American elites for decades have messaged the importance of protecting and securing U.S. interests abroad and domestically.  However, the term "American interests" seems to have survived a world that is continually undergoing political and economic transformations.  Turn on any cable news service, and you can see the wording being laundered extensively.

What does it really mean?  More importantly, what does the term signify in the world as it is today?

Leaders have signaled that it is in America's interest to protect fragile, often failing and corrupt democracies abroad for a variety of moral and ideological factors.  However, there are two fallacies with this line of thinking.  First, economic and geopolitical concerns primarily motivate U.S. actions abroad and domestically, whereas the provision of tangible assistance to states solely for the purpose of protecting the ideological tenet of democracy is quite limited.  Second, these empty slogans have become so disconnected from the public and are no longer as appealing to most Americans.  Even worse, it seems that some political thinkers are no longer willing to listen to the American people and incorporate their concerns into what should be defined as the country's dynamic interests.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has elevated the arguments of foreign policy practitioners who claim that ideology, or governance systems themselves, determine how U.S. foreign policy should be directed.  Authoritarianism and non-democratic regimes present the greatest threats to our society, according to a large cohort.  Yet, when bearing down on the factual circumstances of U.S. foreign policy implementation, we see a different reality.  Who is the United States' largest trading partner?  If we account for the totality of U.S. trade in the 21st century, the People's Republic of China claims that accolade.  The United States calculated, sadly at the behest of policymakers who believed that the communist regime could be politically coerced, that U.S. economic interests were best suited by trading with China.

How about energy policy?  For decades, the United States has consistently engaged in political and economic alliances with repressive Middle Eastern regimes, including Saudi Arabia, to ensure that its oil demands are met.  The former U.S. administration even increased U.S.-Saudi cooperation based upon a policy of oil for security in light of Iran's aggressive moves in the region.  The United States' increased cooperation with Vietnam, once regarded as an existential threat to the "free world," in recent years to push back against revisionist Chinese ambitions in Asia negates the ideological narrative and reaffirms the realpolitik clarity of U.S. policy.  At a high level, the United States will ultimately pick and choose whom we support and ally with based not on who may identify as democratic, but rather who will secure U.S. interests.  Therefore, it is paramount to identify what exactly are America's interests: liberty, prosperity, and security for its citizens.

America has a long history of engaging in short-term, narrow agreements with unsavory regimes in order to combat threats that would undermine U.S. interests.  One may consider the U.S. arrangements with the Soviets in World War II to counter Germany, or the Cold War U.S.-China collaboration to push back on Soviet global influence.  This strategic flexibility and gray-area maneuvering became less feasible due to the increasing public perception that governance systems are the first consideration in U.S. foreign policy formulation.  This calculus has brought unbearable costs to the average citizen.

The morality proposition within the context of formulating and executing national security policy should be emphasized for the benefit of America's citizens.  Fundamental human rights for all remains a principal concept at the core of our being, but we must remain clear-eyed about how certain political actors have hijacked the idea to advance more nefarious geopolitical goals that have yielded the opposite effect of advancing human prosperity.  America must refocus to advance the interests of its citizens and exercise caution in assuming that every government shares some inherent, deep-seated desire for the Western conception of liberal democracy.  The political elite must deliver on Americans' concerns domestically to include the border crisis, inflation, and the need to regrow our industrial base.  Leaders must also not fear engagement in foreign policy that may feel uncomfortable but necessary to counter our most pressing threats, including the CCP regime and its role in the COVID outbreak.  To ensure the preservation of our republic, our leaders must be willing to incorporate and adapt the public's dynamic concerns into policy.  If not, our authoritarian adversaries' assessment that U.S. democracy is a flawed concept may entice a larger audience.

M. Roberts is an intelligence professional for the U.S. government focused on East Asian and Eurasian issues.

Image: Philadelphia Press.