The specter of World War III looms larger than ever.
Just a week ago, Iran launched its largest-ever ballistic missile attack against Israel in what has become a multifront battle in the region. The grinding war of attrition in Ukraine rages on, with over a million people killed or injured since Russia’s invasion in 2022. China has been attacking Philippine and Vietnamese vessels in international waters with impunity.
The question is: What should America do about it?
On Wednesday evening, more than 800 people packed into Symphony Space in Manhattan for a Free Press debate about American foreign policy. Bret Stephens and James Kirchick faced off against Matt Taibbi and Lee Fang to hash out the question: Should the U.S. still police the world?
At the beginning of the debate, a whopping 81 percent of the live audience sided with Stephens and Kirchick, voting in favor of a hawkish foreign policy. Throughout the night, there were tense exchanges over past conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, the virtues of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and whether it is even ethical for journalists to advocate for sending young, working class Americans into conflicts abroad. And though the discourse was heated, it was also civil.
“We force our belief systems upon others at the barrel of a gun. When we act unilaterally and attempt to use the awesome might of the American military and intelligence forces for regime change, we tend to have disastrous results,” Fang said in his opening statement.
“With due respect to European multilateralism, the idea that some condominium of French diplomats working in tandem with our good friends in Moscow and our partners in China is going to solve our security crises is a fantasy. It’s a nice one, but it’s false,” Stephens said later in the night.
By the end of the debate, Taibbi and Fang were able to convince 2 percent of the audience to switch to their side–that the U.S. should not continue to police the world—changing more minds than their opponents—and thus winning the night.
The Free Press is honored to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to present this final installment of The America Debates, a series on the issues that matter most to voters this upcoming election cycle.
For those of you who weren’t able to join us, paid subscribers of The Free Press can watch the full video of the event above. So if you’re not already a paid subscriber, become one today.
Did I read this correctly. If you start off with 81% against your position and at the end 79% are against your position, you’ve won the debate. Hmm! I suppose it’s like almost everything else, it depends on how you define “it”. Btw, as far as the Middle East now, no need for American boots on the ground, just take American knees off the neck of the Israelis!
Brett focused on the most crucial point in his closing. The PRO side offered a strategic rationale for why we should continue with our present course of action. The CON side offered a tactical critique of why we shouldn't but failed to articulate how to make the world or the US safer if we withdraw from military adventurism.
After WW II we did both, and it worked. We must continue enforcing peace through strength. We must also limit our actions to the critical areas where our allies can't contain our enemies.
We must regain the knowledge that the USA's MISSION, VISION, and CORE VALUES are superior to autocracy and theocracy. Our younger generations struggle with that fact. The college students supporting Hamas prove that daily. Do we still recognize that a free, liberal, pluralistic Democracy is worth sacrificing our most treasured asset? We must believe that OUR MISSION and VALUES are superior and worth that sacrifice.
Islamist forces have a clear mission. Their values relish sacrificing blood and treasure, and their adherents willingly sacrifice everything for their cause. Russia also has proved willing to sacrifice its blood and treasure for the leader's mission. The Russian leader's aggressive expansionist mission has no viable internal challenges. The Western Democratic world is its only counterweight.
If our unifying Mission, Vision, and Core Values are not the protection and expansion of liberal and free democracy, then we have lost our national purpose. The autocrats and theocrats are coming for us, one inch at a time. They have a long timeline. We will eventually lose the war without believing in our unifying mission, which justifies the terrible blood and treasure sacrifice.
I have traveled extensively. The world looks to the USA as the beacon of hope and freedom. We are the shining light on the hill. We must recognize that all our self-doubt, human miscalculations, and mistakes cannot undermine our MISSION. We must support our allies, stop the expansion of our enemies, secure a worldwide path for free trade, and protect those weaker than us who want to join us in our Mission and support our Values.
Grow or Die is the maxim. It holds for all things.