The passing of Sen. Lindsey Graham, the war in Iran, and the incapacitating illness of Sen. Mitch McConnell are sending shock waves through politics in America and abroad. These events are reinvigorating conversations about “America First.” Your authors have vastly different views on the matter. We debate the merits of our perspectives.
What is “America First” and why is it reemerging in politics?
Cowley: I am a proud nationalist. Nationalism is rooted in patriotism. I believe America should put Americans’ interests first. Americans are diverse in heritage but equally blessed by investments in a strong economy and national defense. I’m not advocating for only these things and the exclusion of making friends and influencing people (i.e. building alliances), but the priority should be taking care of needs on the homefront before nation-building elsewhere. For too long, America has borne the outsized burden of being the police force and global humanitarian for other nations. From capital investment to boots on the ground, we disproportionately hand out American assets to countries that don’t reciprocate. We foot an outsized portion (more than half) of the NATO bill while the other 31 allied countries reap most of the benefits.
Nationalism doesn’t mean we pick up all our toys and go home. It means putting Americans’ interests first, then aiding others. That includes equitable trade deals, prioritizing our own national defense and above all, domestic tranquility and prosperity. My taxes should benefit my family and fellow countrymen first, not foreigners who hate us. As U.S. Sen. John Kennedy says, “they should be able to hate us for free.”
As a millennial, I have never seen America win a war. We have squandered trillions of dollars and actually left other countries worse off. Meanwhile, we have a homeless and drug epidemic happening in the homeland. Kids are falling behind in education, inflation is stretching family budgets to the brink, and our infrastructure is in desperate need of repair. Call me crazy but I think these needs are more worthy of our tax dollars than wasting $20 million on Arab Sesame Street.
The passing of Graham is unfortunate. With him goes a key supporter of Trump and an influential warhawk. Anti-interventionists mourn the loss of this remarkable leader but welcome the page turning on Bush-era “bombs before brethren” policies.
Pignanelli: “We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.” — Ronald Reagan.
As a curmudgeon, I enjoy a grasp of history and the label “pragmatic globalist.” For me, the elements of America First are more unsavory than pineapple on pizza!
We have been down this path. The moniker dates to 1919, when Woodrow Wilson promised to keep American troops out of World War I. This narrow mindset bred the disastrous 1930 tariffs, which caused the Great Depression. America First really gained traction in the 1930s among Republicans and Democrats opposed to supporting countries engaged in World War II. It was only through American engagement that fascism was defeated and communism contained.
The last 80 years witnessed unprecedented progress, with warfare confined to regional areas. This Pax Americana was a direct result of our nation’s willingness to uphold democratic principles, promote economic development, and build an incredible military. We established a series of alliances with countries that shared these goals. A primary understanding for globalists is that America’s priorities and interests are truly prioritized and protected when others on the planet also benefit.
America First and Democratic Socialists share non-interventionist foreign policy objectives. They ignore the fact that the world benefited from America’s engagement while Americans also prospered. Authoritarian regimes view isolationism as a weakness. We must have a strong military, backed by coalition partners, to confound our many adversaries.
America First is reemerging because the lessons of experience are slowly fading. But it must be challenged, or otherwise history will repeat itself.
Which is better for Utah, nationalism or globalism?
Cowley: For the most part, Utah invests our taxes well but federally, there are a lot of unmet needs, especially when it comes to the management of federal lands. Money spent abroad could fill those gaps. Hill Air Force Base would be the beneficiary of further warmongering but the toll would be significant.
Pignanelli: History explains again! Because of the collapse of international markets for agricultural and mining products, Utah was especially devastated by the Great Depression. (A Utah senator sponsored the tariffs that propagated this disaster.) A global, not a nationalist, approach will protect the roaring economy we enjoy in the Beehive State.
Could this be an issue in the upcoming elections?
Cowley: It already is. Many Republicans are disappointed with Trump reneging on promises like “no more foreign wars.” MAGA voted to end everlasting military conflicts, lower egg and fuel prices and for a resurgence of “made in America.” Few if any of these pledges have been fulfilled. This voting bloc will express their disapproval at the ballot box. The real winners may be Democrats, benefiting from a fractured Republican Party.
Pignanelli: Because of the Iran conflict, there will be references to America First in November. This bipartisan extremist issue will explode in 2027, impacting the 2028 presidential and federal elections. We hope that reason prevails.