[itsdavesanders]

And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’t so tied to them that a foreign election suddenly makes you vulnerable. Which then makes everyone weaker as a whole and easier to pick off.

Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.

[dimitrios1]

I am not buying this argument.

America for better or worse (mostly worse) has a two party system that in practice functions as mostly a uniparty prioritizing defense spending, entitlements, and the economy, with some lip service paid to red meat/blue meat issues to ensure power is maintained. This means you can reliably predict what American policy will be in any given moment for any given president.

Besides, EU member states have had much more iteration on their governments, policies, regulations, and parties. It's not uncommon for a European country to have 7 different parties. And unlike the US, EU's don't hold their constitutions in a such unchanging high regard. Ours is purposefully difficult to change. France, for example, on the other hand, has changed its constitution twenty-five times since circa 1958.

edit: I took out He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because it seems even here on the board of Very Smart People ™ we can't help ourselves when we see that name and ignore the rest of the point someone tries to make.

[lolinder]

> Arguably, the biggest wrinkle to this was Trump

You say this as though he isn't favored to win the next election and take over the presidency and all its policies in about six months.

Edit in response to the edit: I latched onto this because it's entirely relevant to the rest of your point. Trump is the Republican party today, and his foreign policy dictates the acceptable stances for the majority of Republicans in Congress. His foreign policy is absolutely terrifying to our allies.

I didn't latch on to Trump because he's a big name, I latched on to Trump because you deliberately glossed over him as though he weren't an enormous glaring example of how quickly our foreign policy can (and is likely to!) pivot.

[User23]

2016 was absolutely fascinating because, while it’s possible it was a double fakeout, it really looked like the first shoot in presidential politics in my lifetime. Insofar as there is a script, it sure does look like The Nameless One went off it. It was totally obvious the intent was for a Bush vs Clinton rematch.

[jf22]

Foreign policy is mostly up to the executive branch and is far removed from the decision-making process regarding whether or not the EPA can regulate a new type of deadly plastic.

[refulgentis]

FWIW nothing changed re: presidential power over foreign relations. The judiciary held that the legislature can't empower an agency.

[consumer451]

The biggest beneficiary of Pax Americana is the United States, the second biggest is the entire world.

[phillipcarter]

This is a very uncharitable view of how foreign policy works. It is absolutely in our best interest to not only maintain strong diplomatic ties with peoples and countries who share our values, but also cooperate in defense efforts and ensuring safety and security from military actions that would undo things we benefit from in the long term.

[justinclift]

> playing world police

Don't you mean schoolyard bullies?

Because that's how much of the world, including your allies, view the US.

Then again, seeing the state of the US police force, maybe that's why US people think bullying and policing is the same thing?

[knowaveragejoe]

That is exactly what the US' adversaries would like you to believe is the case. By all means, carry water for the despots of the world as you turn inwards.

[dangoor]

I don't think our allies felt quite so flung about until Trump came along. Sure, administrations might engage a little differently from one another, but fundamentally they could count on the US for a very long time. Presidents did not, before Trump, throw NATO under the bus, for example.

[barrkel]

Allies were so put out by Bush II that they gave Obama the Nobel peace prize before he did anything.

[spurgu]

Reminding NATO countries to adhere to the 2% of GDP spending stipulated in the terms of the alliance is "throwing NATO under the bus"? Or did he do something else I'm unaware of?

[Pet_Ant]

Bush going unilaterrally to war with Iraq (albeit with his lapdog Blair) really didn't do US foreign relations any favors either. It's not just Trump, it's a long-running theme. Trump just accelerated the trend.