For many young American’s, the war in Afghanistan has defined their country’s foreign policy. Yet for much of the last eighty years, intervention and globalization have been the status quo. From the Cold War to the War on Terror, the United States has been a global leader, defending western values and American capitalism. The fall of the Soviet Union, however, was followed by the rise of globalization, cheap labor, and the decline of American manufacturing. Between 2000 and 2010, Ohio alone lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs to outsourcing and automation (Ahmed, 2018, p. 27), while the rise of the service and technology sectors left many blue-collar communities with little recourse. The subsequent loss of jobs and protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped to usher in a renewed focus on domestic priorities, however disentangling national concerns from world affairs is difficult if not impossible. This essay examines the interplay between domestic and foreign policy and argues that each cannot exist without the other.
Policy Analysis & Discussion
In an article published in Polity, David Lumsdaine (1996) examines the fusion of domestic and foreign affairs, noting that the norms of the former often influence the latter. For example, states with strong social welfare programs often have strong foreign aid programs. Similarly, protectionist, free-market, or centrally planned societies generally adopt similar international policies (pp. 301-305). In a market-driven representative democracy, like the United States, such domestic priorities may shift generationally or with each election cycle. During the Cold War, for example, foreign policy reflected anti-communist public sentiment and favored international intervention. In fact, not only did the duopoly of the Cold War drive the West’s security apparatus, but it also drove the rise of western manufacturing as American companies filled the industrial void left by the second world war (Ahmed, 2018).
That said, policymakers don’t always follow public opinion. For example, by the turn of the century, domestic issues were once again a national concern. Nonetheless, policymakers pursued a globalist agenda while framing those policies as promoting American jobs (Ahmed, 2018, pp. 11-13). Ironically, these policies decimated Midwest manufacturing and resulted in the aforementioned job losses. Twenty years later, domestic policies are once again a public priority. According to Gallup data, the number of Americans who say the country should take a major or leading role in world affairs has fallen by 15% (Jones, 2023), while Pew Research found that 51% of adults prefer greater attention be paid to domestic issues than on foreign policy (Silver, 2022). Taken together, these data suggest that Americans want U.S. involvement in world affairs, but not at the expense of domestic concerns.
The link between domestic and foreign policy isn’t always so clear, however. For example, Ukraine’s ability to defend its shipping lanes could directly impact national food prices (Berman et al, 2024). European grain exports and U.S. foreign aid, therefore, become domestic issues. America could spend money on Ukraine and prevent a spike in food prices, but it would have less money to spend on national priorities like renewable energy, immigration, crime, and infrastructure. Similarly, protectionist trade policies such as tariffs on Chinese exports also carry unintended consequences. Researchers Selmi et al (2020), studied the fallout of U.S. tariffs, and found that such protectionist policies have largely harmed American companies, noting that the technology, industrial, energy, and consumer sectors were particularly affected (pp. 284, 286, 288). Furthermore, China responded with its own set of tariffs, cutting its reliance on American technology, and favoring domestic suppliers. According to the Wall Street Journal, Cisco, Dell and Hewlett Packard have seen a dramatic reduction in sales, and Adobe, Citrix, and Salesforce have each closed or reduced the scale of their Chinese operations as a result (Lin, 2024). In short, separating international and domestic policy in a globalized economy is difficult. It’s important to consider, therefore, to what degree America can relinquish its status as a global leader and promoter of global trade.
Such concerns are no better illustrated than in the areas of agriculture and manufacturing. According to the EPA, agriculture contributed over $1 trillion to U.S. GPD and employed over 22 million workers in 2019 (EPA, 2023). China is one of the largest importers of American agricultural products, bringing in over $3.2 billion in soybeans alone in 2018. (Selmi et al, 2020, p. 290). At the same time, researchers Burke & Emerick (2016) note that while corn and soybeans are two of America’s most important crops, they are also some of the most vulnerable to climate change. Just one day in excess of corn’s optimal growing temperature can reduce end of year yields by half a percent (p. 108). Furthermore, a majority of American corn and soy is grown in areas benefiting from irrigation subsidies, benefits that Burke & Emerick theorize are unlikely to continue (p. 116). Agriculture, therefore, represents a confluence of domestic, international, and regional policies, bridging both industrial and climate-related interests.
Such interests have begun to impact domestic policy. For instance, while the United States buys roughly 80% of Mexico’s agricultural exports, domestic farmers have not had equal access to the NAFTA market. In response to growing national concerns, certain provisions were added to the USMCA to help American farmers compete in the regional economy (Runde et al, 2021, p. 6). Promoting more multilateral trade between North American countries will help protect American farmers should China go elsewhere for its agricultural needs. Nonetheless, there is no denying the threat to U.S. farmers posed by a trade war with China, decreased globalization, and competition from regional trading partners.
In some ways, the shift toward regional trade perfectly illustrates the tradeoffs between global and local priorities. For instance, since NAFTA was implemented, trade between the U.S. and the rest of North America has tripled. It’s added over $80 billion in GDP and an estimated 14 million jobs to the U.S. economy (Chatzky et al, 2020). Pulling back from China allowed policymakers to invest more regionally and domestically. At the same time, the rise of Chinese and Mexican manufacturing has led to opportunities to reshore some of the labor that was lost over the last twenty years. Institute for National Strategic Studies senior researcher T.X. Hammes (2016) writes that wage gains in Asian and Mexican manufacturing, combined with advancements in robotics, and 3D printing, have made the cost of reshoring more competitive with overseas production. In fact, Hammes believes the 3D printing revolution and the rise of robotics will fuel a proliferation of localized manufacturing (pp. 6-8). Nonetheless, Hammes and others recognize the increase in robotics and elimination of supply chains necessarily means the loss of jobs. While some jobs will undoubtedly be created, how robotics, AI, and advancements like 3D printing effect the labor market are critical policy issues going forward.
On the issue of climate change, regionalization, reshoring, and technological advancements all prove beneficial. As Hammes (2016) points out, shorter supply lines and more efficient production mean fewer greenhouse gas emissions, less waist, and a lower carbon footprint. In this the United States has an opportunity to not only address domestic manufacturing and climate-related concerns, but also emerge as a world leader in the green transition. This begins paradoxically with a reduced focus on world affairs and an increased capacity for domestic spending. The Inflation Reduction Act is one such piece of legislation, providing incentives for a variety of green investments from renewable energy to battery technology; and it’s expected to create over 1.3 million jobs by 2030 (Higgins, 2023). Legislation like the IRA or its predecessor, the Energy Independence Act, not only provides incentives for new technology, but creates opportunities for the manufacturing and fossil fuel economies.
Conclusion
Indeed, a wholly isolationist focus is unrealistic. As this discussion has shown, domestic and foreign priorities come with tradeoffs. Chinese tariffs spurred a renewed focus on regional relationships; aiding Ukraine takes funds away from domestic priorities like immigration and infrastructure; and confronting climate change requires a coordinated global effort, but depends on robust domestic policies. Conversely, increased involvement in European and Middle East affairs necessarily means less money for domestic priorities. In short, there is no domestic policy that is free of global implications. Each must be made with consideration of the other.
References
Ahmed, S. (Ed.). (2018). U.S. foreign policy for the middle class: Perspectives from Ohio. The Ohio
State University & Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/USForeignPolicy_Ohio_final.pdf
Chatzky, A., McBride, J., & Sergie, M.A. (2020). NAFTA and the USMCA: Weighing the impact of
North American trade. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact#chapter-title-0-2
Jones, J.M. (2023). Fewer Americans want U.S. taking major role in world affairs. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/471350/fewer-americans-taking-major-role-world-affairs.aspx
Lumsdaine, D. (1996). The intertwining of international and domestic politics. Polity, 29(2), 299-
306. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3235305
Lin, L. (2024). China intensifies push to ‘delete America’ from its technology. The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-technology-software-delete-america-2b8ea89f?mod=hp_lead_pos8
Hammes, T.X. (2016). Will technological convergence reverse globalization? Institute for National
Strategic Studies. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/media/news/article/834357/will-technological-convergence-reverse-globalization/
Higgins, T. (2023). The inflation reduction act: A year in review. Center for American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-inflation-reduction-act-a-year-in-review/
Runde, D., Sandin, L., & Parham, I. (2021). Opportunities for the U.S.-Mexico economic partnership
under the Biden and AMLO administrations. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep30081
Selmi, R., Errami, Y. & Wohar, M. (2020). What Trump’s China tariffs have cost U.S. companies?
Journal of Economic Integration, 35(2), 282-295. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26917205
Silver, L. (2022). Americans are divided over U.S. role globally and whether international engagement
can solve problems. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/10/americans-are-divided-over-u-s-role-globally-and-whether-international-engagement-can-solve-problems/