Progressives’ positions on foreign policy issues threaten to contradict some of their values. Progressives are, in general, opposed to military interventions. And this stance was hardened following George Bush and the neocon's invasion of Iraq. One result of Iraq was the destabilization of the entire region. Now, like it or not, the U.S. must play a role in putting the pieces of that region back together again.
Stabilizing this region will almost certainly involve keeping troops in the region for some time to come, even though it will certainly be dangerous for our troops. This is not the case in Syria which did not have the massive casualties that occurred in Iraq. Then, Trump announced a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Syria. What will happen there now is unknown.
If the U.S. fails to help stabilize the region, the terrorist threat to the U.S. and Europe will increase and the people in the region will suffer even more misery than they otherwise would. Either of these outcomes contradicts progressive values.
Another aspect of foreign policy tied to progressives’ positions is multilateral trade agreements. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented and subsequently linked to the job loss and de-industrialization of the Midwest, Progressives have been leery of these trade deals. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton promised, if elected, to table the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Barack Obama had worked so hard to negotiate. Donald Trump, as part of his populist agenda, did withdraw from the TPP.
While these trade deals have economic implications, they increase the national security of the U.S. and its allies. They bind our allies close to us and disadvantage our adversaries. And they help strengthen burgeoning democracies and create markets for our goods. NAFTA, for example, was a net economic positive for the U.S., although it dislocated many workers and industries. But opponents conflate the economic effects of trade agreements like NAFTA with the growing political and economic disadvantages of the middle class. With less political and economic inequality, our political leaders could have spread the positive economic benefits of NAFTA among workers in all industries.
Without multilateral trade agreements, the U.S. will be disadvantaged both economically and militarily. Thus, the U.S. will not be able to afford many national and international programs Progressives want. Also, the U.S. might find itself embroiled in military conflicts that are abhorred by Progressives.
Of course, Progressives must obtain the political power to prevent usurpation of the military tactics and policies they must use to achieve their ends.
Stabilizing this region will almost certainly involve keeping troops in the region for some time to come, even though it will certainly be dangerous for our troops. This is not the case in Syria which did not have the massive casualties that occurred in Iraq. Then, Trump announced a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Syria. What will happen there now is unknown.
If the U.S. fails to help stabilize the region, the terrorist threat to the U.S. and Europe will increase and the people in the region will suffer even more misery than they otherwise would. Either of these outcomes contradicts progressive values.
Another aspect of foreign policy tied to progressives’ positions is multilateral trade agreements. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented and subsequently linked to the job loss and de-industrialization of the Midwest, Progressives have been leery of these trade deals. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton promised, if elected, to table the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Barack Obama had worked so hard to negotiate. Donald Trump, as part of his populist agenda, did withdraw from the TPP.
While these trade deals have economic implications, they increase the national security of the U.S. and its allies. They bind our allies close to us and disadvantage our adversaries. And they help strengthen burgeoning democracies and create markets for our goods. NAFTA, for example, was a net economic positive for the U.S., although it dislocated many workers and industries. But opponents conflate the economic effects of trade agreements like NAFTA with the growing political and economic disadvantages of the middle class. With less political and economic inequality, our political leaders could have spread the positive economic benefits of NAFTA among workers in all industries.
Without multilateral trade agreements, the U.S. will be disadvantaged both economically and militarily. Thus, the U.S. will not be able to afford many national and international programs Progressives want. Also, the U.S. might find itself embroiled in military conflicts that are abhorred by Progressives.
Of course, Progressives must obtain the political power to prevent usurpation of the military tactics and policies they must use to achieve their ends.