WESTERN FOREIGN POLICY CIRCLES have lately become very interested in the Left and its rhetoric. United States government bodies are holding meetings on “decolonising Russia”. Venerable publications such as Foreign Policy have picked up the insult “tankie,” previously used by Communists to attack each other. Supporters of NATO may as well be quoting Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book as they rail against the chauvinism of Western leftists. Or, in more modern social justice terms, those leftists are guilty of “West-splaining” and ignoring the agency of the oppressed.
All this may seem to be a result of the Great Awokening, the seeping of identity politics into elite institutions. In fact, it’s a rehashing of an American foreign policy debate that took place several decades ago.
After the US defeat in Southeast Asia, the American elite shrank from imperial ambitions and began a period of self-examination. But viewing “Vietnam syndrome” as a disease to be overcome, the Reagan administration attempted to restore US honour and vigour through proxy warfare in the Third World.
At home, the new strategy meant out-flanking doves from the left. American foreign policy was cast in terms of supporting underdogs against Soviet imperialism. The Reagan administration sold anti-communist militants in liberal or even far-left terms — and tried to deflect attention away from repressive pro-American governments to plucky “freedom fighters” whenever possible.
There’s no fun
