral truths makes me reluctant to put much weight on my own gut reactions here. 

But I do have one strongly held view. It is that policy matters like these should be decided democratically. But, sadly, we do not have authentic democracy in this country. If we did, not only would there be no Electoral College or Senate, but citizens would have the power to rapidly recall any elected official and overturn any enacted law via a referendum. My own views on Greenland or the Ukraine or foreign aid generally don't particularly matter, but the views of everyone ought to.  I don't know if the majority would agree with any of my own (possibly overly dovish) sentiments. But, sadly, that just doesn't matter in the United States.

My newest Hornbook Review touches on these matters. It is on a relatively old (1994/2002) batch of essays regarding the "America First" ideal. The instigating piece, by Martha Nussbaum, takes a cosmopolitan or "citizen of the world" stance.** Many of her respondents disagree with her. But none of the writers seem to me to put democracy first, as I would. Each seems to have more confidence in their own view about America's responsibilites both at home and around the world than in whatever may be desired by a majority of their fellow citizens. For any of you interested, my review of this book should be here by the end of this week.

______________________

* I note that discrepancies among scholars of voting theory engage in some of the same arguments over transactionalism vs. what might be called "long-term pie-in-the-skyism," with the first group insisting not only that strategic voting will always trump strict rule following, but that it is always stupid to believe otherwise. For example, the claim that with Approval Voting, voters who aren't exploitable will always bullet their favorite candidate instead of approving everybody they could tolerate has long been the most successful argument against that procedure. Again, that is both an empirical assertion and, I suppose, an insult to us softies.

** It is important to note that Prof. Nussbaum has changed her views since 2002. Her more recent take on these matters can be found in her books Political Emotions (2013) and The Cosmopolitan Tradition (2021) in which, as she has informed me, "I now follow Grotius in giving the nation, and emotions directed at it, a central part in justice."