Columnist Jonah Goldberg recently compared President Donald Trump to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Goldberg likens Trump’s “America First” policies to “Rousseian nationalism,” which was summed up by the quote “the nation should come first and that every citizen’s primary allegiance was to the nation.”
Goldberg’s remarks reflect a broader sentiment among neoconservatives. They disdain Trump’s policies, which prioritize America’s security and flourishing over that of other nations. To them, Trump tramples precedent and conservative tradition writ large. However, neoconservatives often fail to recognize that these policies, specifically Trump’s foreign policy, have conservative precedent and harken back to earlier periods in American history. Whether one agrees entirely with the MAGA movement or not, we must acknowledge that Trump’s “America First” vision has old roots.
The political climate of conservatism during the early 20th century helps explain the Trump phenomenon. Led by politicians Robert A. Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge, the Old Right espoused five principles: republicanism (states’ rights), traditionalism, immigration restriction, non-interventionism, and free-market capitalism. Many, if not all, of their principles flowed from the idea that America should prioritize her own people first.
While one should not necessarily call the Old Right conservatives “isolationists,” they no doubt had reservations about entangling the United States in alliances and foreign affairs. In his article “Robert A. Taft, The Constitution and American Foreign Policy,” Geoffrey Matthews explains Taft’s reasoning: since the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the US military, entangling the nation in foreign wars could broaden the executive’s power. Taft thought that war could potentially undermine the Constitution and put America’s own domestic well-being at risk. “Far from safeguarding democracy, war is likely to destroy democracy right here in the United States,” Taft said.
Lodge expressed similar concerns to those of Taft. Speaking before the Senate in 1919, Lodge presented his “Constitution of the League of Nations” speech, arguing that the United States must be cautious before deciding to join the League. If America had joined the League, the American people would have been forced to fight against other nations. Ultimately, Lodge’s arguments were instrumental in keeping the United States out of the organization.
Lodge referenced the Founding Fathers to reinforce this position. Reminding his audience of President George Washington’s farewell address, Lodged remarked that “the principles of the Farewell Address in regard to our foreign relations have been sustained and acted upon by the American people down to the present moment.”
To disregard the first president’s warning would be foolish. Lodge believed Americans should, like Washington, think of their country first. He also invoked the Monroe Doctrine from President James Monroe for less intervention in foreign affairs.
In simple terms, the Monroe Doctrine states that America will not become involved in wars in Europe, but attacks on Central or South America will be taken as threats to North America’s security. In Lodge’s view, to broaden the Doctrine to include non-American territory would be to disregard the Doctrine entirely. “The Monroe Doctrine is based on the principle of self-preservation,” Lodge said. That is to say, it is the American people’s right to preserve their own nation without necessitating the aid of others.
If America were to join the League, it would have been disregarding both Washington’s and Monroe’s principles and ceding sovereignty. Lodge was especially concerned about how the other nations in the League would impact the United States’ immigration policies, determining who would come to America. He urged the United States to be wary of tying itself to other nations at the expense of its own livelihood.
Lodge’s concerns about the League were directly linked to his political philosophy:
I hope and pray that peace, unbroken peace, may reign everywhere on earth. But America and American people are first in my heart now and always. I can never assent to any scheme no matter how fair its outward seeming which is not for the welfare and for the highest and best interest of my own beloved people of whom I am one–the American people–the people of the United States.
When the Old Right movement of Taft and Lodge largely died out after World War II, the neoconservative movement filled the gap. Irving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservativism, discussed the movement’s principles in his essay “The NeoConservative Persuasion.” The neoconservative movement, unlike the Old Right, pushed the importance of intervention as foreign policy.
Kristol explained that “barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal.”
After years of the neoconservative consensus, Trump entered the political scene. Leading up to Trump’s election in 2016, Michael Anton wrote the article “The Flight 93 Election,” arguing that Americans are at a decisive moment for the trajectory of the nation. Trump had taken up three major issues for his platform: “immigration, trade, and war.”
That is to say, Trump’s priorities in these domains are at complete odds with America’s joint liberal and neoconservative trajectory. Trump is a “serious challenge to the status quo [of] more immigration, more trade, more war.”
In his 2017 inauguration address, Trump revealed his vision to be consistent with Anton’s description, and antithetical to that of the neoconservatives. He would prioritize America’s interests over those of other countries, citing the heavy burden America places on itself to support other nations both economically and militarily.
Later in 2020, in his State of the Union address, Trump echoed his commitment to bringing America’s troops safely back home from unnecessary wars. “America First” would come to define the MAGA movement. Trump promised not to entangle America in foreign alliances that would be a detriment to the American people, and he has kept his word.
Though some individuals have criticized Trump’s recent strike on Iran as being inconsistent with his foreign policy, others responded that, unlike the intervention of President George W. Bush, Trump’s strike had a clear, narrow goal and “bears zero resemblance to the democracy building parties of two decades ago.” Ironically, even Hillary Clinton, one of Trump’s greatest critics, was pleased with the President’s influence on NATO to increase individual members’ defense spending.
Whether one is of the opinion that non-intervention or intervention is prudent foreign policy, we must recognize that Trump’s “America First” position is not new. The idea that “the nation should come first” echoes back to the Old Right of Taft and Lodge. Contra Goldberg, prioritizing the American people is not Rousseauian. It’s Washingtonian and Monroeian.
