From Ronald Reagan to Hillary Clinton, each argued, in his or her own way, that as America grew more powerful than its adversaries, the world became a better place. America is entering an era of heightened great-power competition with China.
It should be the toughest, shrewdest gangster of them all.
That different history sets up a different description of America’s challenge today. But she’s more comfortable with a foreign policy of us-versus-them, in which America bolsters its allies and contains its foes.
Warren is no hawk: She wants to reduce the defense budget, end the war in Afghanistan, and end U. Unlike Sanders, she doesn’t mention the United Nations, which Wallace saw as the vehicle for transcending great-power conflict.
Second, we identify and analyze three potential challenges and ethical dilemmas that any feminist foreign policy is likely to confront: “headwind” politics; tension between idealism and pragmatism; and challenges posed by the use of soft and hard power.
Third, we conclude the essay by advancing a research agenda that can deepen the normative and ethical notions of a feminist foreign policy.
The 2020 presidential campaign is still in its infancy.
But it’s already becoming clear that when it comes to foreign policy, Warren’s vision is more conventional; Bernie Sanders’s is more radical. In the tradition of Henry Wallace, George Mc Govern, and Jesse Jackson, Sanders has decoupled progressive ideals from American dominance.
Read: Elizabeth Warren test-drives her presidential campaign.
Most significantly, Warren acknowledges that “the United States is entering a new period of competition” with China and Russia, which she calls “would-be rivals” that “hope to shape spheres of influence in their own image” and “are working flat out to remake the global order to suit their own priorities.”She’s not Trump.