Just like I doubt many readers, I’ve been in a bad mood over the past two months. My joke explains why – I think it should be with readers of this newsletter – I didn’t realize that my overall optimism about the state of the world depends on the fact that Lindsey Graham likes foreign aid. ”
Take this apart: Over the years, the United States Spend billions of dollars a year About foreign aid, including billions of vaccinations, prevention of gears and treatments for cheap killers, such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis.
This is not because a group of bloody liberals have been in power for decades, but because The key mass of conservative Republicans Like Graham (and former President George W. Bush (and George W. True support for foreign aidusually out of sincere moral beliefs. In fact Growing rapidly under the bushesDuring the presidency of Barack Obama and during the first term of Donald Trump, and in roughly stable.
Sign up here Explore the major and complex problems facing the world, and the most effective ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.
Obviously, this is Not a story about foreign aid Under Trump’s second term. His Secretary of State Marco Rubio has served as interim head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Cancel The plan accounts for at least one-third of the annual spending of U.S. International Development. Some areas are more difficult: Efforts to improve maternal and child health have cut 83%, and pandemic prevention measures are being reduced by 90%. (Wednesday, federal judge explain The Trump administration’s efforts to shut down the AID may be unconstitutional and ordered the administration to restore the AID system, despite speculation about how meaningful the ruling will prove.
Although Elon Musk’s lies are Cutting money didn’t kill anyonea lack of funds caused by Musk, Rubio and Trump in HIV clinics have resulted in child deaths. Reporter Nick Kristof has some The name of the deceased. He worked with the Center for Global Development and estimated that without HIV assistance and prevention in the United States, more than 1.6 million deaths could be killed in a year.
Graham deserves credit for, especially Defend Pepfarthe United States has achieved a hugely successful anti-HIV program. So there is McCall. It doesn’t matter: the government has seized on Congress’ spending control, especially on foreign aid, so the bipartisan coalition Maintain aid program for decades To a large extent, it is helpless. Graham likes that Foreath is more important to the world than I thought.
This is an example of a wider, shocking trend in American politics that has been gradually developing over the past 10 or 15 years. Dating at least to the 1980s, the United States reached an informal cross-party consensus in the United States around a set of policies that opened up the U.S. economy and sometimes government vaults to the world.
It was an era of elite cosmopolitanism, and that era felt like it was coming or ending.
The Golden Year of Globalism
Of course, there were important and significant differences between the parties on various issues during this period I was talking about (e.g., 1986-2016, although I did not marry these two specific years). However, on many international economic issues, broad consensus has been reached.
Both sides advocate free trade. Ronald Reagan negotiation Bill Clinton enters tariff agreement with Canada instead of reverse course Followed this With the creation of the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization; Bush and Obama followed up with their own trade agreements.
Both sides advocate immigration. In 1986, Reagan signed the law Provide amnesty for undocumented immigrantsAnd both bushing and Obama Congress, which supports both parties, works to give legal status to those who come after that year.
The consensus foreign aid part is recent. In the 1990s, USAID has been poached for employees and fundsall due to the end of the Cold War (elimination of geopolitical reasons for operating in countries with risk of Communist takeover) Continuous attack Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) is a dedicated foreign aid opponent and outspoken racist.
But foreign aid was in George W. Bush (George W. President’s Malaria Initiative (Become one of the world’s leading anti-Malaria funders) and become the United States The first country to donate Committed to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, it is the main multilateral data collection. Obama and Joe Biden support these efforts, Save budget cut recommendations In Trump’s first term due to support from bipartisan Congress.
Although slightly different in chronological order, I think it makes sense to combine these three consensuses (trade, immigration and aid).
All of them are involved in the U.S. opening up to abroad. All of them benefit from it “Pirates and Baptist” Alliance Combining moralists and basic economic interests.
Some activists support the migration on moral grounds, but The American Chamber of Commerce is arguably the biggest booster;Reducing trade barriers obviously helps businesses import tariffed goods or export them to tariff countries, but many trade liberalization architects feel Ethical Obligation to Use Trade to Help Develop Poor Countries like Mexico and China, etc.;Foreign aid is in line with national security purposes to promote soft power in the United States, but Bush’s main motivation In the process of restoring it, the main motivation for most pro-Ivey activists I know is a moral obligation.
Therefore, all three questions reflect a slight aristocratic obligation of the American political elite. They are willing to take major actions to help people who go abroad, either stay there trying to survive (aid), stay there and try to work (trade) or come to the United States (immigration).
Their will is not purely due to altruism. There are also economic and geopolitical motivations. But the positive impact on billions of foreign-born people is real.
Why the consensus breaks
If this elite cosmopolitanism can support decades of mass immigration, low trade barriers and generous foreign aid, why can’t it stop the Trump administration from destroying these three?
It’s not because the public suddenly changed their minds. Biden term is a historic anti-immigration rebound period, but consensus began to struggle with Obama’s second term and Trump’s first term when anti-immigration sentiment was staggering, perhaps surprisingly low tide. In June 2016, only 38% of voters said immigration should decrease, compared with 65% in 1993 and 55% in 2024.
But while restrictionists were a minority in 2016, they became bigger and more influential. Large-scale refugees flowed from the Syrian civil war, which means the topic has a higher significance in the United States, especially in Europe. Most importantly, Trump is basically bankrupt Every social taboo Regarding discussing this topic during his main campaign, not only did not suffer, but he won the nomination for it.
This is not a majority stance – Trump will lose universal suffrage after all – but is obviously more effective than previously thought.
Race in 2016 also competed for trade politics. Bernie Sanders’ challenge to Hillary Clinton’s Hillary Clinton’s Hillary Clinton is stronger Oppose Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnershipan anti-China trade agreement Promote enthusiastically As Secretary of State; she clearly sees the strength of Sanders and Trump, proving that trade restrictionism has become a political priority.
Clinton ended up causing one person due to losses caused by Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania understand Among professional Democrats no Helping the Rust Belt nation through trade protectionist measures is an election suicide.
This never makes any sense. Competition from China and elsewhere is shocking It really hurts these placesbut this is It’s over in a long time Moreover, there is no policy measure that can bring employment opportunities in manufacturing back to its original place in 1970. However, this conclusion means that both sides have fled open trade at the same time, and as a result, the United States has generally retreated from free trade over the past decade.
It is also possible Political scientist Margaret Peters believesimmigration support was precisely because trade was released in the 1990s and 2000s. Historically, inclusionist forces have been turned away due to corporate lobbying for the business halls that support immigration, but the ability to go abroad to offshore manufacturing provides businesses with an alternative to bringing foreign workers to the United States.
Peters believes that this impact is not only a trade deal, but also a similar thing. Standardized transport containersover time, undermined support for immigration by disengaging business lobbyists from the board. The thief goes there.
However, the most tragic case is foreign aid. Why is such a beating this year a small part of the federal budget?
I really don’t have a deep structural answer. Foreign aid has no way Very Popularand voters Usually overestimated How much does the United States spend on it. It has been surviving with elites rather than welcome support, and if someone like Elon Musk follows it, it is in a vulnerable position. The decline in American conservative religious beliefs also weakened the evangelical powers that strongly supported Pepfa under Bush.
As for why Musk is so opposed to foreign aid, the best explanation is that he Being trapped in the influence of the fanatical anti-summoning theorist Mike Benz. He won’t be the first suspicious source of all the reasons Musk decided to trust absolutely.
Putting everyone together, however, this photo looks bleak for anyone who thinks America can be in the lives of people around the world, not only in the lives of people at home. In three different areas, the fragile alliance supports vision rupture and is defeated. I haven’t thrown the towel yet. But the game is progressing very badly.
