Power Problems

Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Brandan P. Buck, research fellow at the Cato Institute, discuss the impact of foreign policy in Trump’s electoral victory, whether Democrats will rethink their foreign policy agenda following their losses, what changes Trump might make with respect to the wars in Europe and the Middle East and towards China, among other topics. Show NotesChristopher S. Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim, “America’s Foreign Policy Inertia,” Foreign Affairs, October 14, 2024Brandan P. Buck, “Harris Embrace of Cheney Goes Back to World War I,” Responsible Statecraft, October 22, 2024

Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, discusses America’s new regime of high protective tariffs under the Trump and Biden administrations and assesses what may be to come on trade policy under a future Trump or Harris administration. He discusses the overly expansive authorities presidents have to impose tariffs, the weakness of commonly employed national security justifications for them, and the economics of why tariffs fail, among other topics.Show NotesClark Packard and Scott Lincicome, "Presidential Tariff Powers and the Need for Reform," Cato Institute Briefing Paper No. 179, October 9, 2024Scott Lincicome, "Six-Plus Years of Incoherent, Ineffective China Policy," The Dispatch, October 2, 2024

Dov Levin, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Hong Kong, examines the effects of whataboutism - essentially, charges of U.S. hypocrisy - on Americans’ foreign policy views. He explains his survey experiments to test the effectiveness of whatbaoutism on US public opinion and how it might shape policy. He also discusses his work on U.S. foreign election interference, the academic literature on hypocrisy costs, U.S. foreign policy activism, and avenues for future research on whataboutism.Show NotesWilfred Chow and Dov Levin, “The Diplomacy of Whataboutism and US Foreign Policy Attitudes,” International Organization Volume 78, Issue 1, Winter 2024, pp. 103-133.

Peter Harris critiques America’s grand strategy of primacy and advocates for a move to restraint that necessarily includes wholesale reforms to domestic as well as foreign policy. He explains why primacy has persisted despite the wisdom of retrenchment and how decades of an expansive foreign policy has shaped American politics, culture, and institutions. He also discusses the problems of vested interests, partisanship, and how to make restraint more salable to the public.Show NotesPeter Harris, Why America Can’t Retrench (and How it Might), Polity Press, 2024.

Daniel DePetris and Jennifer Kavanagh of Defense Priorities discuss the latest iteration of the Axis of Evil threat, this time in reference to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, and argue their relationship is misconstrued and overhyped. They discuss threat inflation, the relationship dynamics among these four powers, including China and Russia’s relationship and how US posture has pushed them together, the state of the Russia-Ukraine war, China’s role in the Middle East, the problem of prioritizing threats and interests under primacy, and how to constructively think about core US national interests, among other issues.Show NotesDaniel DePetris and Jennifer Kavanagh, “The ‘Axis of Evil’ is Overhyped,” Foreign Policy, August 14, 2024.

The Stimson Center’s Senior Fellow Dan Grazier and Research Associate Julia Gledhill analyze U.S. defense spending and explain how the Pentagon is creating “a budgetary time bomb set to explode in the next twenty years.” They discuss several examples of failed over-budget weapons acquisition programs and warn that future such fiascos are now in the making, with unsustainable budgetary implications, unless crucial reforms to U.S. defense and foreign policy are made. Show NotesDan Grazier, Julia Gledhill, Geoff Wilson, “Current Defense Plans Require Unsustainable Future Spending”, Stimson Center Issue Brief, July 16, 2024.

Renanah Joyce, Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, and Brian Blankenship, Assistant Professor at the University of Miami, explain how great power competition for foreign military bases in third-party host countries increases the costs of securing access. They discuss the strategy behind US forward basing over time, expansion into Africa in recent years, different ways of providing compensation to host countries, increasing competition for host country access, the lack of transparency on US overseas presence, and the strategic utility (or lack thereof) of overseas basing. Show Notes:Renanah Miles Joyce & Brian Blankenship (2024) “The Market for Foreign Bases,” Security Studies, 33(2), 194-223.

Charles Glaser, senior fellow at MIT’s Security Studies program and professor emeritus at George Washington University, discusses the dynamics of the security dilemma and international order. He explores how the security dilemma concept provides insights into America’s rivalry with its two great power rivals, Russia and China, and discusses U.S. policy with respect to the war in Ukraine, the dispute over Taiwan, U.S. interests vs commitments in East Asia, how to trim undesirable commitments, and why Washington’s flawed “liberal international order” concept leads to more conflictual foreign policies. Show NotesCharles L. Glaser, “Fear Factor,” Foreign Affairs, June 18, 2024Charles L. Glaser, “Washington is Avoiding the Tough Questions on Taiwan and China,” Foreign Affairs, April 28, 2021Charles L. Glaser “A Flawed Framework: Why the Liberal International Order Concept is Misguided,” International Security, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Spring 2019), pp. 51-87.