As far as I can tell from the news, though obviously it’s much too early to know how it will play out, the Trump foreign policy is resolutely Reaganesque in the sense that he is going for sovereignty, secure borders, tough pursuit of U.S. interests in trade and security, and an appropriate willingness to negotiate anything, with a big stick handy and a demonstrated willingness to use it. His choice of personnel for high positions are not “isolationists,” and indeed Trump did not pursue an isolationist foreign policy in his first administration; it was an insult bandied about by self-serving gaslighting gasbags. Strictly speaking, there never was an American isolationism. This would require a short historical essay, but when were we ever not actively attentive to foreign affairs? Of course, geography and the Royal Navy helped. But the expansion beyond the Appalachians and into the Ohio Valley, was that isolationism? Conquering and dictating geographic terms to native tribes, was that isolationism? Supporting Texas independence and then fighting Mexico for control of the Southwest, was that isolationism? Buying the Mississippi and Missouri valleys, was that isolationism? Supporting Cuba Libre and conquering the Philippines, opening Japan to international commerce, as we had (with only fair success) opened the western Mediterranean by punishing the Barbary pirates, was that isolationism? The Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge were not against the post-World War I League of Nations; it was Woodrow Wilson’s obstinate and, face it, neurotic Calvinism that wrecked that initiative. And in 1945, Harry Truman got the United Nations with the help of Arthur Vandenberg and other Republicans, was that isolationism? The war in Korea was not isolationism, nor was NATO, nor was Vietnam, nor was the Kennedy Round, nor was the World Trade Organization, nor was USAID… Of course, much of this ended in bitter flops. So did Bonaparte, so did the British Empire, and so did a lot of other foreign adventures. If you want isolationism, look to Switzerland. A fine place to live quietly and ski and play tennis (I know from personal experience), good simple food, thrifty, even rather miserly people, so okay, if you like that. And what’d they do, the Swiss? Invent the cuckoo clock. Not our style, but there’s much to be said for that. They provide the Swiss Guards for the pope, a decent Boy Scout thing to do (do not scoff). And, admit their army, like Israel’s, takes its rifles home when not deployed. Frankly, that may be better than our type of gun control, but I still favor the Second Amendment; guns don’t kill people, people do. I mentioned the other day that I thought the president-elect ought to sit down with the opposition and give it a chance, in effect, to grow up and be civil and do their job.  Have lunch, listen, thank them, goodbye. The same sort of thing might do in foreign affairs.  Trump might invite the Euros and the Latino Americanos and the Africans and the Asians (maybe Mr. Musk could supply the Martians?), and say, “Okay, I’m all ears.” Fact is since a lunch like that would require all of a grand ballroom at Constitution Hall or someplace, maybe take them one continent at a time, though that would be trying everyone’s time when the seizure of Washington is the primary objective at the moment. I don’t mean doing mean things like a purge of the bureaucracy, but you know, letting them know who’s boss. Fair play and all that, and losers should not be spoilers let alone underminers. Government can shrink, and to some degree be dispersed around the country, but it need not be done all at once, simple common sense. (RELATED: Now We Move Forward, With Malice Toward None) The message to the Africans can be clear and straight. With Gen. Michael Langley to his right, the president-elect might say, “We hear you. And we hear you because you were the ones who heard, approvingly, what I meant by calling some of your regions sh****les.” They are that, places where little girls are raped by roving bands or rogue soldiers, some of them wearing the blues helmets of the United Nations. They are that when kleptocrats steal the money sent to you for construction and development. They are that when regimes keep everybody on edge and under crude surveillance and throw peaceful opponents into crocodile pits. They are that when you cannot defend yourselves against Arab slavers and Chinese communist resource plunderers — in fact when some of your regimes cooperate and send their share of the loot outside the continent. They are that when your young people risk their lives to get out, trekking across scorching deserts and taking their chances on leaking boats. If you want change, we’ll deal. No other preconditions. That is the general idea. Naturally, the incoming team has its own ideas on the approach to take to the threats to American security (“and world peace” is redundant). A powerful America is a force for peace and prosperity. There is no need to go abroad in search of dragons to destroy, as long as we know and they know we will slay them if they rear their monstrous heads. Nor is there any call to build nations. Immigration is our best foreign policy, the “city on the hill” and teach by example — and don’t you know, we learned this from Squanto and other indigenes who welcomed us with open arms. Well, we repaid them, but we are not saints and never ought to claim to be. To rehearse once again Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, “ …. with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in … and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.” READ MORE from Roger Kaplan: Now We Move Forward, With Malice Toward None Reflections on the End of an Election Cycle Are We About to Replay the Alger Hiss Affair? The post Mighty Eagle Foreign Policy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.