Released in November, the White House’s National Security Strategy explicitly affirms a renewed Monroe Doctrine, now referred to as the Trump Corollary. While noting a stronger leadership role in the Western Hemisphere, the document emphasizes that US foreign policy should be self-interested, for “the protection of core national interests.”
This gets to the prickly question of what serves Americans and what serves a military-industrial complex that has captured the War and State departments. In an Epoch Times commentary and two recent radio interviews with paleoconservative hosts, I have made the case that sometimes foreign intervention is necessary. The Monroe Doctrine dates back to the early 19th century, and if there were ever a case for the doctrine’s application, Venezuela fits the bill.
Paleoconservatives, as they seek to offer a coherent foreign-policy alternative to neoconservatism, would best come to grips with the following realities:
- Neighboring nations’ problems are turning up in the United States, especially in the form of organized crime, illegal immigration, and values contrary to those of Middle America. While US voters favor nonintervention and have little interest in building an empire, the challenges of Latin American nations cannot be ignored. The United States can erect walls, but Mexicans can dig tunnels. A Monroe Doctrine 2.0 makes sense.
- Washington, DC’s drug war has backfired. While conservatives oppose personal drug use, the district of criminals has little interest in protecting constituent health. Municipalities can perhaps enforce prohibitions that fit local values, but federal policies have created a monster by rewarding enormous drug cartels operating from Latin America. They typically grow the products in South America—Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru—and then transport them through Ecuador, Guatemala, or Honduras, en route to Mexico and the United States. These cartels and their partner governments have infiltrated US intelligence agencies.
- Deportations will not suffice to counter illegal immigration. They do not strike any root causes, such as the out-of-control welfare state and birthright citizenship for those lacking legal status. Without a comprehensive strategy for repatriation, nearshoring, and America-first immigration laws, the swelling Latin American population in the United States will shift the median voter leftward. A strong minority of the Latin American voter block understand this, but the majority still tilt policies away from gun rights, free speech, and decentralization. The endgame is a disruption of the high-trust society left in the United States and a one-party state akin to California or Mexico.
- Cowering before pejoratives, such as nativism or imperialism, weakens your hand. Latin Americans are more parochial and loyal than Americans and do not shy away from protecting their own populations. When Venezuelans migrate to Honduras, for example, the locals openly complain and want public services only for Hondurans—even as illegal migrant caravans of Hondurans march north. Mexico permits only natural-born citizens to hold a wide array of elected offices and leadership roles in the society. If they are overtly asserting national preferences, why would anyone expect them to respect the United States for being open and accommodating?
These realities compel us not to let ideological absolutism and self-consciousness get in the way of what is best for Americans and their neighbors. An America-first policy will, on occasion, mean combating enemies beyond US borders, even if there is a reluctance to do so.
Reviving the Monroe Doctrine is a win-win. It establishes healthy US preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and it prioritizes US taxpayer resources closer to home.
