The fourth and final panel of the Chicago Thinker’s inaugural American Identity Summit, titled “America’s Role in the World,” featured an in-depth discussion between political analysts to evaluate the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the global landscape. Moderated by Henry Smith, third-year University of Chicago student and managing editor of the Chicago Journal of Foreign Policy, the panel featured University of Chicago political science professors Robert Pape and Paul Poast, executive director of The American Conservative Curt Mills, and a pre-recorded video from former president of the World Bank and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
In his video, Paul Wolfowitz opened the session by emphasizing America’s longstanding responsibility to ensure the safety and prosperity of its citizens, highlighting the importance of proactive engagement in the face of emerging global threats from authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Labeling these regimes as an “axis of tyrants,” he warned of their shared interests in undermining American power, destabilizing allies, and dismantling the liberal international order. Wolfowitz advocated for a renewed commitment to international leadership through alliances rooted in shared democratic values, suggesting that the stability of the global system depends in large part on continued U.S. engagement.
While the panelists broadly agreed on the importance of U.S. leadership, their perspectives diverged on the current nature of the international order and the appropriate means of securing American interests. Professor Robert Pape defended the idea of American primacy, citing the United States’ current 26% share of global GDP as a clear indicator of ongoing economic and strategic leadership. In his view, narratives of inevitable American decline are premature – Pape stressed that U.S. policy should focus on preserving its dominant position while avoiding unnecessary military entanglements that might sap resources or provoke strategic overreach.
To address rising challenges, particularly from China, Pape advocated for a targeted economic strategy involving a phased tariff schedule on Chinese imports, with revenues reinvested in domestic revitalization, particularly in manufacturing and robotics industries in middle America. This approach, he argued, could simultaneously counter China’s economic ascendancy and address the discontent of working-class Americans, a demographic he believes is central to maintaining political cohesion at home.
Curt Mills offered a starkly different assessment, asserting that the world is already firmly multipolar, and that continued U.S. attempts to assert unipolar dominance are misguided. Citing China’s Belt and Road Initiative, growing partnerships in Latin America, and its competitive edge in sectors like artificial intelligence and infrastructure development, Mills argued that China has already reached parity in many respects. He criticized previous U.S. foreign policy as imperial overreach, contending that efforts to police the globe have not only failed but have contributed to domestic economic decline and eroded public trust.
Mills advocated for a strategic shift of primary focus onto the Western Hemisphere. Noting the enduring relevance of the Monroe Doctrine, he called for the U.S. to deepen economic, political, and cultural ties within the Americas. He argued that such a pivot would allow the U.S. to remain globally competitive without overextension, preserving American power through regional consolidation rather than global projection. He further noted that restoring domestic industrial capacity and national unity should take precedence over foreign intervention, warning that history has shown alliances and entanglements can often lead to unintended adverse consequences.
Professor Paul Poast offered a middle-ground perspective, describing the current international system as one of “unequal multipolarity.” While the U.S. remains the most powerful actor, Poast argued, other nations—most notably China—have become significant players whose interests and actions can no longer be ignored. He cautioned against assuming that the post-Cold War unipolar moment is still intact, and that the U.S. must act more prudently and cooperatively to maintain its position.
According to Poast, the strategic value of alliances remains high, not simply as commitments but as tools for influence and stability. However, he believes that alliances should be used wisely and must be sustained through genuine cooperation rather than unilateral direction. He also noted that missteps, such as the 2003 Iraq invasion, diminished America’s standing with allies and underscored the risks of pursuing military primacy without sufficient multilateral support.
The interplay between domestic and foreign policy emerged as a consistent theme across the discussion. Panelists highlighted how internal divisions, economic inequality, and demographic transformation shape the feasibility of and public support for international engagement. Professor Pape noted that America is undergoing a historically unprecedented demographic shift, moving from a white-majority to a white-minority democracy. He emphasized that these changes are influencing political polarization, increasing the risk of domestic instability, and should be central to any strategic foreign policy framework.
The audience Q&A segment further explored these dynamics, including skepticism over Europe’s political trajectory, diverging values within alliances, and the durability of Western unity. Some participants questioned whether alliances predicated on shared values can endure amid significant ideological divergence. Panelists responded with a range of views, from cautious optimism to calls for a reassessment of alliance frameworks.
While the panel underscored that the strategic debate over America’s role in the world is far from settled, it also revealed significant areas of emerging consensus: the importance of economic strength, the need for strategic clarity, and the imperative to address internal divisions that affect foreign policy coherence. As the global landscape continues to evolve, these themes are likely to remain central to U.S. foreign policy discourse.
Brilliant summary of the event, and I enjoyed both the discussion and the chance to meet so many young people. Here’s to much, much more of that in the future.