America First

Episode Narrative

In the aftermath of the Cold War, a new chapter in global affairs began to unfold. The year was 1991, and the United States emerged as the sole superpower on the world stage. This marked the beginning of what many called the “unipolar moment.” American power stood undivided and, for many, felt eternal. The world was transformed into a place where U.S. influence reigned supreme, dictating the rules of the international order through a doctrine of liberal internationalism. In this environment, American institutions and ideologies were seen as the gold standard, reflecting a belief in American Exceptionalism. Such ideologies portrayed the United States not merely as another nation, but as a beacon of democracy, responsible for promoting its values and governance models globally.

The 1990s saw the United States entangled in numerous international conflicts, driven by this sense of purpose. U.S. foreign policy became synonymous with military interventions and democracy initiatives, particularly across Latin America and the Middle East. The belief was clear: America had a messianic role to play. The spirit of American Exceptionalism defined the decade, guiding decisions that would ultimately see the deployment of military might as a tool for spreading liberal values. It wasn’t just about geopolitics; it was about faith — faith in a vision of the world in which sovereignty and democracy would prevail, with American ideals leading the charge.

As we moved into the next millennium, the events of September 11, 2001, would catalyze monumental shifts within the United States and around the globe. The horrendous attacks on American soil devastated the nation, causing a collective reckoning. In that moment of crisis, a shift toward a wartime culture began to take root, reinforcing a narrative centered on national identity and victory. The rhetoric became clear: America would respond, and it would do so with resolve.

The ensuing War on Terror that unfolded shaped U.S. ideology from 2001 to 2021. This new reality emphasized heightened security and counterterrorism while pushing back against any questioning of American power. Long-standing military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq became enshrined in the national consciousness, albeit not without raising contentious debates about the limits of American interventionism. Domestically, Americans wrestled with the implications of prolonged military commitments abroad. Was this the price of safeguarding democracy, or was it an overreach that could incite further instability?

Between 2008 and 2016, the Obama administration sought to pivot U.S. foreign policy toward a multilateralist approach. The mantra shifted from unilateral action to embracing diplomacy and partnerships. “Leading from behind” became a notable phrase, underlining an effort to forge alliances rather than impose solutions. Yet this was a tumultuous time. Rising powers began to assert themselves, challenging American hegemony. The divided political landscape of the United States mirrored these international tensions, making coherent foreign policy increasingly difficult.

Then came the 2016 election, resulting in a sharp pivot in ideology that would reverberate through subsequent years. The rise of the Trump administration heralded an “America First” approach that rejected many tenets of globalism. Nationalism surged, skepticism of international partnerships grew, and protectionist trade policies emerged. This shift challenged the liberal international order that had previously defined the post-Cold War era. America was now prioritizing its own interests, and in doing so, it invited questions about the effectiveness and reliability of its commitments to allies.

In 2017, a new National Security Strategy was unveiled, pivoting once more toward a focus on great power competition. The U.S. identified China and Russia as primary strategic rivals, signaling a decisive shift away from counterterrorism toward geopolitical rivalry. This focus brought with it an intensified clash between liberal elites advocating a globalist agenda and a heartland revolt calling for nationalism and sovereignty. The core ideological divisions within the United States grew deeper, reflecting fierce debates over identity, immigration, and economic policy.

Throughout 2019 to 2025, though, these political conflicts began to have consequences beyond the borders of the United States. U.S. allies recalibrated their views on American commitments, often questioning both its reliability and intention. Amid perceptions of unilateralism and transactional diplomacy, alliances that once seemed steadfast began to exhibit cracks.

The global landscape would not remain static, either. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new set of crises pushed firms and governments to re-evaluate the standing of the United States in the world. The pandemic exposed leadership failures and undermined the U.S.'s ability to deliver global public goods. The liberal international order was now facing existential questions about its very future.

As the post-Cold War era reached its third decade, the United States stood at a crossroads, grappling with the consequences of its own ambitions. It faced a Gilpin Dilemma, attempting to balance defensive protectionism against the fragmentation of the international system while innovating to maintain its once-unassailable hegemony. The rise of China as a strategic competitor only heightened this discord.

Layered within this geopolitical context was a recurring narrative of hope and manifest destiny. This story shaped U.S. foreign policy, leading to moments of overreach that often yielded self-destructive outcomes. The complexities of the U.S.'s relationships with countries like China and India illustrated this conflict; cooperation in areas like innovation clashed with preventive strategies motivated by national interests.

The overarching concept of normalization in U.S. foreign relations presented its own contradictions. Engagements with nations such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba highlighted the tension between the pursuit of peace and the maintenance of a vast empire. Ideologically, the commitment to liberal democracy often gave way to a focus on elite-driven neoliberal economics, sidelining participatory democracy in regions particularly in Latin America. This complicated any narrative that claimed to be wholly about promoting democracy.

As the unipolar system faced mounting challenges — particularly from resurgent powers in both Russia and China — the very ideological framework that defined the New World Order began to shift. Competing narratives emerged, each influencing security agendas and foreign policy decisions. The reconstruction of global leadership was not just a bureaucratic task; it was filled with hopes, fears, and the weight of historical legacy.

In this epoch, the United States encountered grand strategic overstretch. The ideological debates between interventionism and restraint left their mark. Americans were left to grapple with the costs of their nation's engagements abroad versus the ethical implications of their pursuit for hegemony. Cultural context often intersected with these narratives, reinforcing institutions centered around victory and sacrifice. American wartime rituals gained prominence, intertwining with the collective psyche and shaping public support for military actions.

As we reflect on this tumultuous period, we are left to ponder the questions it raises. What does it mean for a nation to grapple with its identity on the world stage? How does the narrative of America First redefine not only its own path but also the paths of nations around it?

The legacy of these years will echo through history, a complex tapestry woven from triumphs and missteps alike, urgently reminding us of the fragility of power and the relentless quest for meaning within it. The world watches. The dialogue continues. The choices remain ours to make.