The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC) hosted the second event of its Impact 2016 initiative in New Hampshire on December 4, 2015 to discuss how America’s development and diplomacy efforts are critical issues for this election.

In the midst of impassioned presidential debates on national security following the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, a recent report by the American Enterprise Institute makes a powerful case for why America should not scale back its global leadership, but instead must leverage its influence to support the liberal world order it has helped establish. Spearheaded by former U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-MO), the report argues that if the U.S. were to retreat from its global leadership, it would leave a vacuum of power that almost certainly would be filled by actors that are hostile to America’s values and national interests.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is the first U.S. trade deal with a chapter exclusively focused on development. This suggests that the old “trade vs. aid” debate is finally over, and that there is wide support for “trade and aid.” Today, most experts agree that foreign assistance creates the enabling environment for trade to flourish by strengthening the rule of law, fighting corruption, and creating a climate that is attractive to foreign investment.

Senator Joni Ernst, Governor Terry Branstad and Lt. General Daniel Christman joined the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC) in Iowa on November 23, 2015 for the first event of its Impact 2016 initiative and to discuss how America’s development and diplomacy efforts are critical issues for this election.

What a difference a year can make. In 2014, some wondered whether Americans were “war weary” and wanted to pull back from the world. Fast forward past Russia’s invasion of Crimea, ISIS declaring a caliphate and brutally executing Americans, and Ebola landing in Dallas, and no one is asking: should the United States be engaged and lead in the world?

President Reagan valued U.S. foreign assistance as a critical tool in his commitment to “peace through strength” and the fight for freedom around the world. George Shultz, Secretary of State during the Reagan administration, spoke with the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition two days before the 2016 GOP presidential candidates take the debate stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

As we continue to see headlines from ISIS to Putin, our nation’s role in the world is a hot topic for the candidates with polls showing that national security and foreign policy are among the top issues for voters. I’m very pleased to see so many of the candidates from both sides of the aisle sharing their views on global development and diplomacy — and why it matters for America’s national interests.

Earlier this month we saw the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. This year also has special significance with the creation of the United Nations seven decades ago, and the beginning of America’s role as a global leader. That same year, Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), soon-to-be-named-Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and famous for his staunch isolationist views, took to the Senate floor and argued for American leadership in the post-war world. In the run-up to the 2016 election, it is important to reflect on Senator Vandenberg’s shift in thinking that led to his “Speech Heard Round the World.”

Democratic transitions are difficult and rarely linear. There will inevitably be setbacks, even in countries like Nigeria and Tunisia that are seeing progress today. Because of this, the recent decline in U.S. funding for democracy programs is particularly concerning. By supporting the citizens of these countries who are working to strengthen respect for human rights and make their governments more accountable, the United States is not only supporting like-minded allies, but promoting a more peaceful and prosperous world.

As the 2016 presidential debates approach, foreign policy is already playing a central role. Too often U.S. foreign assistance has been targeted because many people believe that we spend more on foreign assistance than we actually do and that it lacks transparency and accountability. An improved online “dashboard” that provides data on foreign assistance programs will help counter those arguments.