The international rules-based order survives not because it is universally respected, but because someone has the power to punish those who ignore it. For decades, that power has looked a lot like a B-2 bomber.
In the modern era, the United States has functioned, more or less, as the “world’s police.” Critics across the political spectrum—from libertarian-style isolationist voices like Tucker Carlson to leftist intellectuals like Noam Chomsky—call for a retreat of American power or the rise of a multipolar system [1, 2]. Their reasons differ, but both seem to portray the U.S. as a nefarious or harmful force in the world [3, 4]. So, are they right? Would the world be better off without American hegemony? My answer is a resounding NO.
History is not kind to advocates of isolationism or multipolarity. A world missing American hegemony and leadership would quickly devolve into chaos. Growing calls for American isolationism risk weakening the United States’ capacity to uphold global norms, contributing to a gradual slide toward multipolarity [2]. When a hegemon’s dominance erodes, either through declining capability or declining commitment, rising powers are more likely to challenge the existing order. The historical record is clear: when the world has competing great powers, conflict is inevitable. Multipolarity is, at best, a risky bet [5]
History's most deadly example of this dynamic emerged in the lead-up to WWII. During the interwar period, the British Empire remained the world’s dominant power despite growing challenges from rising powers such as the United States and Germany; however, the heavy human and financial costs of WWI left Britain exhausted and depleted, limiting its capacity to enforce global norms. As a result, the international system established following WWI was weak and ineffective, lacking credible enforcement power [6].
Hegemonic hopeful powers (Germany, Japan, Italy), seeing that the international order was weak and aggression would go unpunished, seized the opportunity to push where there was weakness. What resulted was bloody and generationally damaging.
The interwar British experience illustrates how a hegemon’s declining ability or commitment to enforce global norms can destabilize the international system—a dynamic that echoes in the contemporary U.S.–China relationship. It is not an exact match, but it certainly rhymes.
The international order today, the United Nations (UN), is also weak and ineffective, with no enforcement power. The United States, when its interests are aligned with the UN, can act as that enforcer; without it, the system as we know it would cease to exist, and a period of uncertainty would follow. As the president of China recently said, the “law of the jungle” becomes the global order [7]. As history and current events spell out, a world order missing a dominant Western hegemon is dangerous.
The lifespan of the power vacuum created by American withdrawal is approximately 2 seconds (approximately). China is already poised and ready to shape a “new world order” as Canada’s Prime Minister recently proclaimed from Beijing [8]. When the U.S. flirts with isolationism, even our allies and neighbors begin to look to whoever will be in charge in our absence. The candidates for this role? Powers like China, which resent the “rules-based order” and are far from benevolent [9].
I am not suggesting that American hegemony is flawless or always morally pure. Hegemonic powers can take advantage of their position and force their will over the interests of others and the stability of the international system. The United States has made plenty of mistakes along the way, which critics are correct to point out. But realism demands comparison, not idealism. The relevant question is not whether U.S. leadership is perfect, but whether the alternatives are better.
Debating whether the American-led order has been beneficial is like debating whether the sun rising in the morning is good for the world: it’s obvious.
Despite many small and proxy wars, the U.S.-led order, backed by credible force, has produced decades without any actual great-power wars, more predictable rules, and a higher degree of global stability than any multipolar alternative on record [10, 11]. In international politics, enforcement matters more than intention—and no other great power has shown either the capacity or the willingness to enforce the global order with restraint as the U.S. has [12].
The uncomfortable truth is that international rules do not enforce themselves. They endure only when someone has both the power and the will to defend them. Calls for isolationism or multipolarity may differ in motivation, but they share a dangerous assumption—that the world will remain orderly once the enforcer steps away. History suggests otherwise. In the end, the B-2 bomber is not a symbol of American aggression—it is a reminder that peace in an anarchic world is never free.
America First does not have to mean America Alone.
