Following World War II, the United States emerged as the most powerful nation on earth, and following the fall of the Soviet Union, it wielded its influence in a unipolar world. Through the second half of the 20th century, its Western allies bolstered U.S. hegemony.

As the world entered a period of hyper-globalization, the international power dynamics began to shift, resembling the time before World War I, with China, Europe, Russia, and India rising in clout. While the U.S. is “first among equals,” that rank is under attack by the global rise of the right, particularly with the election of Donald Trump.

Trump embodies the isolationist attitude present in the anti-Europe movement and the ethno-nationalism rising in the United States. He has signaled his desire for the U.S. to pull back from its leadership role in the world, which will impose costs both at home and abroad.

Not only is there a global shift to the right, evident in U.S. and European politics, there is also a troubling shift toward authoritarianism, evident in the staying power of Vladimir Putin (Russia), Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey), Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and Xi Jinping (China).

Arc has just run a piece describing the thinking of policymakers who hope that Trump can strike a more realistic tone with Russia, and that this new, more cautious negotiation of Russia can serve as a microcosm of a broader non-interventionist policy.

Yet isn’t the very rise of global authoritarianism reason enough for the U.S. to avoid turning within?

Even more troubling is the expectation these leaders have for a Trump presidency: one where the U.S. moves away from its conventional role of advocating for human rights and democratic norms abroad. We shouldn’t just wave this possibility away — after all, our own Western and Asian allies have expressed concern about this, which means it can’t be dismissed as mere wishcasting on the part of these aforementioned strongmen.

Putin, in particular, will benefit the most from this shift in the international order, given his efforts to challenge Western hegemony through his incursions into Georgia, Ukraine, and his support of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Though Trump may eventually realize the benefits of our alliance with Europe, Putin is surely emboldened by Trump’s posture that suggests NATO is a burden to be abandoned, rather than a bulwark to be supported.

In Trump’s book, The America We Deserve, released in 2000, he wrote,

America has no vital interest in choosing between warring factions whose animosities go back centuries…. Their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.

Trump maintained this sentiment, expressing in a March 2016 interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, “NATO is obsolete. NATO is — is obsolete and it’s extremely expensive for the United States.”

Trump is also surrounding himself with like-minded individuals, like General Mike Flynn, the President-elect’s new National Security Adviser, who took credit for helping shape Trump’s views on NATO.

The U.S.’s alliance with Europe is vital to the preservation of its status as “first among equals” in a multipolar world. Through the second half of the 20th century and into the new millennium, Europe has been a reliable ally in solving global problems, protecting human rights, advocating for democratic norms, and improving the quality of life for countless people. Trump must not cede U.S. global authority; he must acknowledge that our alliance with Europe has been a vital element in the prosperity and success of the U.S.

In a prescient piece for The New York Times, Bill Keller characterized isolationism in this way:

Isolationism is not just an aversion to war, which is an altogether healthy instinct. It is a broader reluctance to engage, to assert responsibility, to commit. Isolationism tends to be pessimistic (we will get it wrong, we will make it worse) and amoral (it is none of our business unless it threatens us directly) and inward-looking (foreign aid is a waste of money better spent at home).

Shrinking back to our national borders is not in our best interest, and will not achieve the results Trump and his isolationist companions are looking for. The solutions to the challenges with which the world is faced today depend on strong and steady American leadership. We must not waiver on our commitment to a peaceful and prosperous world, and must continue to work with our allies across the Atlantic.