Donald Trump’s glowingly successful efforts at building relations with Arab leaders have evoked criticism from neoconservative skeptics. One such example appears in Rich Lowry’s column on “the Trump doctrine,” prominently featured in Friday’s New York Post. Though the Post has relentlessly exposed hypocritical and dishonest attacks on Trump’s domestic policies, its editors never seem quite able to throw off their constricting neoconservative view of foreign affairs.

Lowry quips that while George W. Bush sought to spread democracy everywhere, “Trump wants to spread gleaming high buildings.” While Bush appealed to high ideals, Trump, in his address to the Saudis, called for nothing more than “peace and prosperity.” In a supposedly uninspiring speech, our president praised Riyadh for “becoming not just a seat of government but a major business, cultural, and high-tech capital of the entire world.”

Before we embark on a crusade to export our values, we might first reckon with our internal troubles.

Lowry reminds his readers that Trump delivered these remarks before unworthy monarchs and emirs rather than democratically elected heads of state. “Standing for democratic ideals is an enormous part of America’s appeal around the world,” Lowry writes, “and if we get into competition with China purely over who is richer and can cut more deals, we are kicking away one of our major advantages.”

Allow me to question that assumption.

Are we really ‘democratic’?

It’s not clear why Western “democracies” in their present denatured state should be holding themselves up as a model for other societies. Before we embark on a crusade to export our values, we might first reckon with our internal troubles: the war launched by our media, educators, judges, and government bureaucrats against gender distinctions, white men, and free speech. Moreover, the deep state and its European and Canadian counterparts pose a significant threat to constitutional government — most notably, the judicial campaigns against conservative parties in Europe, particularly Germany, and the open-door immigration policies importing criminal gangs and unassimilable voters. Perhaps, we should address these matters before trying to make others more like us.

Moreover, what qualifies as a “sufficiently democratic” society in the eyes of Lowry and like-minded zealots? Is democracy compatible with gender restrictions on voting? If so, then the United States was not democratic until the passage of the 19th Amendment — or perhaps not until the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which established federal supervision of voting procedures to prevent racial discrimination. Presumably, Lowry would want us to bestow on Arab nations the exact version of democracy that suits him: American democracy in its latest manifestation — perhaps without diversity, equity, and inclusivity mandates.

To his credit, Trump is focused on addressing many of the internal problems I’ve mentioned. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has called attention to the glaringly undemocratic practices in other members of the “free world.” Trump and Vance are interested in restoring what used to be our political traditions in the West instead of engaging in regime changes elsewhere.

President Trump also understands the benefits of peace and good relations in the Middle East. If he can de-escalate conflict by negotiating with monarchs in Saudi Arabia or parliamentary leaders elsewhere, he will. While neoconservatives may grumble about Trump’s unwillingness to proclaim their preferred ideals, even Democratic politicians have praised his efforts in advancing “peace and prosperity” in the Middle East. Trump also returned from the region with more than $1 trillion in commercial deals — hardly a failure by any measure.

I also fail to see how launching a global democracy crusade will help the United States gain the upper hand in its strategic rivalry with China. Such a mission might win applause from neoconservative think tanks and editorial boards, but it would do little to shift geopolitical realities. European “democracies” may decide to buy their energy from the United States rather than Russia, but the motivation for such a decision would be material interest or fear of Trump’s reprisals rather than membership in some vestigial value community. Even if governments cloaked such decisions in democratic rhetoric, their real motivation would be something other than ideology.

Are democracies more reliable?

This brings us to another one of Lowry’s canonical teachings: “Liberal societies are, as a general matter, more reliably our friends and more reliably achieve prosperity because it is less likely that they will be interrupted by civil war or revolution.” An America run by Kamala Harris and her party might quickly disprove Lowry’s rule about democracy bringing tranquility and prosperity. Constitutional democracies can degenerate into something less palatable, and looking at the parlous state of freedom in some Western countries, I wouldn’t rely any longer on what Lowry considers “reliable.”

While Lowry clearly does not approve of monarchical, theocratic Saudi Arabia, that non-democracy has not had a revolution or civil war for centuries. Is that “reliable” enough?