Introduction
This article analyzes the America First doctrine from the perspective of General Keith Kellogg. It is not merely a political slogan, but a strategic correction of liberal internationalism, prioritizing national interest over global abstractions.
The reader will discover how national realism opposes technocracy and bureaucratic inertia. The text explains the conflict between a democratic mandate and the autonomy of the state apparatus in the face of new geopolitical threats.
America First: The Primacy of National Interest over Technocracy
In Kellogg's view, America First is a doctrine that prioritizes the needs of the citizen and state security over the expectations of global elites. It stands in opposition to a late-liberal culture of governance, where procedures and polished language have replaced actual political will.
The central idea is the rejection of technocratic management in favor of concrete results. An example is questioning the logic of funding global systems that operate against their own taxpayers and workers. This is a rebellion against the belief that experts from Davos or Brussels better understand what serves the nation.
National Realism as a Correction to Liberal Internationalism
National realism differs from isolationism in that it does not close the door to the world, but rather demands an awareness of the costs and objectives of every intervention. While the isolationist retreats, the realist engages in international relations without illusions, ensuring reciprocity.
The conflict with the establishment stems from the fact that elites treated the US as a guarantor of free security for others. Kellogg advocates for the verification of alliances and the rebuilding of the industrial base so that the state does not become a hostage to supply chains controlled by rivals.
The Conflict Between Political Decision-Making and Expertocracy
Kellogg defines the conflict between voter democracy and expert democracy. Expertocracy emerges when specialized knowledge becomes a political claim, and specialists attempt to limit the president's mandate in the name of alleged institutional wisdom.
In practice, this manifests as the so-called Deep State, or networks of officials blocking shifts in national direction. An example of the failure of this approach is Afghanistan and the Three Ts strategy (more troops, more time, trust us), where systemic error was masked by bureaucratic professionalism.
Summary
Modern democracies face the challenge of reclaiming their agency. History has returned with a bill that cannot be paid by lofty values alone, without real power and strategic coherence.
Ultimately, the virtue of decision-making becomes the highest value. The question remains: can states combine the fire of political will with institutional ice before procedures completely stifle the capacity for action?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the America First doctrine actually in Keith Kellogg's view, and what does it oppose regarding previous methods of governance?
The America First doctrine in Keith Kellogg's view is a principle according to which state policy should be based primarily on the interests of its own citizens and political community. It opposes the late-liberal culture of governance and liberal internationalism, in which priority was given to global flows, multilateral formats, and diplomatic procedures at the expense of real benefits for citizens.
How does Keith Kellogg's national realism differ from isolationism, and what is the nature of its conflict with the establishment?
National realism differs from isolationism in that it does not seek to close itself off from the world, but rather to engage in international relations only where it strengthens US interests and deters aggressors. The conflict with the establishment centers on a dispute over legitimacy: an electoral mandate to change policy direction versus the competencies and institutional memory of a bureaucracy that seeks to limit the decisions of a new administration.
What is the conflict between 'voter democracy' and 'expert democracy' from Kellogg's perspective?
This conflict concerns so-called expertocracy—a situation where professional expertise becomes a political claim and monopolizes the decision-making process. Kellogg opposes the abdication of political leadership in favor of experts, believing that a politician must weigh various risks and values that specialists in a single field do not take into account.
Why does the America First doctrine emphasize the industrial base and increasing allies' spending within NATO?
The emphasis on the industrial base stems from the belief that losing industry means losing defense capabilities and sovereignty, making the state a hostage to external supply chains. Meanwhile, increasing allies' spending within NATO aims to restore reciprocity in the strategic contract, ensuring that security is not funded exclusively by one partner.
According to Keith Kellogg, what should US relations with Russia look like and how should the conflict in Ukraine be resolved?
Relations with Russia should be based on a position of strength and interests, avoiding both naivety and sentimental Russophobia. Resolving the conflict in Ukraine requires combining strategy with morality to create an arrangement where Ukraine retains its ability to defend itself and Russia receives no incentive for another attack.
How does Keith Kellogg view cancel culture, disputes over history, and the events of January 6th?
Keith Kellogg perceives cancel culture and historical disputes as a form of 'killing history' and a memory policy devoid of mercy, which replaces an understanding of the past with emotional purging. Regarding the events of January 6th, he refuses to recognize them as an insurrection, warning against using these events for political stigmatization and the delegitimization of an entire social movement.
Why is the institutional critique of Trumpism insufficient in the face of the failures of the previous order?
Institutional critique is insufficient because it assumes that the previous order was stable and rational, while in reality, it was riddled with systemic errors. It was precisely these shortcomings, such as the middle-class crisis or technocratic arrogance, that created the ground for Trump's rule.
How can one combine rebellion against the establishment with maintaining the efficiency of the state apparatus?
Combining rebellion with state efficiency requires the coexistence of a political mandate and efficient institutions, as a mandate without institutions leads to chaos, and institutions without a mandate become an oligarchy of procedures. The key is finding a balance between political will and resources and strategy, in order to avoid both authoritarian temptation and bureaucratic arbitrariness.
What was Keith Kellogg's role in the Trump administration, and how does he understand the concept of loyalty in the context of fighting bureaucracy?
Keith Kellogg was one of Trump's most loyal advisors, serving on the National Security Council and as the Vice President's national security advisor, where he acted as a translator between the president's temperament and the state apparatus. He understands loyalty not as subservience, but as a prerequisite for executing a political mandate and a virtue consisting in implementing the president's program without it being sabotaged by the bureaucracy.
Why can a technocratic approach to national security lead to strategic failures, such as in the case of Afghanistan?
A technocratic approach can lead to failure because it creates a closed cognitive loop (e.g., the 'Three T' strategy), where errors are used as arguments for continuing ineffective actions. The lack of a clear definition of victory and the ignoring of the limitations of military instruments cause the mission to cease being a strategy and instead become a ritual of maintaining prestige.
Why is Keith Kellogg's approach more effective than liberal internationalism in conflict management?
Keith Kellogg's approach is more effective because it recognizes local social and cultural structures as reality rather than transitional obstacles, rejecting the belief that liberal values can be implanted by force. Instead of assuming Western universalism, it focuses on managing the opponent's costs and using clear, memorable messages that realistically influence the aggressor's calculations.
What is the logic of applying costs and performance in Kellogg's doctrine, and how was it stabilized within the administration?
This logic is based on imposing costs on actors to trigger specific reactions, which is intended to prevent aggression and the minimization of ally contributions by building deterrence credibility. Within the administration, it was stabilized through a division of roles: Trump's performative style ('Fire'), which controlled attention and shaped the field of reaction, and Pence's calm, procedural demeanor ('Ice'), who served as an institutional translator and temperamental counterweight.
What is the 'deep state' in practice, and how did institutional resistance manifest toward the administration of Trump and Kellogg?
In practice, the 'deep state' is an informal apparatus of officials and intelligence services, along with enduring networks of interests that can block a democratically elected leader. Institutional resistance against the Trump and Kellogg administration manifested through harassment, conflict with the Department of Justice, and the conduct of a 'procedural war,' including the Mueller investigation and impeachment proceedings.
Why, according to Kellogg, do cultural disputes and the perception of US history impact national security and foreign policy?
Cultural disputes and the perception of history affect state agency because a nation that does not know who it is loses the ability to determine what it must defend. A society that treats its own history merely as a catalog of sins loses the moral energy for sacrifice and the readiness to fulfill global commitments, which weakens the country's strategic coherence.
Why is the approach of Kellogg and Trump to state management effective against bureaucracy, and what risks does it entail?
This approach is effective because decisional brutality breaks through bureaucratic resistance and the habit of procrastination, forcing concrete results and accountability. However, it carries risks in the form of excessive personalization of power, a reduction in the predictability of state actions, and the creation of a climate of permanent internal confrontation.
What is the ultimate significance of Keith Kellogg's vision for the future of state management and foreign policy?
The ultimate significance of Keith Kellogg's vision is the transformation of political impulses into lasting rules of state governance, including specific criteria for the use of force, a realistic alliance policy, and the restoration of security. It is based on the 'virtue of decision,' namely the ability to act decisively at the right moment, rejecting excessive analysis and procedures as a form of escape from responsibility in a world marked by the return of geopolitics.
