A Cynical American Youth Requires a New Domestic Public Diplomacy

It is conventional wisdom in American politics that foreign policy does not win elections– voters care about and base their allegiances on what is close to them; jobs, education, immigration– “it’s the economy, stupid.” Likewise, foreign policy historically has been the facet of government most subject to the discretion of the executive branch and appointed experts free in many cases to act without constant consultation with elected representatives in Congress. So it is all the more unusual that the last three months has seen such sustained, widespread and intense public expressions of outrage over the government’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis in American society. Such protest whose energy and organization mirrors that of major labor strikes or racial justice activism has clearly come as a surprise to an American government long accustomed to relative freedom in its foreign dealings and broad public approval for long-established policies like support for Israel. When public backlash against elements of its foreign policy has flared up in the past, it has typically receded beneath domestic talking points when election season comes– even scandals like Iran-Contra or increasingly-controversial relations with authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia have scarcely played dominant roles in electoral outcomes or major political realignments.

It is easy to be puzzled or even scoff at the intensity of this youth-driven outrage toward the United States’ support of Israel, exceeded in recent memory only by the protest movements against major years-long direct military interventions like the Vietnam and Iraq Wars in which thousands of Americans lost their lives. However, a closer examination of notable changes in American social attitudes makes the current situation much more predictable. It is rooted in profound grievances which in this case spring from a long-growing divergence in perspective between the American government and significant segments of its population. This new outburst against long-standing American foreign policy precedents is thus no anomaly, but rather just the most visible expression of a major generational disconnect on fundamental matters of the United States’ role in the world, one that, while perhaps once dismissible as less salient than other societal rifts, has reached a degree that should be of concern to policymakers in its implications for U.S. national security.

Since the post-WWII era, there has existed a certain “foreign policy consensus” among the American public: while individuals may disagree on the merits of particular foreign engagements, the core ideas underpinning much of U.S. foreign policy– that the United States is a global beacon of freedom and democracy, that it is capable of promoting them abroad and that it is worthwhile to do so– have served as a crucial basis from which leaders have been able to pursue a wide array of international endeavors. This consensus, most pronounced among older Americans, is reflected in opinion polling: for example, in a 2023 Pew Research Center poll, 85% of respondents 65 or older said they believed the United States either “stands above all other countries in the world” or “is one of the greatest countries, along with others.” 78% of respondents between 50 and 64 shared the same view, and 68% of those between 30 and 49 did too. As a result, national administrations have typically felt less need to consistently and thoroughly articulate their foreign policy vision to the public in the way they do for their domestic policies.

However, the accumulation of scandals and failures in U.S. foreign policy over the decades has gradually increased doubt in its basic vision with each passing generation, to the point that such a public consensus on foreign policy matters cannot now be said to exist among the youngest generation. In the aforementioned poll, consistent with the steadily decreasing pattern, only 57% of Americans between 18 and 29 agreed that the United States is among the greatest countries in the world. This number is also lower among those identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic, with 18- to 29-year-olds identifying as such being split exactly 50/50 on the issue.

This growing generational divide is further reflected in attitudes toward particular foreign conflicts like the one in Israel and Palestine and toward foreign policy more broadly. While majorities of all generations over the age of 30 hold positive views toward Israel and express warmer attitudes toward Israeli people than Palestinian people, a 2022 Pew poll found that the under-30 generation is the first in which a majority (56%) views Israel negatively and that holds more positive attitudes toward Palestinians than Israelis (61% to 56%). This tendency, as before, is even stronger among those identifying as left-leaning. Similarly, while those in the oldest cohort reported they viewed Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions as critical threats (71% and 70% respectively) in 2022, 58% and 53% respectively of the middle cohort (Gen X) agreed with these statements and only 47% and 38% of the youngest generation (Gen Z) did (Chicago Council Surveys). Thus we clearly see a consistent fall in confidence through the generations in the idea of American uniqueness, as well, it seems, as in commitment to traditional American allies and hostility toward authoritarian adversaries.

Young Americans even express more skepticism about the merits of democracy itself. According to McCourtney Institute’s 2022 Mood of the Nation Poll, 93% of the Silent Generation either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that democracy is the best form of government, followed by 81% of Baby Boomers, 70% of Gen Xers, 70% of Millennials and 60% of Gen Zers; “somewhat agree” was also more popular than “strongly agree” among the youngest generation. As a result, core assumptions underpinning the popular legitimacy of American foreign policy action– that democratic values are worth championing abroad, that the United States is uniquely positioned to do so, and that such work involves loyalty to traditional American allies (such as Israel) and responding to authoritarian competitors (such as Russia and China)– are hardly regarded as self-evident by the youngest Americans. Polling shows them frequently split close to 50/50 on such matters, and the youngest and most left-leaning among them in particular likely to diverge most strongly from the consensus. It should therefore be no surprise that so many young Americans have reacted so strongly against recent U.S. foreign actions like aid for Israel based on hitherto-basic principles of U.S. foreign policy, and that this represents not just a disagreement with one particular policy decision, but a deeper disassociation from those basic principles, historically fundamental to the American identity and pattern of global engagement.

As an international relations student at an American liberal arts college, I have seen firsthand this growing disconnect between my young, progressive peers on the one hand and the American government and broader society on the other, which has manifested most starkly in discussions about issues like Israel/Palestine. Among most social groups on my campus, it is not only normalized but even expected to declare the United States an exploitative, racist, imperialist aggressor in the world. To suggest that it might be a force for good on the whole would certainly raise eyebrows in both social and classroom settings. At Swarthmore I am often surprised by the depth of cynicism toward virtually anything said by a U.S. government (especially foreign policy) spokesperson or even by news outlets regarded as associated with the mainstream American worldview. I remember, for example, receiving incredulous glances from my classmates upon mentioning The New York Times when asked in a class for examples of reputable news sources. As it appears to me, many of my peers regard the American government in much the same way most Americans would regard the Russian or Chinese governments: not merely flawed, but at its core malicious, especially in the way it deals with other countries. As a result, government statements are generally assumed to be at best disingenuous, at worst propagandistic unless proven otherwise.

At first I assumed that this worldview was mostly just characteristic of people either generally uninterested in politics or especially disillusioned with the political system. Those studying international relations and/or seeking careers in government and policy, like myself, surely would have more faith in the United States and its government as a constructive force. However, I have not found this assumption validated in most cases. Last summer I interned at a research organization in Washington, D.C. focused on American diplomatic history, where most of my fellow interns were working toward future careers in the Foreign Service or policy institutes. And yet, I found much the same cynical attitude toward American foreign policy. Among my colleagues, future shapers of American diplomacy, I noticed that the most passionate conversations would revolve around subjects such as atrocities and human rights abuses committed by American soldiers or allies, rather than, say, great diplomatic achievements or current U.S. foreign policy objectives. Similarly, among the students I studied abroad with in Amman, Jordan last semester– a very similar group including aspiring diplomats and policy analysts– deep cynicism was the predominant, if not only, mentality regarding American foreign policy. In their eyes America has not just failed in noble objectives, but, on the contrary, in fact consistently pursued ill-intentioned objectives: the true heroes of history, if any, were those who most courageously resisted powers like the United States.

It was at this point that I became preoccupied with this issue, as it became clear to me that this pattern reflected not just the typical rebellious, anti-authority inclination of young people which could be expected to dissipate with time, but a fundamentally different analytical framework about American history and the modern world than American governments have been used to in their population. Whether the current actions of Israel in Gaza are either a determined struggle to protect its people from terrorism or an imperialist genocide waged by a society defined by oppression is not simply a difference of attitude, but an intrinsically different interpretation of basic facts. It is one that I believe is partially rooted in the often vastly different information streams young people consume (it is quite common for many my age to get much or all their news from social media platforms highly disconnected from the information flows that inform policymakers and most of the public). It is also heavily influenced by the different lived experience of younger Americans, who grew up in the doubtful aftermath of military and diplomatic failures in the Middle East and the humanitarian controversies of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, rather than the moral clarity of purpose of the Cold War. And an academic environment that habitually prioritizes the continuous deconstruction of existing belief systems and theories through critical analysis over the constructive development of new intellectual frameworks has also contributed to an increasingly distrustful view of the world.

That many among even my most well-informed, internationally-oriented peers– not just future voters but many who may one day work in the government– share this worldview, that the United States is little more than a self-serving power in the world, hardly distinguishable from Russia or China, confirms the seriousness with which I believe we should approach this growing disconnect. My generation is an analytical, incisive, passionate one, and my academic peers are brilliant, confident, capable individuals. It is for this reason that I believe that, if our national leadership sincerely believe in the principles that guide their foreign policy and expect it to be upheld by their successors, they should prioritize communicating the merit of those principles and their own decisions toward young citizens in a way that matches their intelligence, intensity and seriousness toward the issues, a new domestic public diplomacy for a young America that requires answers: what really sets the United States apart in a world full of dishonest, self-serving leaders? How do we know our values are sound when we fail in them? Why should we believe you?

This requires both clear examinations of the principles that have guided national decisions for decades, and the willingness to communicate directly and honestly as to why the government does what it does in order to meet and engage with deeply critical worldviews that fundamentally doubt their intentions. I, as a young American, can attest that we do not want to see a politely smiling diplomat vacuously, almost dismissively assuring us that our perspectives are valued and our passion is appreciated. That much any autocratic state could do. The American government can show what truly sets it apart by doing what only a real democracy could do: actively giving voice to a youth that does not believe in what their government says or does, meeting them at their level with genuine confidence in their principles, the openness to engage without fear of confrontation, and the capacity, ultimately, to change when honest self-reflection compels it.