History may recall our withdrawal from Afghanistan as a watershed marking the sunset of the American empire. Powerful trends, domestic and foreign, argue the geopolitical landscape is undergoing a tectonic shift.

Domestically, populism has spread like kudzu across the political spectrum. Though ferocious opponents on most topics, Bernie Sanders’ progressives and Trump’s MAGA base share an innate hostility to global trade and military incursions. The ascendant wings of both parties are thus aligned in their desire to reexamine America’s commitment to an imperial foreign policy spearheaded by hard power.

Progressives dislike global trade’s effects on labor standards and the environment. Clinton Democrats, loathed by progressives today, were complicit in the offshoring of American manufacturing. Bill Clinton wedded the DNC to Wall Street, and no sector lobbied harder to facilitate the “China opportunity.”

Many Democrats are also allergic to any foreign policy advanced by military force, and they prefer to prioritize domestic spending on social programs. Some still see the folly of Vietnam in every military intervention. Democrats have been disconnected from defense constituents since Reagan pulled southern states to the GOP.

Trump Republicans, remarkably, have abandoned decades of GOP fealty to “global security” as the foundation of our diplomatic posture. From labeling dead servicemen “suckers” to questioning the utility of NATO, Trump as president displayed an unprecedented hostility to the defense foundations of the American empire.

Unlike traditional Chamber of Commerce Republicans, GOP populists are also imbued with deep animus toward free trade. Volatile on many subjects, Trump was consistent in criticizing globalism, the trade agreements that fuel it, and the WTO’s role as arbiter of sovereign conduct.

Changes in global oil and gas production have also diminished the benefits of the empire. Despite opposition from environmentalists, fracking technologies helped America achieve energy independence over the past 20 years. We no longer need to fear a sudden OPEC embargo or tanker blockade.

That means safeguarding Middle East stability isn’t necessary to ensure access to affordable energy. By extension, using our military to protect the Saudis from Iranian proxy forces is no longer critical to the US economy.

Of course, defense hawks still claim Middle East stability is essential to American strategic interests. They also demand we maintain a Middle East footprint to safeguard Israel, and to continue Dick Cheney’s war on Islamic terrorism.

Both those initiatives have no conceivable endgame. Historically a tacit agreement between Democrats and Republicans supported this endless empire maintenance, but the foundations of that stealthy consensus are cracking.

Those cracks are visible already. In a rare bipartisan moment this summer, 49 Republicans in the House joined Democrats to pass a bill that rescinds the 2002 authorization of military force in Iraq.

Of course, hard power is not the only avenue to maintaining global sway. Economic trade, financing aid, and cultural ties also exert considerable influence. Unfortunately, America’s soft power no longer matches its military reach.

At many international bodies (WTO, WHO, ICAAN, IMF, World Bank) US leadership is at low ebb. Enormous policy swings of late have diminished our diplomatic effectiveness. Meanwhile, the world is increasingly crowded with long-game actors like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and the Taliban.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Coincident with America’s flagging jingoism, China has clearly stated its ambition to “reclaim its rightful place” as a preeminent global leader. There are reasons to believe it will succeed.

China’s economy is poised to become the world’s largest in a matter of years, and it relentlessly promotes Yuan-denominated trade in an effort to unseat the greenback as the leading global currency.

China’s burgeoning navy now boasts “blue water” capabilities. And it is fortifying the footprint it needs to enforce China’s controversial claim to sole hegemony over the entire South China Sea.

Roughly $4.5 trillion in trade shipments transit the South China Sea annually. In 2016 the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, China’s claims had no legitimacy. China immediately declared it would not be bound by the decision.

For Xi Jinping, reunification of “greater China” is pivotal to restoring the country to its presumptive glory.

This ambition led China to repudiate the “two systems” governance it had pledged by treaty to maintain in Hong Kong. It replaced judicial systems inherited from the UK with a limitless security law that is now enforced via Orwellian police state tactics.

The final reunification target is Taiwan, where Chinese efforts to gain political control by funding pro-China politicians have failed repeatedly. Now there are credible analyses suggesting China may attempt to gain control by invading Taiwan in the next five years.

That possibility represents a clear and present threat to the US – far greater than Middle East turf wars or Islamist terror networks. It also speaks volumes about the characteristics we can anticipate from Chinese global leadership.