On July 1, 2024, I had the privilege of leading a Law & Liberty forum on “The Return of Great Power Competition.” There, I argued that we are witnessing the re-appearance of a multi-polar world and must shift our strategy accordingly. To confront this new world, our new grand strategy needs to incorporate the fact that in the case of American foreign policy, our “permanent interests,” to quote Lord Palmerston’s famous dictate, must integrate the “value” that we place on promoting individual liberty, democracy, free market capitalism, and finally, alliances. In short, American foreign policy represents more than just hard interests easily recognized by former practitioners such as Richelieu, Metternich, Bismarck, and even Kissinger, but also the central ideals of our founding as expressed by Smith, Jefferson, Payne, and Tocqueville. Over the past several weeks, I was pleased to see several leading minds issue strong responses to my initial arguments.

My friend and fellow Navy captain Ralph DeFalco led out shortly after my essay appeared with his thoughts on “National Security Policy for Great Power Competition.” Like the great naval intelligence analyst that he is, DeFalco raised the very valuable (and true) point that the nation had failed to develop an enduring national security strategy during the interregnum between the two Cold Wars on par with the strategic coherence of the containment strategy developed by George Kennan and operationalized by Paul Nitze. He then clearly stated that we ought to be focusing our efforts on the dual tasks of checking Russia’s revanchism and constraining China’s rise. Captain DeFalco’s final lingering concern centered upon the question of whether our nation possessed both the national will and leadership to do what so clearly needs to be done.

David Goldman, the distinguished deputy editor of the Asia Times responded next with his thoughts on “China’s Unique Challenge to the West,” which reminded both me and Law & Liberty’s readers that American foreign policy cannot be formulated in a vacuum. Goldman argued that my prescription that we should look to the past for lessons on how to operate in a multipolar world might not be as valid as I had hoped. His point was that the competition we currently find ourselves in is unlike any that our nation has engaged in previously because China is unlike any other competitor we have faced. He also advanced the profound observation that while China is poor in many economic resources, it is rich in the critical one of our modern era: working-aged people. I do think Goldman’s observation is important, but I think it glided over the fact that, first, China’s population is declining, and secondly, the population of its next-door neighbor and chief civilizational rival India is rising quickly. To the extent that population and people are important in terms of raw industrial or technological production, the West remains in a neutral to positive position vis-a-vis China.

The words of retired Royal Navy rear admiral, and PhD, Chris Parry highlighted the difference between how Americans conceptualize the world and how both Great Britain and other nations of Europe view it. Parry uses traditional realist works of British grand strategist Halford Mackinder and Americans Alfred Mahan and Nicolas Spykman to advocate for a new grand strategy amongst the seapower states of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and Japan to dominate at sea and then contest the “rimlands” that surround the “world island.” It is a compelling framework that mirrors some of my own advocacy for a maritime national security strategy. However, I think the admiral’s argument glosses over the compelling foundational importance of free trade and its associated concept of individual freedom and liberty in strengthening and sustaining the nations involved. To be sure, the tangential “influence of sea power” does convey the strategic agility and cohesive stamina that Parry cites, but I do feel that Parry, in his pursuit of the more traditional approach to grand strategy embodied by Mackinder, Mahan, and Spykman fails to assign proper value to the enlightened ideals that undergird the strategies of those men.

As the month of July turned towards its final days, two additional essays emerged in response to the initial offering. Max Prowant, Law & Liberty’s associate editor, suggested that the current geostrategic environment is not so dissimilar from the previous Cold War, and that perhaps we should pursue many of the same strategies that enabled the West to defeat the Soviet Union in that competition. He suggested that the current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East represented, in many ways, proxy wars like those engaged in during the Cold War era. He then strongly advocates for strengthening our ties with traditional allies and partners while seeking to undermine the current cohesiveness between our strategic rivals by stoking the traditional, historical tensions that exist between them. It is a very good essay that I believe revises and extends upon my original formulation rather than extensively critiquing it.

The final submission from William Ruger was breathtaking. Rarely have I read an essay that was so completely at odds with my own thoughts and yet delivered in such a polite and professional manner. Dr. Ruger, who serves as the president of the American Institute for Economic Research, is a classic realist who believes firmly that “the language of interests is the language of realism,” and then goes on to say that such language is not native to Washington, DC. Well said, sir. Dr. Ruger then adroitly employs the words of George Washington and John Quincy Adams to advocate for the avoidance of idealism abroad and in doing so, he correctly captured the spirit of American foreign policy in the first half of the nineteenth century. Dr. Ruger’s words triggered a sudden realization on my part. He caused me to remember a fact that is so present as to be assumed in our national life. The evolution of America’s interests did not end in the first half of the nineteenth century. I believe Dr. Ruger, along with other realists ranging from Morgenthau to Mearsheimer, fail to consider not simply the words of Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt as well as Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, but most importantly the words of Abraham Lincoln when he recalled the central importance of the Declaration of Independence in American policy development, even in its foreign policy.

For decades before Lincoln’s 1861 election, the Declaration of Independence was effectively a dead letter, but his elevation to the presidency upon the wave of support for the abolitionist movement within the United States resurrected the Declaration and reconfirmed its position as a keystone in our political process. Lincoln and his followers, both in the country and in the White House, read the words, “all men are created equal” broadly, which is to say, “all men” and not just “all white men” or even “all Americans.” The idea that “all men are created equal” and “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” was distilled in the crucible of the American Civil War as not only an ideal, but also the central core of the American identity and hence American policy must not be understated. Again, because of our unique nature as a nation which sprang from the Enlightenment, our values are our interests.

I appreciate the comments from all the respondents and the professional manner in which they were conveyed. I greatly appreciate the conversation that they have created, but mostly, I appreciate the chance to respond to them in what I hope is a likewise thoughtful manner. Such discourse in American political and intellectual life is all too rare, and I appreciate that the forum at Law & Liberty has afforded me this great opportunity and honor to contribute.