For more than 150 years, America’s indisputable first objective has been to safeguard and enhance the liberty, security, and prosperity of Americans. To do so, the United States must create a global order in which more people enjoy freedom and opportunity—an order that is profoundly in America’s self-interest.
The United States can promote its values and interests through cooperation, not confrontation, with the rest of the world. Cooperation spreads the costs of action across a larger array of actors, making it possible to address multiple problems at once and to mitigate the inevitable cultural and political tactics that can sap American power over time. It also allows Washington to imbed its interests in international institutions and organizations that will shape countries for decades, regardless of a single administration’s whims or failures.
In contrast, confrontation with adversaries is costly, requires rapid decisions to employ military force at a moment’s notice, and limits options for future actions. Moreover, a president’s confrontational approach to foreign policy can breed distrust among allies and even enemies.
The last debate offered little new on the candidates’ approaches to foreign policy, but it confirmed that they are deeply entrenched in their respective partisan philosophies. The partisan gaps on several key issues have narrowed since the Center last asked these questions, but there are important differences in priorities between the two parties. For example, Republicans and Democrats have divergent views of how to deal with Russia and China: about half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say limiting the influence of those two nations is an important priority, while fewer than one-in-ten of Republicans share this view.