In the upcoming general election for president, Donald Trump has a 45% to 42% edge over Hillary Clinton in a Fox News poll released May 18. When former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is added, the results shift to Trump 42%, Clinton 39%, and Johnson 10%.

　　　　　If Trump becomes the next president of the United States, what kind of a world will we be living in?

　　　　　Criticized for his abstract vision of America’s future—with such statements as “I want to make America great again” and “I am going to make America rich again”—Trump delivered a major foreign policy address on April 27.

　　　　　Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize winning political commentator, quickly brushed aside the Trump speech as “a jumble,” calling the content “contradictory” and “confused.”

　　　　　At the outset of his address Trump advocated “America First,” but it goes without saying that politics, foreign policy, and security measures of any nation are all pursued to serve its best national interests. Every American president has tried to advance American interests, points out Krauthammer, who argues that for Trump to stress “America First” is a meaningless slogan. He notes that the US has been “the least interested” in foreign policy of all the major Western nations.

　　　　　Geopolitically speaking, the US has been able to afford to not take strong interest in diplomacy. Notes Krauthammer: “As Bismarck once explained (it is said), the United States is the most fortunate of all Great Powers, bordered on two sides by weak neighbors (Canada and Mexico) and on the other by fish.”

“Let Us Get Out of the Way”

　　　　　However, America’s isolationism has not necessarily ensured its security, as history demonstrates. Especially today, in an era of nuclear missiles and rampant international terrorism, isolationism cannot be counted on to safeguard America’s security. And yet, “America First,” the other side of the same coin of instinctive isolationism, exists at the root of American society, surfacing in response to the time and circumstances. That was how the America First Committee was formed in 1940, only to be disbanded in December 1941—just four days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

　　　　　Trump’s “America First” approach—however different and extreme the vulgar language may be from that used by Obama—is actually fundamentally quite similar to the thinking found in the president’s foreign and security policies.

　　　　　Krauthammer quotes Obama as declaring in his December 2009 address on Afghanistan at West Point: “The nation I am most interested in building is our own.” He notes: “Obama, like Trump, is animated by the view that we are overextended and overinvested abroad. “

　　　　　The foreign policy espoused by Trump may be a “jumble,” but the “America First” position that he advocates has been the underlying view of a conservative isolationism that surfaced in America in the 1940s, was adopted by Republican presidential candidates Pat Buchanan, in the 1990s, and has continued to be supported by the Libertarian Republican senator Rand Paul.

　　　　　Most of Trump’s remarks are impromptu, often making for vague and contradictory statements that leave one wondering what type of foreign policy he would try to implement.

　　　　　However, reading Buchanan’s Suicide of A Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025？ (St. Martin’s Griffin; 2012), one can see that Trump has borrowed many of Buchanan’s ideas.

　　　　　Buchanan also tirelessly stresses the “revival of nationalism” and the “rise of ethnic nationalism” across the globe as the leading characteristics of the “post post-Cold War era.” He asserts: “America needs to look beyond the ideas and institutions of globalist ideology and start looking out again, as we should have done, two decades ago, for our own country and our own people first.”

　　　　　Buchanan repeatedly stresses that the US should wash its hands of international affairs immediately, and “let us get out of the way.” Declaring that the wars in Iran and Afghanistan have led to the decline of American national prestige in the same way the wars in Indochina and Algeria seriously impaired the prestige of the French Empire, Buchanan advocates a complete reassessment of America’s relations with both its allies and its rivals.

　　　　　As regards Russia, America’s archenemy during the Cold War, Buchanan believes the US under President Reagan “would have seized the opportunity to convert Russia into a strategic partner and ally” when the USSR collapsed in 1991. He laments: “For here was a great nation, still twice as large as the United States, with whom we no longer had a quarrel and whose hand was extended in friendship.”

“Defend Yourself”

　　　　　“This is not to declare indifference to the fate of the Baltic republics,” Buchanan notes. “It is to say simply that these are not nations over which we can risk war. The same holds for Ukraine and Georgia.” He also views the prospects of likely Chinese attempts to deprive Russia of territory in the Caucasus and the Far East as something having absolutely nothing to do with the US.

　　　　　Trump’s assertions are not as clear as this. However, he has repeatedly said that it would serve the US well to not be antagonistic towards Russia.

　　　　　As regards NATO, Buchanan proposes that American troops “come home” now that the Cold War is over and “cede NATO and all the US bases in Europe to the Europeans.” Trump likewise strongly criticizes NATO nations for not sharing enough of the burden and depending heavily on the US for their national security.

　　　　　As for Japan and South Korea, America’s two important Pacific allies, Buchanan demands that they also defend themselves on their own. Maintaining that US troops should withdraw from Japan and South Korea, he asks: “Why should America remain forever at risk of nuclear war when the free nations we defend are capable of developing their own nuclear deterrents?”

　　　　　In view of the possibility of Trump assuming the US presidency with such contentions, as well as the reality of European Union members faced with the rise of extreme rightwing forces, it appears the world is moving more in the direction of nationalist and away from globalism. Under such circumstances, it will become increasingly difficult for each nation to defend itself. Is Japan sufficiently aware of this imperative? Is it ready to fend for itself? Every thinking Japanese must grapple squarely with these questions now.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 707 in the June 9, 2016 edition of The Weekly Shincho)