Scott Alexander argues that, contrary to his reputation as an isolationist, Trump's statements suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions than Clinton, who represents a more predictable foreign policy approach.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander examines claims that Trump is an isolationist and safer choice than Clinton regarding foreign policy. He argues that Trump's statements and past positions suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions. Alexander analyzes Trump's statements on ISIS, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, finding many hawkish positions. He discusses Trump's criticism of NATO and international trade agreements, suggesting this could destabilize the post-WWII peace. Alexander then examines Clinton's positions, arguing they are more moderate and predictable. He concludes that while Clinton's foreign policy isn't perfect, she represents a lower-variance, more stable choice compared to the unpredictability of Trump's potential actions.
Shorter summary