Power Problems

Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University, discusses the foreign policy implications of Trump’s victory, the extent to which it represents a rejection of “Liberal Hegemony,” and why Trump failed in his first term to set U.S. foreign policy on a new course. He also discusses the bureaucratic challenges of reforming foreign policy, what to expect from Trump in the second term, and the potentially beneficial constraints of “American decline,” among other topics. Show NotesStephen M. Walt, “The 10 Foreign Policy Implications of the 2024 Election,” Foreign Policy, November 8, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Brandan P. Buck, research fellow at the Cato Institute, discuss the impact of foreign policy in Trump’s electoral victory, whether Democrats will rethink their foreign policy agenda following their losses, what changes Trump might make with respect to the wars in Europe and the Middle East and towards China, among other topics. Show NotesChristopher S. Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim, “America’s Foreign Policy Inertia,” Foreign Affairs, October 14, 2024Brandan P. Buck, “Harris Embrace of Cheney Goes Back to World War I,” Responsible Statecraft, October 22, 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Scott Lincicome, Vice President of general economics at the Cato Institute, dives into the complexities of U.S. tariff policies shaped by recent administrations. He argues that high protective tariffs have failed to deliver promised economic benefits. The discussion reveals how presidential power has expanded, limiting Congress's role in trade decisions. Lincicome also highlights the economic burdens on consumers due to these tariffs and raises concerns about future policies under potential future leaders, emphasizing the need for reform in tariff authority.

Alex Yu-Ting Lin, Assistant Director and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s International Security Center, explains how China’s concerns about status interact with smaller regional states and how that in turn helps shape the US-China rivalry. He examines how states use information warfare to delegitimize adversaries’ foreign policies and applies his analysis to US-China relations. He also discusses Euro-centric bias in international relations studies, China’s approach to flashpoints like the South China Sea and Taiwan, and whether China should be considered “revisionist,” among other topics. Show NotesAlex Yu-Ting Lin, "Contestation from Below: Status and Revisionism in Hierarchy," International Studies Quarterly, Volume 68, Issue 3 (2024).Alex “Yu-Ting Lin, “US Bias in the Study of Asian Security: Using Europe to Ignore Asia," Journal of Global Security Studies, Volume 4, Issue 3 (2019): 393-401. (with David C. Kang) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dov Levin, an Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Hong Kong, dives into the intriguing world of whataboutism and its impact on U.S. foreign policy views. He shares insights from his survey experiments that explore how accusations of hypocrisy shape American opinions. The conversation also touches on the U.S.'s historical election interference and its connection to current debates about whataboutism. Levin emphasizes the complex interplay of naming and shaming within political discourse and considers future research avenues on this provocative topic.

Peter Harris critiques America’s grand strategy of primacy and advocates for a move to restraint that necessarily includes wholesale reforms to domestic as well as foreign policy. He explains why primacy has persisted despite the wisdom of retrenchment and how decades of an expansive foreign policy has shaped American politics, culture, and institutions. He also discusses the problems of vested interests, partisanship, and how to make restraint more salable to the public.Show NotesPeter Harris, Why America Can’t Retrench (and How it Might), Polity Press, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Daniel DePetris and Jennifer Kavanagh of Defense Priorities discuss the latest iteration of the Axis of Evil threat, this time in reference to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, and argue their relationship is misconstrued and overhyped. They discuss threat inflation, the relationship dynamics among these four powers, including China and Russia’s relationship and how US posture has pushed them together, the state of the Russia-Ukraine war, China’s role in the Middle East, the problem of prioritizing threats and interests under primacy, and how to constructively think about core US national interests, among other issues.Show NotesDaniel DePetris and Jennifer Kavanagh, “The ‘Axis of Evil’ is Overhyped,” Foreign Policy, August 14, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Stimson Center’s Senior Fellow Dan Grazier and Research Associate Julia Gledhill analyze U.S. defense spending and explain how the Pentagon is creating “a budgetary time bomb set to explode in the next twenty years.” They discuss several examples of failed over-budget weapons acquisition programs and warn that future such fiascos are now in the making, with unsustainable budgetary implications, unless crucial reforms to U.S. defense and foreign policy are made. Show NotesDan Grazier, Julia Gledhill, Geoff Wilson, “Current Defense Plans Require Unsustainable Future Spending”, Stimson Center Issue Brief, July 16, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Renanah Joyce, Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, and Brian Blankenship, Assistant Professor at the University of Miami, explain how great power competition for foreign military bases in third-party host countries increases the costs of securing access. They discuss the strategy behind US forward basing over time, expansion into Africa in recent years, different ways of providing compensation to host countries, increasing competition for host country access, the lack of transparency on US overseas presence, and the strategic utility (or lack thereof) of overseas basing. Show Notes:Renanah Miles Joyce & Brian Blankenship (2024) “The Market for Foreign Bases,” Security Studies, 33(2), 194-223. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Charles Glaser, senior fellow at MIT’s Security Studies program and professor emeritus at George Washington University, discusses the dynamics of the security dilemma and international order. He explores how the security dilemma concept provides insights into America’s rivalry with its two great power rivals, Russia and China, and discusses U.S. policy with respect to the war in Ukraine, the dispute over Taiwan, U.S. interests vs commitments in East Asia, how to trim undesirable commitments, and why Washington’s flawed “liberal international order” concept leads to more conflictual foreign policies. Show NotesCharles L. Glaser, “Fear Factor,” Foreign Affairs, June 18, 2024Charles L. Glaser, “Washington is Avoiding the Tough Questions on Taiwan and China,” Foreign Affairs, April 28, 2021Charles L. Glaser “A Flawed Framework: Why the Liberal International Order Concept is Misguided,” International Security, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Spring 2019), pp. 51-87. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.