For most of the United States’ 200-year-plus history, various forms of “isolationism” have been the guiding principle of its foreign policy. Believers in isolationism contend that the US should try its best to avoid conflicts with other countries and should not have any overseas entanglements. Otherwise, the liberal democratic system and values that the US seeks to uphold will be tarnished or destroyed. Even those who agree with “American exceptionalism” (the belief that the US is a unique country with a historical mission to shape the world in its image) believe that it should pursue isolationism. In this view, the US can set an example through its actions and spread American values and institutions. However, even under “isolationism”, the Western Hemisphere must remain the sphere of influence of the US, and no other country is allowed to interfere. The Monroe Doctrine is an explicit and peremptory public declaration of this position.

Since World War II, American foreign policy has been dominated and directed by those foreign policy elites addicted to the doctrine of “liberal internationalism”. The goal of “liberal internationalism” is to build an international order that embodies the American values of freedom, democracy, and an open market. At the same time, the US should achieve global hegemony within this international order. This American global hegemony is often lauded as “liberal hegemony”. These elites firmly believe that only under US “liberal hegemony” can world peace, personal freedom, democratic development, and US security be guaranteed.

These foreign policy elites are entrenched in the US government, the two major political parties, universities, think tanks, the media, and numerous nongovernmental organizations. They form a huge and tight political group bound together by “groupthink”. Many politicians, experts, and scholars have gained career development opportunities, improved social status, and generous material rewards as American diplomatic affairs have become increasingly substantial and complex.

It can be said that the vital interests of many American elites are closely related to the US’ extensive entanglements in international affairs, and the internal affairs of other countries.

The rise of these foreign policy elites is described in detail by Stephen Wertheim in his book Tomorrow, The World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy (2020). He noted that the US had avoided political and military commitments that would draw it into European-style power politics for most of its history. Then, after the start of World War II, the US suddenly envisioned a new role for itself as the world’s dominant armed superpower. This shift occurred in the months before the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Following the Nazi conquest of France, the architects of America’s new foreign policy had come to believe that the US should always take the lead in international affairs. “As late as 1940, the small coterie of officials and experts who composed the US foreign policy class wanted British preeminence in global affairs to continue or hoped no power would dominate. The war, however, swept away their assumptions, leading them to conclude that the United States should extend its form of law and order across the globe and back it at gunpoint.” Now they believed the US must maintain order by force or suffer in a world dominated by another great power.

Even before Pearl Harbor, American officials and intellectuals planned not only to enter the war but also to achieve global hegemony after hostilities had concluded. In their minds, peaceful interaction would only be possible if the US was willing to use force globally; so the US must achieve “primacy” in the world. To prevent the international sphere from falling into chaos or despotism, a benevolent hegemonic state would have to act as the world’s order keeper, and the US was the only entity suitable for this role. Or so they believed.

Although “primacy” is an idea, it has concrete implications for US global policy. First, it directs the US to acquire and maintain military power superior to any other nation or future coalition of nations. Second, a heavily armed Fortress America that protects only the US is insufficient. “Primacy” requires the US to station troops in regions critical to the global balance of power or at least commit itself to ensuring their security during an attack. Third, “primacy” means that the US is willing to use force often to achieve its goal.

Given the long history of American isolationism, many people in the US still endorse it. The US foreign policy elites, therefore, must provide incentives to win their support for “liberal internationalism” and “liberal hegemony”, or at least to prevent them from opposing it. Stephen M Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University, pointed out in his book The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of US Primacy (2018) that, given the US’ superior geopolitical position and fortunate history, it is indeed difficult to convince Americans to pursue “liberal hegemony”.

To achieve this goal, advocates of “liberal hegemony” must convince the public that “it is necessary, affordable, and morally desirable”. First, they exaggerate the threats facing the US, convincing Americans that the world is dangerous and their security depends on active US engagement in international affairs. Second, they deliberately exaggerate the benefits of “liberal hegemony”, arguing that it is the best way to defuse potential dangers, promote prosperity, and spread precious political values. Finally, they try to hide the costs of their ambitious foreign policy to convince Americans that it is a good deal even if the chances of success are low.

Throughout the Cold War, to build and expand its “liberal hegemony” in the world, the US wantonly and even unethically interfered in the internal affairs of other countries by various means, including rigging other countries’ elections, ensuring that anti-communist political forces siding with the US won elections, buying off pro-American politicians, opinion leaders and military personnel, vigorously promoting Western values and anti-communist ideas, overthrowing other countries’ regimes, and sometimes even invading other countries and implementing direct rule.

After the end of the Cold War, the world entered a brief “unipolar moment” in which the US was the sole hegemon. The US unreasonably claimed that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the upheavals in Eastern Europe were great victories for its “containment” strategy against the Soviet Union. With a complacent and triumphalist mentality, the US foreign policy elites came to believe that the development of human history had come to an end and that henceforth capitalism and liberal democracy represented by the US were humankind’s only choice. To promote and even accelerate the process of the “end of history”, the US emphasized that it was an “indispensable nation” and granted itself a mission to export Western democracy around the world to ensure enduring world peace. Armed invasion, “color revolution”, regime change, ideological infiltration, and economic and diplomatic coercion were all legitimate and moral means because their “noble goal” was to promote the progress of those countries and even the world.

This idea, which is heavily characterized by triumphalism and white superiority, is particularly prominent among those known as “neoconservatives”. “Neocons” can be described as extreme believers in “liberal internationalism”. To establish America’s “liberal hegemony” around the world, neocons advocated the use of military, financial, economic, political, and ideological means to suppress America’s opponents and to transform other countries into democracies by the same means. They claimed that one of the main goals of the US’ second war against Iraq was to “transform” the country into a democracy, and they believed that, if it became a successful model of Western democracy, it could promote democratic reforms in other Arab countries.

The influence of US foreign policy elites who advocate “liberal internationalism” and are determined to establish “liberal hegemony” has been declining irreversibly in American politics over the past decade, and they will not be able to escape the fate of losing power in the future

However, although the elites who believed in “liberal internationalism” were able to dominate US foreign policy after World War II, what they advocated was largely unsuccessful. In addition to bringing pain and disaster to many countries, these policies have also seriously sapped the US’ national strength, international reputation, and the attractiveness of the institutions and culture advocated by the West. More importantly, the US has not made itself safer or more prosperous by pursuing “liberal internationalism”. Over the past two decades or so, especially with the US’ failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, more and more Americans have become frustrated with US foreign policy, and calls for Washington to reduce its involvement in foreign affairs have grown louder. Many ordinary American people became increasingly discontented with “liberal internationalism” and the US foreign policy elites, which significantly led to their eventual demise.

Walt lamented that the hopes at the beginning of the post-Cold War era were shattered in 2016 because of the failure of American foreign policy run by the foreign policy elites. The US’ longstanding adversaries have grown stronger and more confident, its traditional allies have become weaker and more divided, and Washington’s ambitious attempts to reshape regional politics, spread liberal values, promote peace, and strengthen global institutions have mostly failed. The expansion of US security commitments further afield has not made Europe, Asia, or the Middle East more peaceful, and in some cases, has even led to wars that would not have occurred otherwise. Instead of encouraging regional powers to resolve their differences and develop security arrangements that do not require active US guidance, Washington has created a fragile world order. That order would disintegrate rapidly if the US stopped bearing the global burdens it once eagerly embraced. Another American scholar, John J Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, launched a sharp and ruthless attack on the US foreign policy elite in his book The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (2018). He predicted that America’s “liberal hegemony” will fail. He asserted that policies to reshape the world in America’s image should protect human rights, promote peace, and make the world safe for democracy. But this is not the case. Instead, the US has become a highly militarized state that wages wars that disrupt peace, undermine human rights, and threaten liberal values at home. The strategy of installing “liberal hegemony” inevitably leads the US to formulate policies contrary to the nationalism and realism of other countries, and these policies ultimately have a far more significant impact on international politics than liberalism. Although “liberal hegemony” will not achieve its goals, its failure will inevitably come at a considerable cost. The US is likely to end up in endless wars, which will increase rather than reduce the level of conflict in international politics, thereby exacerbating the problems of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Moreover, the US’ military actions will almost certainly ultimately threaten its liberal values. Liberalism abroad leads to illiberalism at home. Finally, even if the US achieved some of its goals — spreading democracy, promoting economic exchange, and building international institutions — it would not bring peace to the world.

Over the past two decades, dissatisfaction with American foreign policy and the foreign policy elites has continued growing in the US, contributing significantly to Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election. The foreign policy advocated by Trump is amply suffused of isolationism and unilateralism. Under the battle cries of “America First” and “Make America Great Again”, Trump strived to withdraw the US from international affairs and the internal affairs of other countries. Trump sneers at “liberal internationalism” and particularly at the foreign policy elites who have long controlled US foreign affairs. However, Trump failed to achieve all his goals during his first term, and his successor, Joe Biden, notwithstanding rhetorically extolling multilateralism, still stuck with “America First” as the guiding principle in actual actions. Following Trump’s return to the White House this year, he is impatient to vigorously push ahead with his unilateral diplomatic policy, aiming to fundamentally reshape the US’ post-World War II foreign policy in the shortest possible time.

The influence of US foreign policy elites who advocate “liberal internationalism” and are determined to establish “liberal hegemony” has been declining irreversibly in American politics over the past decade, and they will not be able to escape the fate of losing power in the future. This is not mainly because of Trump’s distrust and failure to depend on them but because American society has lost its enthusiasm and confidence for entanglement in foreign affairs. A Chinese idiom states, “A centipede is still alive even after death.” Some believers in “liberal internationalism” will still strive to find ways to survive and retain political clout. Today, to reverse their decline, they have deliberately transmogrified into radical China hawks, irresponsibly portraying China as a deadly national security threat to the US, vigorously advocating fiercer containment and encirclement of China and even calling for the use of force to eliminate the “China threat” to slow down the US’ pace toward isolationism. To bring down China, these people will do anything to make the so-called “rules-based international order” a sham. There is no doubt that these incompetent and overconfident “liberal internationalists” have become a political force that will continue to sour US-China relations.

The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant for the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.