The foreign policy of the next progressive president

We can expect presidents Warren or Cuomo to follow Progressive precedent in further reducing U.S. military intervention abroad and the capacity therefor, while continuing to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Because Progressives’ aversion to military force does not contradict their commitment to improving mankind, they do not shy from encouraging foreign factions whom they regard as their kin. President Obama’s intervention on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt’s military regime is but the most recent example of such involvement. Earlier, Obama had intervened in Honduras on behalf of a Progressive who had been foiled in his attempt to stay in office beyond constitutional limits, much as President Clinton had done in support of a Haitian president who had granted a telecommunications monopoly to Clinton’s associates.

The Progressives’ interest in “nation building” other peoples has always been an outgrowth of their sense of entitlement to “nation build” Americans into what they should be but are not. Using other governments to help transform America is another constant of progressivism, from which such as Warren or Cuomo would see no reason to depart. Whether by treaty or executive agreement or by judicial adoption of preferred “international norms,” American Progressives have sought to follow their European kin in putting more and more matters out of the reach of their domestic political opponents. Arguing that restricting the possession of firearms or the use of fossil fuels, or mandating compliance with any number of regulations is mandated by “international law” is less burdensome than arguing the merits thereof on one’s own responsibility. The next Progressive president is sure to be at least as tempted as Obama to impose some measure in the name of international law that he cannot get through the U.S. Congress—e.g., prohibitions on offensive language in school textbooks—and, like Obama, to include funds for implementing it in the general budget while daring the Congress to “shut down the government” by voting down the budget.