Here is a statement of American strategic priorities: “The United States cannot survive as a free and independent nation if a hostile power dominates any region of the world from which it could threaten the US. That is why we have binding treaty commitments with our allies to help defend their territorial integrity.”
And here is another: “America’s international partners must contribute a fair share of military investment, burden-sharing, and production responsibilities. Allies and partners that do not uphold their duties cannot expect the American people to uphold ours.”
One of these quotes dates back to 1987. The other, from last week. You probably guessed that the first, with its talk of binding commitments and shared defence, sounds like old-fashioned internationalism. The second, focused on burden-sharing and conditional loyalty, sounds like Donald Trump.
You would be right. The first is Ronald Reagan’s 1987 National Security Strategy. The second is Trump’s 2025 version.
Now, if you found yourself nodding along to Reagan’s vision of alliances and collective security, congratulations. By the standards of today’s American right, you are a globalist.
Read further into Reagan’s 1987 strategy and it gets worse. He calls foreign aid “indisputably money well spent” and “a key part of our first line of defence” – not a giveaway to ungrateful foreigners. He boasts about resisting “protectionist tendencies both at home and abroad.”
He treats international organisations as useful tools for solving common problems, not as threats to American sovereignty. By today’s Republican standards, this would not even pass as conservatism.
American conservatism has not merely shifted – it has inverted. What Reagan considered bedrock principles – binding commitments, territorial integrity, standing firm against authoritarian expansion – are now dismissed as naive internationalism.
The old conservative worldview combined several elements: a preference for tested institutions over radical change; genuine concern for peoples living under tyranny — at least Soviet tyranny, since friendly authoritarians were another matter; and fierce opposition to Soviet expansion, driven by the belief that totalitarian powers would keep expanding until stopped.
These strands wove together into what defined the American right for four decades. Reagan was its prophet. He spoke of America as a “shining city on a hill” whose example and strength would eventually triumph over the evil empire. That consensus has collapsed.
In its place has emerged something that would have baffled Reagan’s generation entirely. Today’s America First conservatives view alliances not as assets but as charity cases. They see NATO not as a bulwark against aggression but as a protection racket where ungrateful Europeans freeload on American generosity. They speak of allies the way a landlord speaks of tenants behind on rent.
Worse, they no longer recoil from authoritarianism. Russia is no longer the evil empire but a potential partner in a global struggle over values. They now use the language of national sovereignty to justify, not oppose, territorial conquest. When Viktor Orbán or Vladimir Putin speaks of protecting traditional values against Western decadence, many on the American right nod approvingly.
Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy makes this explicit. Alliances are now treated as deals. They can be renegotiated or abandoned at America’s discretion. The phrase “binding commitment” appears nowhere.
Europe is not ready for this. For decades, Europeans had convinced themselves that hard power was obsolete, believing that economic interdependence had rendered war unthinkable. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine proved them catastrophically wrong. They spent years warning that Trump might abandon them, but when he did, they still had no plan.
The clearest demonstration came with Ukraine. The American-drafted “peace plan” would force Kyiv to cede territory, cap its military and constitutionally ban NATO membership. It is surrender in all but name. The Ukraine betrayal is not an aberration. It is the new doctrine in action.
When American conservatives argue that Ukraine is “not our problem,” they are applying a pre-1945 view of the world. In that view, borders are suggestions, alliances are short-term arrangements and small nations survive only by accommodating larger ones. This is what Reagan warned against: a hostile power dominating a region, borders erased without consequence. The lesson of the 1930s, forgotten.
To be fair, they have a point. Reagan’s world is gone. The Soviet threat is gone. America faces different challenges. China matters more than Russia. Why should American taxpayers fund European defence?
But this line of reasoning misses a larger point. Reagan understood that American security depended on a system, not just a series of deals. The network of alliances, the institutions, the norms against territorial conquest – these were not sentimental attachments but strategic assets. If you abandon the system, you are left to defend everything on your own. That is more expensive, not less.
This shift goes deeper than strategy. It changes how the America First movement sees the world. Reagan believed that free nations, working together, could outlast tyrannies. Today’s American right seems unsure whether tyrannies are even the problem.
What does this mean for New Zealand? We built our prosperity on a simple principle: that big countries cannot simply invade small ones, and that deals once struck will be honoured. This is not idealism, but realism.
We cannot compel anyone to buy our milk or respect our fishing rights. We depend on rules that others choose to follow. When those rules dissolve, we have nothing to fall back on but hope. Hope that stronger nations stay benevolent. That is not a strategy. That is prayer.
The American guarantee that underpinned our security has become conditional, transactional, and unreliable. We still matter to Washington when we are useful. But usefulness is now judged deal by deal, moment by moment.
There is a temptation to see this as temporary, a Trump-era aberration that will correct itself. That hope is probably misplaced. The Republican Party has remade itself in Trump’s image. The old internationalist conservatives have retired, lost primaries, or simply changed their views to survive.
By today’s standards, Ronald Reagan would be a globalist, a multilateralist, an idealistic believer in alliances and collective security. He would be a never-Trumper.
That says much about how far the ground has shifted – and how exposed the rest of us now are.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
One of these quotes dates back to 1987. The other, from last week. You probably guessed that the first, with its talk of binding commitments and shared defence, sounds like old-fashioned internationalism. The second, focused on burden-sharing and conditional loyalty, sounds like Donald Trump.
You would be right. The first is Ronald Reagan’s 1987 National Security Strategy. The second is Trump’s 2025 version.
Now, if you found yourself nodding along to Reagan’s vision of alliances and collective security, congratulations. By the standards of today’s American right, you are a globalist.
Read further into Reagan’s 1987 strategy and it gets worse. He calls foreign aid “indisputably money well spent” and “a key part of our first line of defence” – not a giveaway to ungrateful foreigners. He boasts about resisting “protectionist tendencies both at home and abroad.”
He treats international organisations as useful tools for solving common problems, not as threats to American sovereignty. By today’s Republican standards, this would not even pass as conservatism.
American conservatism has not merely shifted – it has inverted. What Reagan considered bedrock principles – binding commitments, territorial integrity, standing firm against authoritarian expansion – are now dismissed as naive internationalism.
The old conservative worldview combined several elements: a preference for tested institutions over radical change; genuine concern for peoples living under tyranny — at least Soviet tyranny, since friendly authoritarians were another matter; and fierce opposition to Soviet expansion, driven by the belief that totalitarian powers would keep expanding until stopped.
These strands wove together into what defined the American right for four decades. Reagan was its prophet. He spoke of America as a “shining city on a hill” whose example and strength would eventually triumph over the evil empire. That consensus has collapsed.
In its place has emerged something that would have baffled Reagan’s generation entirely. Today’s America First conservatives view alliances not as assets but as charity cases. They see NATO not as a bulwark against aggression but as a protection racket where ungrateful Europeans freeload on American generosity. They speak of allies the way a landlord speaks of tenants behind on rent.
Worse, they no longer recoil from authoritarianism. Russia is no longer the evil empire but a potential partner in a global struggle over values. They now use the language of national sovereignty to justify, not oppose, territorial conquest. When Viktor Orbán or Vladimir Putin speaks of protecting traditional values against Western decadence, many on the American right nod approvingly.
Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy makes this explicit. Alliances are now treated as deals. They can be renegotiated or abandoned at America’s discretion. The phrase “binding commitment” appears nowhere.
Europe is not ready for this. For decades, Europeans had convinced themselves that hard power was obsolete, believing that economic interdependence had rendered war unthinkable. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine proved them catastrophically wrong. They spent years warning that Trump might abandon them, but when he did, they still had no plan.
The clearest demonstration came with Ukraine. The American-drafted “peace plan” would force Kyiv to cede territory, cap its military and constitutionally ban NATO membership. It is surrender in all but name. The Ukraine betrayal is not an aberration. It is the new doctrine in action.
When American conservatives argue that Ukraine is “not our problem,” they are applying a pre-1945 view of the world. In that view, borders are suggestions, alliances are short-term arrangements and small nations survive only by accommodating larger ones. This is what Reagan warned against: a hostile power dominating a region, borders erased without consequence. The lesson of the 1930s, forgotten.
To be fair, they have a point. Reagan’s world is gone. The Soviet threat is gone. America faces different challenges. China matters more than Russia. Why should American taxpayers fund European defence?
But this line of reasoning misses a larger point. Reagan understood that American security depended on a system, not just a series of deals. The network of alliances, the institutions, the norms against territorial conquest – these were not sentimental attachments but strategic assets. If you abandon the system, you are left to defend everything on your own. That is more expensive, not less.
This shift goes deeper than strategy. It changes how the America First movement sees the world. Reagan believed that free nations, working together, could outlast tyrannies. Today’s American right seems unsure whether tyrannies are even the problem.
What does this mean for New Zealand? We built our prosperity on a simple principle: that big countries cannot simply invade small ones, and that deals once struck will be honoured. This is not idealism, but realism.
We cannot compel anyone to buy our milk or respect our fishing rights. We depend on rules that others choose to follow. When those rules dissolve, we have nothing to fall back on but hope. Hope that stronger nations stay benevolent. That is not a strategy. That is prayer.
The American guarantee that underpinned our security has become conditional, transactional, and unreliable. We still matter to Washington when we are useful. But usefulness is now judged deal by deal, moment by moment.
There is a temptation to see this as temporary, a Trump-era aberration that will correct itself. That hope is probably misplaced. The Republican Party has remade itself in Trump’s image. The old internationalist conservatives have retired, lost primaries, or simply changed their views to survive.
By today’s standards, Ronald Reagan would be a globalist, a multilateralist, an idealistic believer in alliances and collective security. He would be a never-Trumper.
That says much about how far the ground has shifted – and how exposed the rest of us now are.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.