In defending the principle of free trade, American liberal polemicist Henry George laid out a functional definition of the optimistic (some might say utopian) worldview that liberals subscribe to:
“The interests of men are harmonious, not antagonistic; that prosperity is the daughter of good will and peace; and that want, and destruction follow enmity and strife”, and argued of the US that “The giant of the nations does not depend for her safety upon steel-clad fortresses and armor-plated ships”
This is, of course, deeply in conflict with the Realist international relations theory that has arguably dominated most conversations about foreign policy since World War II. And I’ll be the first to argue that periodically a fleet ready to defend an ally is exactly what global liberalism needs most.
However, the United States has tended to build up the force of arms as a primary response to any kind of threat - even one that is mostly ideological. Today, as much as the Chinese navy may need to be countered by force to ensure the continuation of a liberal Taiwan, the general philosophy of illiberalism needs to be combated with a show of peace and good will. Sadly, the US foreign aid budget of ~$40 billion is less than 1/20th our massive defense budget. As the world faces a changing climate that will displace tens of millions of people and put many in direct danger, the need to rapidly response to humanitarian crises will become ever more pressing. Simultaneously, though, the potential gains from so doing will also grow. Nothing can demonstrate the value of a liberal system as the generosity of arriving to help a country that can offer little in immediate returns. Research bears this out - Pew Research suggests that in countries as varied as Japan, Indonesia, and Pakistan, emergency relief aid after disasters improved perceptions of the US, though the exact magnitude is difficult to pin down.
The obvious difficulty is that foreign aid is politically vulnerable - it’s relatively easy for politicians to rail against ‘sending our money abroad’. Much of this, however, may stem from Americans’ mistaken perceptions of just how much money is sent abroad, with one 2010 survey suggesting Americans estimated the value at 25% of the Federal budget. In the immediate future, liberal lawmakers will likely be focused on securing military assistance first for Ukraine and then for Taiwan. These are important, and time sensitive. However, a broader shift, first in public opinion and then in practice, is needed to support building the kind of aid programs needed for success in global public diplomacy.
What that looks like in the future will of course vary. One investment that is likely necessary, however, is in hospital ships and other kinds of seaborne aid, particularly if predictions regarding stronger tropical storms come to fruition. For disasters in the Carribean, such ships can arrive in a little over a week - but in the further flung Indian and Pacific Oceans, the reaction time stretches to well over a month. Hospital ships (and other vessels carrying fuel and communications equipment) can be a powerful tool in providing assistance in times of crisis, but only if they can arrive quickly. A larger number of these assets and the capacity to station them around the world could be one way to invest now in order to be ready for crises in the future.
Or some other investment may prove more promising - delivery and evacuation drones, for example, have seen some success in Ukraine. But it is important to make these investments now, so that the assets are in place when needed. The benefits - both ethical and strategic - are enormous relative to the investment, but the process of trying to convince the American public needs to start now.