I don’t understand the relationship, i.e. I don’t know what you’re referring to by “America first” policies that involve impoverishing or overturning the Korean or Dutch governments. If you mean the specific “America First” foreign-policy slogan, that’s in fact a non-interventionist policy.
Why would the superpower allow any other country to keep more of their wealth/government/power than whatever is optimal from the perspective of the superpower? If they wouldn’t, it feels like that would put a lot of downward pressure on all of these, especially power/government. Wealth as well at least in a relative sense, though perhaps not in an absolute sense. Does your intuition differ?
I wouldn’t necessarily expect overthrown governments, as most would just realize they have no choice but to accede to the demands of the superpower. And in most cases I wouldn’t expect the superpower to let any nation get so far out of control that overthrowing their government would be necessary. But surely the rare few cases where this does materialize would indeed be overthrown?
Do you consider the current America First administration to be non-interventionist? From my perspective, it is quite obviously very interventionist, very unilateralist, and very nationalist. Imagining something like this administration, but superpowered, I find it hard to understand the claim that this would not disempower middle powers.
Why would you expect the American government not to pursue America first policies?
I don’t understand the relationship, i.e. I don’t know what you’re referring to by “America first” policies that involve impoverishing or overturning the Korean or Dutch governments. If you mean the specific “America First” foreign-policy slogan, that’s in fact a non-interventionist policy.
Why would the superpower allow any other country to keep more of their wealth/government/power than whatever is optimal from the perspective of the superpower? If they wouldn’t, it feels like that would put a lot of downward pressure on all of these, especially power/government. Wealth as well at least in a relative sense, though perhaps not in an absolute sense. Does your intuition differ?
I wouldn’t necessarily expect overthrown governments, as most would just realize they have no choice but to accede to the demands of the superpower. And in most cases I wouldn’t expect the superpower to let any nation get so far out of control that overthrowing their government would be necessary. But surely the rare few cases where this does materialize would indeed be overthrown?
Do you consider the current America First administration to be non-interventionist? From my perspective, it is quite obviously very interventionist, very unilateralist, and very nationalist. Imagining something like this administration, but superpowered, I find it hard to understand the claim that this would not disempower middle powers.