This is hardly a new topic. It has consumed US news commentators for about two months now and likely will continue to do so. I have, indeed, written about it a little bit. But today I find myself in the situation of needing to write (I dislike getting out of practice by going too long without writing), and also being presented with a wealth, if that term is not too ironic, of material.

I have often spoken of my admiration for “The Economist,” a British publication that was first published in 1843 and has, I believe, been in constant publication since. It identified itself as “liberal” during most of the 19th century and still tends to think of itself that way. Without going into great detail, I will merely point out that in the 19th century liberalism often meant something like 20th century conservatism, at least in economic affairs–it did not want much restriction on business and investment.

But the term was, I think, slightly different in the UK where there was a more concentrated understanding that liberalism did not necessarily mean high level intervention OR unrestricted capitalism(laissez faire in other words). And in the 20th and 21at centuruies it has become clear that while still “liberal” in many philosophical and political matters, it does not encompass “wokeness” or hysterical attacks on the right. What the “Economist” has usually sought is good sense and the public welfare with an understanding of the realities of class, wealth, and their complexities, along with an acceptance of different cultures and their ways. The Econ(I will call it now) tends to favor imagination and inventiveness in business and financial policy, but they insist(without saying it too often)that this does not mean license to leave people behind and/or living in miserable economic conditions.

The newest edition of this weekly is something everyone who wants to get a sane view of the world today should read, This is particularly true of the first few articles which always emphasize the biggest stories at the time, often as much or more political than strictly economic. You may explore these yourself on line, of course, but for those who don’t I wish to include a little of this publiation’s wit, insight and studious understanding of our world. I may have room for only one article or for two or three, but I wish to share with you to some degree, anyway, what they have to say.

The lead article, “America’s New Foreign Policy,” tells you about just that. And a new policy is what it seems to be. They begin with Ukraine and point out that the Trump Administration stopped sharing of intelligence with Ukraine, then abruptly restored it after Zelenskyy agreed to a 30-day truce. But at about the same time, the President increased tariffs on Canada to a sufficient degree that new Prime Minister, Mark Carney told his people the US wanted “our water, our land, our country.” On the other side of the world anxieties were raised when Trump questioned the usefulness of the US-Japanese defense treaty signed more than 60 years ago.

The Econ writers concede that Trump clearly is able to make a difference. But what difference at what cost? Financial markets, though up for the second straight day today(Wed the 19th) thanks to the Fed, are still uncertain. In both financial matters and other security issues, it appears that the leaders of more than 40 nations which have more or less accepted American leadership since WWII now are questioning it. Since the President is in many ways more independent and powerful in foreign affairs than domestic, they wonder what would happen in a real crisis. Would the Trump Administration actually stand with them in the long run?

In some ways the “administration’s economic nationalism and the repudiation of … global security” may do more and worse. Elon Musk hints(or says) the US should leave NATO. Trump remains(now) silent on the issue. Wall Street ponders obscure and peculiar actions on the dollar which of course might affect other nations’ currencies. What are our allies to think? Even more, perhaps, what about our non-allies?

The Econ writers see a threat I had not specifically considered for the Far East. If Trump is so willing to cooperate as Russia chews off parts of Ukraine, what might Asia think? Would he make similar deals with Russia, China, or North Koreas? Would Taiwan(and all of its chips)be more vulnerable? And what about nations that feel abandoned? Might they turn to Russia or China for assistance and alliances?

The writers point out that our current allies are in a difficult spot. And, it occurs to me, it could get worse fairly quickly. The allies, combined, may have a GDP larger than ours. But this is not what Econ calls “hard power.” And the temptation to turn to authoritarian regimes would still be there. And should the US actually back out of a leadership role and go for dominance on its own or with Russia as an ally(acknowledged or not) things could get diplomatically and economically very difficult.

The Econ suggests that America’s allies(they do not say just Europe) do need to build up their own military and economic “infrastructure”–which I gather means to build their own power and to find a way to do it with(perhaps considerably) reduced America assistance. The end of the article suggests that the way for our allies may end up being that old world diplomatic method, more alliances.–that they “should ‘seek strength in numbers.’ “

This would, they say, include a plan for a European take-over of NATO leadership. To an American of my generation this sounds nearly unbelievable, but there it is. They also suggest a joint European-East Asian alliance or at least understanding which would lead to more cooperation with Japan and South Korea. This would, they say, “preserve an alternative liberal order, albeit vastly inferior to the original.”

They also maintain that our former allies should be ready to welcome the US back into their plans when someone else is President. But they also note that by then this will have to be done when the “world will not be the same.” No, it won’t, not by a long distance. All of us should think of what that distance might be and of the difficulties inherent in overcoming it.