At the recent Munich Security Conference, two prominent political figures from opposing ends of the American political spectrum presented starkly contrasting views on the legacy of U.S. foreign policy and the postwar international order. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, argued that the West’s promised “rules-based order” failed to deliver on commitments to the Global South, primarily benefiting former colonial powers. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also eyeing a 2028 presidential bid, reflected on a supposed decline of Western civilization, attributing the diminishing power of the West to the rise of national liberation movements and so-called “godless communist revolutions.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s narrative emphasized a betrayal of Western moral leadership due to the hypocrisy of powerful nations acting selfishly, while Rubio mourned the loss of the West’s civilizational power in the face of decolonization. Despite the disparate accounts, both leaders received applause for their addresses, indicating that each message found resonance among attendees. The differing yet compelling narratives highlighted the continued deterioration of the liberal international order that had predominated since the Cold War.
In terms of policy prescriptions, both Ocasio-Cortez and Rubio called for revitalized Atlanticism. However, their interpretations diverged greatly, with Ocasio-Cortez envisioning a coalition of democracies opposing authoritarian regimes, while Rubio posited a more ethnocentric alliance. Although they disagreed on geopolitical issues, particularly regarding military actions in Venezuela and South America, both stressed the importance of maintaining U.S. military partnerships and exhibited strategic ambiguity toward China, illustrating a shared concern about America’s global standing.
Ocasio-Cortez pointed to the root causes of global right-wing populism, citing rising inequality as a significant factor. She argued for a working-class-centered political movement to combat authoritarianism but struggled to translate this into a comprehensive foreign policy amidst the complexities of global conflicts and ecological crises caused or exacerbated by U.S. actions. Her analysis may have lacked a clear vision for how to engage with a rapidly changing world order.
As both political figures articulated their visions, it became evident that the Democratic Party is facing a critical juncture. After decades of American supremacy in global economics and military strength, the party appears reluctant to acknowledge the shift toward a multipolar world where the U.S.’s dominance is challenged. Joe Biden’s recent foreign policy approach has leaned away from traditional liberal internationalism, with increasing tension toward China and a less diplomatic stance toward global allied structures.
The current political climate suggests that both the left and right wings of American politics are grappling with profound changes in international relations. As the U.S. adapts to its evolving role, there is growing tension between sustaining a global order grounded in U.S. interests and acknowledging the realities of a more equal distribution of power worldwide.
Environmental crises, massive population displacements, and long-standing inequalities pose significant challenges that both Ocasio-Cortez and Rubio might need to reconcile with their proposed policies. AOC’s approach resonates with a need for a more just foreign policy, while Rubio’s outlook dramatizes fears of cultural and civilizational loss in an era of decolonization and emerging powers.
The critical takeaway from the Munich conference is the necessity for U.S. leaders to face the complexities of foreign engagement honestly. The path forward involves difficult reckonings—addressing the contradictions of U.S. global influence, navigating interdependence with nations abroad, especially in light of climate change and migration, and considering a strategic withdrawal from entrenched military postures. With these challenges ahead, a thorough reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy orientations may hold the key to a more constructive role in a rapidly changing global landscape. This pursuit, difficult as it may be, is essential for both the American populace and the international community.