While a lengthier discussion would be necessary to even identify the various factors contributing to the state of American foreign policy, what we as a country value and further identify our goals, but I would like to make a brief introductory account of my thoughts. I will expand on it at a later date. Without spending too much time on it, I think it is likely that, at the least, most people have individual goals that, if not precisely the same, are at least parallel.
We all want to be valued, we want to be acknowledged and we want to be rewarded. These things are axiomatic enough that I do not think it necessary to discuss it further. The question, then is not whether we are opposed in our goals, but rather: are we making the right policy choices so that the cumulative utility of all citizens is maximized? We would likely see significantly less vitriol in politics if everyone at least recognized that simple fact.
There are, of course, bad actors. Politicians might value their own personal gains over what is best for the populace as a whole. Special interests might contribute funds or volunteers in exchange for policy decisions that benefit them while negatively impacting others. However, the average person that you might be debating these ideas with are presenting viewpoints that they believe to be the best way forward.
In regards to foreign policy, this means that some people believe we are best served by tightly controlling who and what passes through our borders closely while others believe we are better off opening ourselves to the world completely and without reservations. Neither complete isolation nor unreserved openness will yield an ideal outcome for everyone, but leaning towards the latter will certainly maximizing the cumulative well-being of the citizenry.
Drawbacks include the companies in select industries that will be out-competed by importers and citizens lacking pertinent skills out-competed by immigrants or having their wages depressed by similarly skilled immigrants willing to do the same job for less money. These are the loudest voices because their loss is greater than everyone else’s gain, but they are also a small minority. The cumulative gain across those gaining from free trade and immigration offsets the losses by a wide margin, but those gaining are rarely well organized.
Manufacturers using steel are a far greater contributors to employment and the economy, but we have just seen extraordinary protectionist measures called for by a relatively small number of individuals who lost their jobs and a small number of corporations whose profits have shrunk or are in danger of going bankrupt, all in the steel industry. A spike in steel prices may help them, but it will harm everyone not directly employed by the steel industry. It is far from the only example, but it should be fresh in the mind of anyone following current events and it is representative.
A far better response to their pleas would have been to help those impacted by the losses retrain or find alternate means of earning an income. An excellent idea would be to make small business loans and/or grants available to those in the most impacted areas. Offering scholarships to vocational programs, coding boot camps, and colleges has not worked in some cases, but it has shown promise in other areas. It would not help those who lost significant investments, but it is the nature of investing that some investments will not work out.
We can apply creative ideas to helping those who have lost out to global trade and large scale immigration without stymieing the growth and benefits that come from it. If we close ourselves to the world we will surely be left behind by those who do not. There remains a way forward in which we can lead without leaving swaths of our country behind. We should take it.