A neglected variety of realist

See this on a dichotomy between realists and interventionists in foreign policy.

The threat of Buchananism in the rise of Trump gives occasion to note there is another kind of realism based on a much more pessimistic assessment of the consequences of a general withdrawal of US forces and commitments to the Western hemisphere, north of the Equator, than that of the Buchananites.

In the past I subscribed to that plank of Buchananism, also supported by many libertarians, paleocons, and the "anti-imperialist," "anti-militarist," "anti-globalist" wing of the American and global left.

But now in the face of the threat of an actual US withdrawal posed by the rise of Trump I have been positively chilled at the thought of how much more dangerous the world would quickly become, for millions upon millions of others but also notably for ourselves, if that sort of foreign policy were adopted.

And only part of that danger is posed by his idiotic views concerning nuclear weapons.

[Update, 12212016. I now regret that last paragraph and have edged back to support for that America First aspect of Buchananism.]

An example of such realism, with a penchant for liberal (definitely not socialist) values, is this essay by Hillary on a book by her friend, Henry Kissinger.

Was Hillary a Nixon Republican rather than, say, a McGovern Democrat, back in the day?

I was.

I sympathized then and do now with efforts of the South to stave off conquest by Ho and the communist North, even after the coup against Diem and under rule by Marshals Ky and Thieu.

And it was worth it to the US to expend some effort to assist.

But it was never important enough for the huge and ultimately futile investment we actually made.