"His [Fortin] criticism of modern political thought was precisely that politics increasingly became organized around competing rights, interests, structures, and power claims, rather than the classical question of virtue and the common good. So Fortin might ask Wauck: Even if China is being unfairly contained, does that by itself establish that China represents the just alternative? The answer is no.... Wauck may correctly identify some genuine abuses of American power, but he risks replacing one ideological simplification with another—interpreting world history as a struggle between an “Empire” and its geopolitical opponents, without sufficiently asking whether those opponents themselves embody justice, virtue, or the common good. And that criticism would apply even if many of Wauck's individual factual claims about China, Russia, Israel, or American foreign policy turned out to be correct"

If we reconstruct the question from Fortin’s actual philosophical method, I think he would criticize Wauck less for which geopolitical side he favors and more for the philosophical framework through which he interprets politics.

Fortin repeatedly criticized both the modern Left and Right when they tried to appropriate Christianity for a political program. He emphasized the distinction between classical political philosophy, Christianity, and modern political ideologies.

1. Fortin would probably object to Wauck's overarching geopolitical narrative

Wauck's formulation—

“the Anglo-Zionist war on the world is really all about—subjugating China”

—turns a very complicated collection of international events into a single historical drama with one underlying antagonist and one underlying objective.

Fortin would likely ask: What philosophical or historical evidence establishes that these diverse events constitute one coherent “war” directed toward one ultimate objective?

That is characteristic of the kind of question Fortin's approach encourages: don't simply accept a sweeping interpretation of history; examine the political concepts and premises underneath it.

Fortin was particularly interested in recovering political philosophy precisely because modern political arguments often lose sight of the distinctions between philosophical explanation, historical interpretation, and ideological rhetoric.

2. He would object to reducing politics to “Empire vs. resistance”

This is probably the deeper criticism.

Wauck's framework tends toward:

Anglo-American/Zionist power → domination → China/Russia/Iran → resistance.

Fortin would probably say that this substitutes geopolitical power analysis for political philosophy.

For Fortin, the fundamental political questions concern things such as:

• What is justice?
• What is the common good?
• What is the proper end of political community?
• What makes political rule legitimate?
• What constitutes human flourishing?

His criticism of modern political thought was precisely that politics increasingly became organized around competing rights, interests, structures, and power claims, rather than the classical question of virtue and the common good.

So Fortin might ask Wauck:

Even if China is being unfairly contained, does that by itself establish that China represents the just alternative?

The answer is no.

3. Fortin would resist treating America's enemy as automatically China's friend

This is particularly relevant to your earlier questions about Wauck's favorable treatment of China, Iran, and Muslims.

Fortin would likely distinguish:

“The United States is doing X unjustly”

from

“Therefore China's alternative is preferable.”

Those are two entirely different propositions.

Fortin's thinking does not allow the goodness or badness of one political regime to be established simply by comparison with another. His interest in Augustine, Aquinas, and classical political philosophy makes the moral character and ends of the political community independently important.

Thus:

America can be wrong about China without China thereby being right about America.

And:

Israel can commit an injustice without every criticism made by Israel's opponents therefore being correct.

That kind of distinction would be very Fortinian.

4. He would probably be suspicious of the word “Empire”

This is important because Wauck frequently uses “Empire” as an explanatory category.

Fortin would likely ask Wauck to define it.

Does “Empire” mean:

• American military power?
• American economic predominance?
• NATO?
• the international financial system?
• liberal democracy?
• the Israeli-American alliance?
• neoconservative foreign policy?
• Zionism?
• some combination of these?

If the term shifts between these meanings, it becomes rhetorically powerful but philosophically imprecise.

Fortin was a particularly sharp critic of modern ideological abstractions when they substituted for careful political analysis. His work repeatedly attempts to recover distinctions that modern political discourse tends to collapse.

5. But Fortin would NOT necessarily defend the American foreign-policy establishment

This is crucial.

A Fortinian criticism of Wauck would not amount to “America is right and Wauck is wrong.”

Fortin himself was deeply critical of modern political thought and of aspects of modern Catholic social and political thinking. He criticized both conservative and liberal attempts to make Thomism serve contemporary political agendas.

So he could agree with Wauck that:

• American foreign policy can be unjust.
• Powerful states frequently disguise interests as universal principles.
• Political rhetoric can conceal the pursuit of power.
• Modern liberalism has serious philosophical problems.

while simultaneously rejecting Wauck's explanation of why these things happen.

6. The deepest Fortinian objection: Wauck may be doing “modern history” rather than political philosophy

This is where I think your earlier questions about Fortin become particularly relevant.

Fortin's fundamental question would probably be:

What conception of human nature, justice, and the common good makes Wauck's geopolitical interpretation intelligible?

Wauck gives us a story about power.

Fortin would want to know about the good.

That's a major difference.

Fortin's recovery of classical political philosophy was precisely an attempt to move beyond the modern tendency to understand politics principally through competing interests, rights, historical forces, and structures.

So I think the strongest Fortinian criticism of Wauck would be:

Wauck may correctly identify some genuine abuses of American power, but he risks replacing one ideological simplification with another—interpreting world history as a struggle between an “Empire” and its geopolitical opponents, without sufficiently asking whether those opponents themselves embody justice, virtue, or the common good.

And that criticism would apply even if many of Wauck's individual factual claims about China, Russia, Israel, or American foreign policy turned out to be correct.