The Center for the National Interest bills itself as “America’s Voice for Strategic Realism.” Its principal voice on the national and international stage is the journal, the National Interest. The current editor of the National Interest is Jacob Heilbrunn, who has used his editorship to place the journal in the camp of Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Apparently “strategic realism” favors the Harris-Walz ticket. In truth, Heilbrunn would support any political opponent of former President Donald Trump.
Back when Joe Biden was still seeking reelection, Heilbrunn wrote a glowing appreciation of Biden as a strong war president with “moxie” and “diplomatic savvy.” Heilbrunn called Biden a “vigorous leader” who was “staying on the field of fight” in Ukraine. (READ MORE: Kamala and Her Price-Control Scheme Straight Outta Berkeley)
Then came the Biden-Trump debate, and the charade was over. Biden’s cognitive impairment was there for all to see and hear. Heilbrunn quickly shifted gears, describing Biden as “hollow,” and urging him to drop out of the race. In one piece, he suggested that Michelle Obama should run against Trump. He noted that many voters see Obama as “a kind of Wonder Woman—a demi-goddess of wisdom and strength.”
Soon, Heilbrunn was singing the praises of Vice President Kamala Harris, who he wrote has “seamlessly ascended the political escalator” and “presents a stark contrast with Trump” who is too “old, over the hill, mentally and physically challenged.” “Trump,” Heilbrunn wrote, “has never confronted a political opponent as tenacious and aggressive as Harris.” I guess Hillary Clinton was quiet and unassuming. Heilbrunn expressed a sigh of relief, writing that had Biden stayed in the race Trump would have won a landslide victory.
Trump’s Path to Self-Destruction? Or His Path to Victory?
Heilbrunn’s most recent piece in the National Interest is titled “Donald Trump’s Path to Self-Destruction.” In it, Heilbrunn ridicules Trump’s recent interview on Elon Musk’s X as the ramblings of a “proud and vain” man. He characterizes Musk as “Trump’s latest incense burner” who only supports Trump because Trump’s policies will likely make Musk even richer. He derides Trump for doing nothing but reflecting on his accomplishments from the past (what political figure doesn’t) while praising Harris for marketing herself as “change you can believe in.” Where have we heard that before?
Wholly absent from Heilbrunn’s latest article is any sense of what Harris brings to the table regarding “strategic realism.” What would Harris do about the Ukraine war? What is her position on the war in the Middle East? Did she refuse to pick Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro because he is Jewish and pro-Israel? Above all, how would Harris approach the gathering storm in the western Pacific? All that matters to Heilbrunn is that she is not Donald Trump. (READ MORE: Columbia University Stinks Just a Bit Less Today)
Ironically, as the prolific historian Niall Ferguson notes, as president, Donald Trump practiced strategic realism and as a candidate, he promotes strategic realism. Ferguson recently praised Trump for initiating the “return of realism to the Republican Party,” which he wrote was a “long overdue response to the strategic overreach encouraged in the neoconservative era.” Ferguson paid Trump the prized realist compliment by comparing Trump’s positions on international affairs to those of Henry Kissinger in the last years of his life. As Kissinger’s authorized biographer, Ferguson knows what he is talking about. Heilbrunn once wrote a book criticizing neoconservatives for their lack of strategic realism, but apparently keeping Trump from reentering the White House is more important than promoting strategic realism.
Within the next few years, Iran is likely to become a nuclear power (if it already hasn’t become one), and its proxies in the Middle East are escalating the conflict there. In Eastern Europe, Ukrainian forces have taken the war inside Russia, which gives many people satisfaction but risks a wider European, and even a global, war. Meanwhile, China continues to rattle its sabers in the Taiwan Strait. Many worry that World War III is just over the horizon. If there was ever a time when strategic realism was needed, it is now. (READ MORE: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Kamala)
Except for calling for a ceasefire in the Middle East and criticizing the Israeli conduct of the war, Harris’ foreign policy approach is a blank canvas. But like Heilbrunn, the mainstream media is shaping a narrative that it is Harris’ moment. It’s “hope and change” all over again.
