The Twerk Doctrine

America’s feminine foreign policy is guided by a very important principle

Think tankers, commentators, and politicians love to share clips of Iranian women dancing. Along with the clips, they effusively praise how brave these women are for moving their hips in public. It is illegal in the Islamic Republic, so it does take some courage to do. At the same time, it is strange for old American officials to thank these twerking Persians for their service. A good example of this trend emerged last year. 

Five young Persian girls danced to a pop song in Tehran. During the routine, the ladies shook their asses in front of the camera. It’s an odd video, but America’s propaganda services touted it as a powerful rebuttal to the mullahs. Radio Free Europe, an arm of the U.S government, shared the video on its official YouTube channel with the title: “Viral Iran Dance Video Inspires Imitators To Defy Regime.”

This propaganda says a lot about our country. These young ladies are championed not just because they defy the mullahs—it’s also because they express the essence of modern American culture. The chief defining value here is women’s liberation, and the ultimate expression of that is women shaking their ass in public. It’s up to America to enshrine this as a right around the globe. You can call it the “Twerk Doctrine.”

America has always contrasted its values with that of its enemies. In the 19th century, our leaders touted republicanism and Protestantism against the monarchism and popery of Europe. In the Cold War, American leaders denounced the godlessness of the Soviet Union and added “under God” to the pledge of allegiance to signal we were a Christian (later “Judeo-Christian”) nation. Against terrorism of the 2000s, America was for FREEDOM against the anti-FREEDOM of the jihadis.

Today, America struggles to define itself against its enemies. The best it can muster is “democracy vs. autocracy.” The Axis of Autocracy include China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Hungary (because it restricts immigration), and Donald Trump. This doesn’t make any sense but it’s what our leaders have settled on. While this dynamic animates MSNBC—whose commentators like tying this global axis to Trump and the Republicans—it doesn’t generate as much enthusiasm among the general population. Sure, liberals hate Russians, but that’s mostly due to them being white. It’s easier to paint them as the new Nazis. It’s harder to do so with the Chinese and Iranians. 

Americans don’t really care that much about the alleged injustices and oppression of these states. The plight of the Uighurs doesn’t capture America’s attention. 

Foreign policy elites need something else to generate outrage against the assorted enemies of the Empire. That something appears to be women’s liberation. Ensuring women have the right to dance in public and wear skimpy outfits is more important to Americans than the Uighurs. 

Much of our foreign policy is conducted on this basis. Arguably, the primary reason we stayed in Afghanistan for so long was to safeguard women’s rights. Trump was convinced to stay in the country after he was shown a picture of Afghan women dressed in western outfits from the 1970s. It was imperative for America to risk blood and treasure to give the women the right to wear short skirts and thigh high boots. When America departed from Afghanistan, the foreign policy blob lamented that we abandoned the ladies. Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, and many others made this their chief complaint. Obviously, Taliban-run Afghanistan isn’t an ideal place for women. But it’s no longer America’s problem. We can’t fix all the issues in the world. 

Iran’s policies on women define America’s propaganda aimed at the regime. Citizens are informed that they should hate the mullahs because they don’t allow women to dance in public and wear whatever they want. It’s very different from America, as is much of the world. Why is this our problem? Because the foreign policy blob directs these videos to those who will care: American women.

We live in a feminized society. The majority of college graduates are women. Women drive most consumer and cultural trends. They are overrepresented in protests and social movements. They determine elections. Women’s tears are the most powerful argument in America. If you want to sell your cause to the public, it’s a smart idea to tailor it to women’s emotions. The foreign policy blob understands this (many of its prominent figureheads are women, e.g., Samantha Powers, Condi Rice, etc.)—that’s why it’s eager to highlight the fact that women can’t dance in public or have to wear head coverings. This horrifies American women. They couldn’t imagine living like that, and they demand change.

In the past, our leaders would tell us our enemy doesn’t allow free elections or Christians to worship. Now it’s just that the enemy restricts women’s dancing. 

The Twerk Doctrine illustrates the shallowness of contemporary “American values.” Politicians may speak of grand ideals, but it really just comes down to the hyper-individualism encapsulated by these dance videos. This is the promise of American civilization. It’s not about religious freedom, “democracy,” or apple pie. It’s about having the right to gyrate in public. We shouldn’t expect soldiers to fight and die for the right to twerk. 

Feminized liberalism also hurts us on the world stage. Much of the world is beginning to reject American ties because we try to impose our current year values on them. The U.S. military recently had to leave two African countries because they don’t like our meddling. These countries are starting to prefer Russia and China because they don’t demand their state clients embrace liberal democracy, gay rights, and public twerking. The addage that China brings infrastructure to developing countries while America brings lectures and grievances rings true, and it hurts us abroad.

The empire will always need propaganda to justify itself and demonize its foes. But we should insist on something better than the Twerk Doctrine. If this is our guiding foreign policy in the 21st century, expect us to lose.