A Blinding ‘Realism'
From the G-File on The Dispatch
Dear Reader (especially those of you who know who the real monster is),
Longtime readers know that I don't have a lot of use for 'realism' as widely practiced in foreign policy debates. The best working definition of a realist, I often say, is an ideologue who lost an argument. What I mean by that is so-called realists tend to claim that their political opponents—particularly those in power—are letting their ideological commitments blind them to what really needs to be done. 'Those guys are ideologues, I'm just a realist' is to foreign policy what 'Those guys are ideologues, I'm just a pragmatist' is to domestic policy.
One of my favorite illustrations of this comes from Pat Buchanan. Perhaps more than any other mainstream figure, Pat pushed the idea that America was too close to Israel. Some of his arguments were standard fair realpolitik and rehashed 'beware entangling alliances' boilerplate. Israel is tiny, the Arab world is huge, why side with a hated minority in a region we relied on for oil? But Pat would press the argument further, suggesting—or asserting—that Jews in America were responsible for our unwise alliance with Israel because they're a 'fifth column' in America with dual loyalties. Here are a few of many, many examples, as pointed out by the Anti-Defamation League:
'There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East—the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.' (The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990)
'Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory.' (The McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990)
'I know the power of the Israeli lobby and the other lobbies, but we need a foreign policy that puts our own country first.' (Meet the Press, September 12, 1999)
'Whose War? The Loudest Clique Behind the President's Policy' (The American Conservative, March 24, 2003)
Anyway, you get the point.
But in 1991, Buchanan urged the U.S. government to send the 6th Fleet to protect Croatia from Serbian aggression because, as David Frum wrote for National Review:
'Croatia is not some faraway desert emirate,' he noted. 'It is a 'piece of the continent, a part of the main,' a Western republic that belonged to the Habsburg empire and was for centuries the first line of defense of Christian Europe. For their ceaseless resistance to the Ottoman Turks, Croatia was proclaimed by Pope Leo X to be the 'Antemurale Christianitatis,' the bulwark of Christianity.'
Now, I'm okay with a policy of protecting Croatia, but spare me the Jew scapegoating about letting religious and ethnic loyalties trump realism.
As John Lukacs once put it, describing Buchanan's virulent hatred for Winston Churchill but tolerance for Hitler, 'Buchanan is as much of an internationalist as he is an isolationist—dependent on his choice of who the enemy is.'
If you want a pithier and more timely illustration of the point, consider Donald Trump's defense of white South Africans. Trump and his folks have invested a ton of time and energy into the idea that we should not be offering asylum to persecuted peoples, including Afghan translators who worked with American troops. Whatever you think of that idea, or how the administration has acted on it, it's an intellectually defensible position. But it goes out the window when it comes to white farmers in South Africa. I'm fine with offering asylum to qualified white South Africans, but it's telling that Afrikaners are the exception to the realist rule the way Croatians were for Buchanan. There is no national security argument for coming to their rescue. It just feels right to Trump.
And that gets me to my point. Not to sound too much like German political theorist Carl Schmitt, but the friend-enemy distinction is unavoidable in foreign policy. The trick is to have a worldview, an ideological construct or frame of reference, about how you distinguish friend from enemy. A second order question is what you're willing to do—or not do—in the name of friendship or, nemesis. Enmity? That is almost entirely a prudential question. In other words, idealism is unavoidable about ends, but realism about means is essential.
Isolationism is a form of idealism—believing in a shining city on a hill unmuddied by the affairs of the world. Liberal internationalism is a form of idealism. Even classical realism is a kind of idealism, insofar as it posits a theory of how the world works and, as a result, how the state should operate within that reality. But every form of realism still conceives of friends and enemies. Realists want allies. They may be more cynical about how deep or enduring any given alliance will be in the unsupervised prison yard that is the global arena, but they still see alliances as useful tools of statecraft. As the 19th century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston famously said, 'We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.'
But back to that prudential question. I have few major objections to the realist's description of how the world works. Countries act on their interests, they say, and I nod along. Where I think realists go wrong is in their quasi-Marxist definition of national interests as narrow economic, geo-strategic, essentially materialist, considerations. Political leaders—democratic and authoritarian alike—make decisions based on things other than economic or pure national security considerations all the time. Notions of national honor, cultural ties, shared values, religious imperatives, and national 'glory' move countries to action all the time.
Starting in earnest in the 19th century, Russia convinced itself that it was the 'Protector of the Slavs' everywhere. I think this is a stupid belief. But it is, and has been, sincerely held by Russians for a long time. I don't think it's been in their interest, if we define interest in realist terms, but that's the point. The Russians don't define their interest in purely realist terms. If they did, they might not be slaughtering so many Ukrainians right now.
Iran is run by a bunch of theocratic nutters. Their definition of national interest stems from their messianic mess of an ideology. If the regime were toppled tomorrow—fingers crossed!—the new regime would have a different definition of national interest.
I could do the same thing with China, North Korea, Cuba, et al. The assumption that rulers act only on fundamental national interest is question-begging on stilts. And the idea that the conception of national interest doesn't change with a new regime is as ideological and unrealistic as any other school of foreign policy.
Which gets us back to the friend-enemy distinction. The question isn't whether America should have friends, but what kind of friends we should have.
President Trump doesn't have a lot of use for our traditional friends or our traditional criteria for deciding who our friends are. But that doesn't mean he doesn't want friends. He obviously wants to be Vladimir Putin's friend, which is why he treats him with such deference while treating Volodymyr Zelensky with such contempt. He clearly likes being friends with the president of El Salvador. He loves to show people the love letters he got from Kim Jong Un. And, of course, he really digs his new besties in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
I think some of this can be explained by the fact that he likes to be friends with tough guys because that's how he likes to be seen. But some of it can also be explained by the fact he loves to make deals with the sorts of people who don't have to go to voters or legislatures for approval. He likes dealing with 'deciders' who can close a deal with a handshake. That's harder to do with democratic leaders. In other words, he likes strong men aesthetically but he also likes the way strong men can get things done.
This is partly why he's so hellbent on convincing people he should be granted war powers, because in our system it's only through the invocation of war or some other crisis that an American president can behave like a strong man.
Until recently, Americans in both parties broadly defined our national interest as being bound-up with being the 'leader of the free world.' There's a lot of room within that consensus for profound disagreements, but they were disagreements within that broad framework.
I think that framework is correct. Full stop. I can give you another 500 or 5,000 words for why I think this is so—on realist terms. As an economic matter, it's better to be friends with rich countries than poor ones. It's better to have allies that share our values, because that makes collective action in our interest easier. But I don't want to make the realist case, because I think the moral case is more compelling. We should be on the side of freedom, because we believe freedom is morally superior. Even the isolationist hero John Quincy Adams agreed with that. Isolationists love to quote his line about how America 'goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.' They're less fond of sentences that came before and after it:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
In other words, JQA would be, at least rhetorically, on the side of Ukraine, Tibet, and Taiwan.
Not to live down to Pat's expectations, but I think the Trump administration's view is bad news for Israel. I'll spare you all of the punditry about Steve Witkoff's toadying to Qatar (and Putin), the administration's leaks undermining Israel, or the fact Trump skipped visiting Israel on his recent trip to the Middle East. The bigger point is that if the new definition of the national interest is one that accepts a policy of blindness or contempt for democracies that share our values, that's bad news for Israel (and Taiwan) in the long run.
A world in which America values friends who can make handshake deals, regardless of how much blood they have on their hands; a world in which trade between free economies is deemed to be theft; a world in which mutual defense over shared values is for suckers; a world in which nations can buy good will with fawning lightshows and free luxury jets: This is not a good world for Israel.
But more importantly, it's not a good world for America.
Canine update: So the Fair Jessica and Lil Lucy are on a Gavora family adventure in Spain. That means I am home alone with the quadrupeds. That, in turn, means I sleep with a lot of animals every night. It's a tense situation with strict protocols about turf that often leave me perpetually on the cusp of falling out of bed. Also, the amount of psychological space they take up has expanded enormously, because they are constantly following me around, worried that I might grab some luggage and abandon them as well. They're also being pretty weird. Yesterday, I found Pippa in the mud room looking extremely guilty. But I have no idea why. Whatever it was, it didn't get in the way of the waggling. And of course, they still have Kirsten for the midday walks, where Zoë really has come to love her little troupe of ankle-biters. And, yes, the treats still flow. I do need to find out if Chester is okay, because he hasn't been by for a while. But Fafoon would like you to get to the point.
Owner's Name: Trent Bohacz
Why I'm a Dispatch Member: I enjoy reading things that challenge me, make me think, and help me learn. I'm a lifelong conservative, with a libertarian bent. I've changed a lot as I've grown, raised kids, and traveled, but my core beliefs about life and politics remain, which means I disagree with both parties immensely!
Personal Details: I've voted in seven presidential elections. I've voted for the winner in three.
Pet's Name: Remi (short for Remington)
Pet's Breed: Brittany Spaniel
Pet's Age: 5
Gotcha Story: It was the beginning of Covid, spring of 2020, and we knew our 12-year-old German Shorthaired Pointer was getting long in the tooth, so we decided to get another puppy to avoid a gap when he eventually left us. With the kids home from school, it was the perfect time to train and housebreak a puppy. We made the drive from Chicago to near Louisville and brought her home on July 5 at only 8 weeks old.
Pet's Likes: To hunt anything! She is a pointing bird dog by nature, but will chase any living thing in our suburban backyard. She has caught squirrels, rabbits, birds, and mice. It's really remarkable that she has the speed and agility to run these critters down. I guess that's her favorite thing … to run!
Pet's Dislikes: Thunder. It's odd that I can shoot over her while we are pheasant hunting without a problem, but one rumble of thunder when we're in the house and she's on my lap!
Pet's Proudest Moment: Pointing her first pheasant that I bagged. She's not a retriever, and a little prissy, so she wouldn't pick it up, but she stood over that bird like a queen looking down at her adoring subjects.
Bad Pet: She's been accused of 'running away' on a few occasions, and the rest of my family is very anal about making sure the gate is closed on our backyard fence. But, when she's got out, as everyone else panics, I simply walk to the front door where she's sitting and waiting for me.
ICYMI
—Seashells by the seashore
—Tsars at the bar
—Remnant Love Line
—Take me to my McDonald's trailer!
—Dirty hippies
—Keeping secrets
—Learning our lesson
—Junior ragers
—Yard waste
—The trains are Stalin
—One big beautiful nap
—The sharpest Googler in the East
—Graduation over the rainbow
—How was I supposed to know?
—Speedy wienies
—Hey, I know that guy!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Iran Rules Out US Talks Unless Israel Halts Strikes
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that Tehran has ruled out any possibility of negotiations with the United States while Israeli strikes continue. His remarks came just hours before he was scheduled to meet European counterparts in Geneva. "We are not ready to engage in negotiations with any side while the Israeli aggression continues," Araghchi said, according to state media. He noted that Washington has sent messages seeking direct talks with Tehran, but said Iran has rejected the overtures. "We told the Americans clearly: as long as the attacks persist, there can be no negotiations. We are exercising our legitimate right to self-defense," he added. This is a developing story. Updates to follow.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Israel warns Hezbollah to stay out of its fight against Iran: ‘Leader hasn't learned from his predecessors'
Israel's defense minister on Friday warned Hezbollah to stay out of its fight against Iran, saying that the terror group's leader 'hasn't learned from his predecessors.' 'I suggest that the Lebanese proxy be careful, and understand that Israel has lost patience with the terrorists who threaten it,' Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said after Hezbollah leadership condemned Israel's airstrikes on Iran, according to the Times of Israel. 'The Hezbollah leader hasn't learned from his predecessors and is threatening to act against Israel,' he said about the Iranian proxy groups' former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed by Israeli airstrikes in September. 5 Lebanon's Hezbollah deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Qassem, speaks during a rally supporting Palestinians in Gaza, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Beirut, Lebanon, on Oct. 13, 2023. REUTERS Hezbollah's leader, Naim Qassem, who succeeded Nasrallah in October, said Thursday that the terror group would 'act as we see fit' reading the conflict between Israel and Iran. The group declared it was standing in full solidarity with Iran and that threats against Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would lead to 'disastrous consequences.' 'Threats to assassinate [Khamenei] are foolish and reckless, and will have disastrous consequences… Merely uttering them is an offense to hundreds of millions of believers and those connected to Islam, and it is utterly reprehensible. Today, we are more determined and united around him,' Hezbollah declared. Israel began to conduct airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites and its missile capabilities on June 13 after fears that their longtime enemy, which has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state, was close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran retaliated with a barrage of missiles and drone strikes on Israel — fully igniting the deadly conflict between the two Middle Eastern nations. 5 Israel's Foreign Affairs Minister, Israel Katz, listens during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on the war in Gaza, on March 11, 2024. AP On Thursday, Iran launched a missile barrage that damaged the Soroka Medical Center in the southern city of Beersheba and hit a high-rise and several other residential buildings near Tel Aviv. At least 240 people were wounded by the Iranian missiles, four of them seriously, Israel's Health Ministry said. Early Friday morning, Israeli officials warned of an incoming barrage of missiles from Iran, with at least one making a strike on the nation's largest southern city, Beersheba. In Iran, Israeli air attacks have killed 639 people, including some of the nation's top military commanders and nuclear scientists. 5 Smoke billows from a building at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba in southern Israel following an Iranian missile attack on June 19, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 5 Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi lays a wreath of flowers at the grave of slain Lebanese Hezbollah's Leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed in an Israeli air strike in September 2024, at his mausoleum in Beirut's southern suburbs on June 3, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Fears that the fighting between Iran and Israel will continue to escalate prompted US special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack to fly to Beirut on Thursday and meet with Lebanese officials. Barrack told Lebanon's Speaker of Parliament and ally of Hezbollah, Nabih Berri, it would be a 'very bad decision' if the terror that if the terror organization were to attack Israel. 'I can say on behalf of President (Donald) Trump, which he has been very clear in expressing as has Special Envoy (Steve) Witkoff: that would be a very, very, very bad decision,' Barrack said. President Trump said Thursday he would make his final decision on whether to strike Iran in the 'next two weeks,' because he's still hoping for negotiations. 5 Demonstrators wave Iranian and Hezbollah flags as one holds up a poster of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a rally marking the Muslim Shiite holiday of Eid al-Ghadir, which commemorates the Prophet Muhammad naming his successor, Ali, who is revered as the first Shiite imam, in Tehran, Iran, on June 14, 2025. AP 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, reading a statement directly from Trump during her daily briefing. Leavitt also stressed that Iran currently has the capability of creating a nuclear weapon. 'Iran has all that it needs to keep a nuclear weapon,' Leavitt said. 'All they need is a decision from the Supreme Leader to do that.' Iran said Friday it would refuse to discuss its nuclear program while under Israeli attack. Israel has asked for US involvement, particularly to use its bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow nuclear facility hidden deep in an Iranian mountain. On Friday, foreign ministers from the European Union, including Britain, France, and Germany, are set to meet with Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in Geneva in hopes of de-escalating the conflict. with Post wires
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
LA riots proved Trump right – but he learned a hard lesson about immigration
LA riots proved Trump right – but he learned a hard lesson about immigration | Opinion You can't deport 11 million hardworking immigrants. You can deport the much smaller subgroup of bad guys who commit serious crimes. Show Caption Hide Caption Sen. Alex Padilla physically removed from DHS news conference Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla was forced out and handcuffed at a Homeland Security news conference in Los Angeles. The 2025 Los Angeles ICE raids and riots quickly faded from national news due to escalating tensions in the Middle East. The raids highlighted the difficulty of deporting undocumented immigrants, a challenge faced by previous administrations. Public opinion, including among Latinos, disapproves of both the riots and the Trump administration's handling of the raids. California's increasing cost of living and housing, driven by taxation and regulation, is pushing out residents, particularly the working class. The most interesting aspect of the 2025 Los Angeles immigration raids and riots is how quickly they vanished from the news. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, had just punched his 15 minutes of fame on June 12 when the Israeli air force took off for Tehran and whispers of World War III wiped LA from the national consciousness. Padilla was back on the U.S. Senate floor five days later trying to reprise the impromptu speech he gave after the Trump FBI ran him out of a Homeland Security news conference and handcuffed him on the floor. But his words were lost in the torrent of news flashes from the Middle East. Americans were talking about bunker busters and missile defense, the Mullahs and Bibi. Burning Waymos had become an afterthought. Trump can't deport all immigrants, try as he might In those few smoke-filled days, however, Los Angeles had reaffirmed a long established truth in this country: It's a lot easier to bring migrants into America than to push them out. If the Trump administration had ambitions of deporting every last one of the 11 million-plus undocumented immigrants now in the United States – and don't put it past White House aide Stephen Miller to believe he can do that – today the president is the wiser. He has to be. Right? For a moment, it looked like President Donald Trump would backtrack from deporting undocumented farm and hospitality workers, but already facing a MAGA insurrection on Iran, he quickly reversed, yet again. But Trump has to know. There isn't enough time, money, federal officers or political capital to repeat for much longer what happened in Los Angeles. History is clear: Americans won't stand for it You can deport violent offenders by the millions, as the Obama administration proved over and over, but you'll never deport the millions of migrants whose only crime was to cross the U.S.-Mexico border to partake in American prosperity. History keeps teaching that lesson: 'Operation Wetback,' 1954. The program to deport Mexican workers is short-lived and highly controversial, even in the Eisenhower era. The program to deport Mexican workers is short-lived and highly controversial, even in the Eisenhower era. California Proposition 187, 1994. The successful ballot measure to cut off migrants from social services ends in its obliteration by the courts. The California Republican Party slinks into irrelevancy. The successful ballot measure to cut off migrants from social services ends in its obliteration by the courts. The California Republican Party slinks into irrelevancy. 'Chandler Roundup,' 1997. The papers-please arrests of those who look undocumented leads to recriminations and recall efforts against the mayor and two council members. The papers-please arrests of those who look undocumented leads to recriminations and recall efforts against the mayor and two council members. Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 2010. Hard-nosed immigration law provokes boycotts against the state and is dismantled by the courts. Hard-nosed immigration law provokes boycotts against the state and is dismantled by the courts. Los Angeles ICE raids, 2025. A week of protest and rioting against Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells the Trump administration it can try to deport 11 million-plus people but will do so at its peril. Left-wing rent-a-mob did the damage in LA The Los Angeles protests were infiltrated by the so-called Omnicause, the left-wing rent-a-mob that moves from city to city trying to destabilize the old order. It's a motley crew of anarchists, ethno-nationalists and Marxists that bring their black bloc and umbrellas to social justice protests, university encampments and now immigration pushback. It wasn't migrant dishwashers who burned Waymos or menaced ICE agents in LA. 'The people who are out there doing the violence ... they have a hoodie on, they have a face mask on ... these are people who do this all the time,' said Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell, as reported by Los Angeles Magazine. 'Many come in from other places just to hurt people and cause havoc. ... The violence I have seen is disgusting." But California has also become an experiment in how far you can press the immigration accelerator and still maintain a cohesive society. Opinion: Waymo cars get torched by LA protesters, burning Google – an immigration ally Biden let millions of immigrants in. That produced a reaction. The Los Angeles protests were as much a production of the Biden White House as they were the reactionary Trump administration. Democrats used the Biden years to stoke the largest mass migration of immigrants in this country's history, The New York Times reported in December. An average 2.4 million people annually poured across the border from 2021 to 2023. 'Even after taking into account today's larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850,' The Times reported. By 2023, the share of the U.S. population born in another country had soared to a new high ‒ 15.2%, The Times reported. In California that number is much larger – 27%, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. As for Los Angeles County, a third of its residents are now foreign born. It is not a political statement to say that mass migration is disruptive. Virtually everywhere you see it today, in the United States, Western Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, it roils the masses. There is a reaction, and one that is often consequential. Trump is the least of California's problems The Los Angeles ICE raids were the reaction to the Biden immigration surge. Trump swooped in with federal agents, National Guard and the U.S. military with little or no consultation with his California counterparts. That triggered a counterreaction. But Trump is the least of the worries confronting California and its biggest city. Opinion: Democrats scream democracy is in peril ... while proving that it's absolutely fine Joel Kotkin, a longtime Angelino and national expert on urban form and policy, wrote in his June 11 Spiked column 'Los Angeles has fallen' that the city 'offers a masterclass in urban dysfunction." 'Drive through the streets of the South Side or along Central Avenue," he said, "and the ambience increasingly resembles that of Mexico City or Mumbai: cracked pavements, dilapidated buildings, outdoor swap-meet markets and food stalls serving customers, much as one would see in the developing world." Kotkin continued: 'LA's political establishment is now dominated by people who barely, if at all, support capitalism. While cities such as San Francisco, Houston and even New York shift back towards the political center ground, Los Angeles in 2022 elected Mayor Karen Bass, a lifelong leftist who travelled to Castro's Cuba as part of the Venceremos brigade.' The cost of living is pushing out the working class Kotkin isn't the voice of MAGA. He's a fierce Trump critic who was a lifelong Democrat until he grew disillusioned with both parties and registered independent. The one-party state of California has produced taxation and regulation that has been raising the cost of living and housing and pushing Californians – and in particular, the working class – out. That puts the state on track to lose four of its 52 congressional seats by 2030, according to the Public Policy Institute. Today, there is evidence that even in immigrant-friendly California, where Latinos are a plurality, patience is wearing thin. Asked in February 2024 if immigrants are a benefit or a burden to California, 60% of Californians said immigrants are a benefit. But that was down from 66% in June 2023 and 78% in February 2021, the Public Policy Institute reported. Latinos oppose LA riots and Trump's raids even more We have seen nationally that Latinos are assimilating into American culture and are becoming less of a distinguishable voting bloc for any political party. Opinion: Trump isn't destroying our 'democratic norms.' Progressives are. Perhaps that is why a YouGov survey of American attitudes on the Los Angeles protests shows that a plurality of Latinos, 44%, disapprove while 39% approve. That almost mirrors American attitudes across the board, with 45% disapproval and 36% approval. Good news for the Trump administration? Yes. But the same poll shows Latinos and Americans think even less of his immigration raids: 50% of Americans, including 55% of Latinos, disapprove of how Trump is conducting the ICE raids. If that isn't clear to Trump, let me make it clear. It's time to tune out your fanatic in the West Wing – Stephen Miller – and get a grip. You can't deport 11 million hardworking immigrants. You can deport the much smaller subgroup of bad guys who commit serious crimes. Phil Boas is an editorial columnist with The Arizona Republic, where this column originally published. Email him at
