Black Friday is a day given over to short-term interests, impulsiveness and exploitation, driven by the message that if consumers don’t act now to take what they want, they’ll lose out. It is a transactional, shortsighted, quick means to a good-enough end.
Giving Tuesday, which follows Black Friday, offers a different perspective. It encourages giving rather than taking. This is not done for purely altruistic reasons but on the understanding that investing in our communities — not just in ourselves — makes us all stronger and better off in the long run.
Consider a donation to the American Civil Liberties Union. It isn’t because we feel sorry for those whose civil liberties are at risk. Rather, we understand that, when the civil liberties of others are at risk because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation, our society is neither free nor fair, and all of our civil liberties could be at risk in the future. A donation to an organization that fights homelessness or drug addiction isn’t just about helping those who struggle. It’s also about strengthening and improving our community because we are all better off when we are all productive and secure.
One can take either approach to foreign policy as well. The world order established in the wake of World War II reflects a Giving Tuesday take on foreign policy. Countries came together to establish the United Nations to promote global cooperation for collective benefit. That approach sees a world of sociopolitical integration, in which the security and prosperity of individual countries depend and rely on the security and prosperity of others. It recognizes our interconnectivity and compels us to manage it effectively, not just for our own individual gain. In this world order, humanitarian aid and development and the allies to promote them are not altruistic but essential.
Another kind of foreign policy is the Black Friday kind: selfish, transactional and short-term. It might benefit a country on a brief political cycle, but it doesn’t provide long-term solutions or stability. Its quick answers can lead to long conflicts. This was the type of world order that set the stage for two World Wars and that the post-WWII order was designed to end. And yet, this is the kind of world that the Trump administration is seeking to return to.
The Russian “peace deal” that the administration just tried to force on Kyiv offers a clear example, though widespread pushback from members of Congress and our allies thankfully forced a return to the negotiating table. The original 28-point plan, and President Donald Trump’s framing of it as an ultimatum, would have given the United States some shallow, short-term gains, such as reconstruction profits and investment opportunities. But it would have done so at the cost of Europe’s future peace, since it would have rewarded Russia’s aggression with even more territory than it already stole and left Ukraine incapable of defending itself in the future. From trade to security partnerships, Europe’s stability affects us at home, so that would have cost us in the long run too.
The shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the cancellation of 83% of all foreign aid contracts earlier this year were other signs of a Black Friday approach. Secretary of State Marco Rubio touted the money the United States would save, but without acknowledging the deep costs to America’s global reputation and reach in the long run. Even if you aren’t bothered by the millions of lives that it will cost, consider its impact on us at home. That aid work was the foundation of the access and influence that made it possible for the U.S. government to work with partners to fight shared threats — from pandemics to terrorism — before they reach our shores.
These are but two of many examples of how the United States has succumbed to a short-term, selfish view of foreign policy that won’t serve us well. Today, we seek the path of least resistance to bully our way to influence, to continue expanding our executive authority so our government can compete with authoritarian governments around the world, on their terms, not ours.
We’re mistaken if we think this is a path to greatness. We aren’t going to out-China China or out-Russia Russia. We can only succeed if we double down on what once set us apart, which was at least an aspiration to build a world that served our own self-interest by promoting security and prosperity for all.
Like our government, Americans are susceptible to short-term thinking. But the impact on us of the health and security of our global community is tremendous and will only grow. This is why I encourage all Americans to take that long-term, community view of Giving Tuesday and apply it to our role in the world. Take time to tell your elected representatives in Washington to use their power to foster this approach too. Demand to know how we’re using our troops and money around the world and why.
Our government will stop thinking short term only if the public that elects it insists that it do so. It isn’t about altruism — it’s about our world and our future in it.
Elizabeth Shackelford is a senior adviser with the Institute for Global Affairs at Eurasia Group and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She is also a distinguished lecturer with the Dickey Center at Dartmouth College. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
