By Marie Haaland
staff writer
For this year’s Donald J. Sutherland Lecture, Bret Stephens, who is currently a foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal, outlined his view of the United States’ current role in foreign affairs at the Guthart Cultural Center Theater on Wednesday, March 2.
Stephens started the lecture by talking about the years 2011 and 2012, when many people believed the world was moving in a positive direction. Phrases like, “the tide of war is receding” and we “left Iraq stable and secure” populated the news cycle, but Stephens was skeptical that this would last.
President Obama’s foreign policy has been to redraw and retreat because he felt we were overextended in Iraq and lost resources in Afghanistan. Stephens used the 1920s and 30s as examples of what happens when the U.S. retreats from war. He said even when we as a country tried to disengage from the world, the world did not leave us alone. Instead, Stephens said the dangers of the world became so great it was hard for us to surmount.
Sophomore political science major Kenneth Mulvena, said, “The first thing I took from the lecture was that [Stephens] was an intelligent man and makes a good argument for a more aggressive foreign policy.”
Stephens strongly disagrees with the idea of isolating the U.S. from the rest of the world. Instead, he believes the U.S. should be the world’s police force. He used the analogy of a broken window to explain why this would be beneficial.
Committing a small crime, like breaking a car window, then allows for more serious crimes to be committed, such as taking everything out of the car. This is a concept known as broken windows policing. Stephens claims that if the U.S. has troops in countries abroad, it would provide a sense of security to the people in the country by showing that someone is there to enforce the law.
Antonio Grillo, a sophomore journalism major, said, “I do not think that America being the world’s policeman is catastrophe for everyone.”
Stephens ended the lecture with six pieces of advice for the next president. First, realize the distinction between morals and moralizing foreign policy. Second, do not assume the world thinks or operates like America does; other countries have people with different interests than us. Third, the Vegas rule – what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas – has no applicability to foreign policy. Fourth, it’s more advantageous to pick a side than to stay neutral. Fifth, understand the paradox of weakness, which is to say that economic problems will cause a country to become more risk averse. And sixth, the next president should focus on their nightmares, not on their dreams.
He has strong opinions about the presidential candidates. Stephens said, “Donald Trump is incoherent, when he’s not outright scary on the subject of foreign policy. I would say that Hillary Clinton’s record as secretary of state was not a particularly inspiring one. And Bernie Sanders seems to be frighteningly naive about how the world works.”
Dean of Honors College Warren Frisina said, “While I didn’t agree with many of the assumptions made by the speaker, I was heartened by the large number of people in the room, and particularly pleased with the sophisticated questions asked by Hofstra students. Several pushed him to clarify his claims, and I thought he took their questions seriously.”