I marvel at the determination of MAGA-leaning intellectuals and apologists to define Trumpism as some sort of philosophy. Trumpism is whatever happens to suit President Donald Trump. When he turns 180 degrees, he expects his followers to — well, to follow. Those who insist on trying to find consistency in his ideas, or who claim that his Weltanschauung happens to align with their own, invariably get their fingers burnt.
Consider the 33-page national security strategy that is causing European leaders to swoon like so many Victorian ladies. It is harsh to see the brutal contradictions of Trumpism set out in a White House publication. But there is nothing new in those contradictions. Trumpian foreign policy is, depending on the context, isolationist and interventionist, solicitous of sovereignty and interested only in hard power.
It wants the rest of the world to respect the independence of nations in the Americas, but reserves the right to intervene itself. It favors “targeted deployments” and “establishing or expanding access in strategically important locations.” At the same time, it “will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.”
To be fair, there is nothing new in that double standard. It was known until last month as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, though this administration rebrands it as “the ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine.”
What is new is the extension of that double standard to the entire world. Interfere with us at your peril, but expect us to interfere with you. The document warns angrily against outside states that meddle in the United States through “destructive propaganda, influence operations, cultural subversion.”
Yet, at the same time, it wants regime change in Europe. “America encourages its political allies in Europe. … The growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.”
The U.S., in other words, warmly endorses Tommy Robinson, Marine Le Pen, Alice Weidel, and their equivalents, while also telling Europe not to meddle in the Western Hemisphere. An earlier draft of the document reportedly pushed for four states — Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Italy — to leave the European Union.
My point is not that these are all terrible ideas. I happen to favor U.S. intervention in Venezuela, whose malign dictatorship is unbalancing the entire region. And I’d be delighted if other countries saw the light and left the EU.
My point is simply that this approach openly buries the global order that the U.S. has backed since 1941, a global order based on the idea that borders should not be altered by force, that democracy is preferable to authoritarianism, and that big countries should not throw their weight around without checks.
Americans who rail against that order never acknowledge the degree to which it was shaped around their national interests. The open sea lanes that so offend the Trump administration have made the U.S. the wealthiest country on Earth. The readiness of NATO to guarantee peace has enhanced American security. In the 76 years that the alliance has existed, its mutual defense clause, Article 5, has been invoked only once — by the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. All 19 NATO allies contributed to the subsequent campaign against terrorism, with nine of them joining combat operations in Afghanistan.
None of these countries had been attacked, yet all saw the abomination in New York as an assault on their values. The highest number of fatalities was suffered by troops from the United Kingdom (457) and Canada (159), though, as a proportion of its population, Denmark, with 43 fallen, was worse hit.
Now, both Canada and Denmark are targeted with annexation threats, to the point where Denmark is talking about getting nuclear weapons. Now, you might see that as freeloading Europeans finally manning up and looking to their own defense. But ask yourself how it makes Americans any safer.
Until now, the preeminence of the U.S. as a nuclear power was unquestioned, and its readiness to underpin the global order deterred both friends and foes from developing their own capacities. Indeed, more states have abandoned nuclear weapons programs than have acquired the Bomb. Among those to cancel their programs under U.S. pressure were Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, and Sweden. All these countries, to say nothing of the rogue states, will now have every incentive to build the ultimate weapon. Again, how does that make the U.S. more secure?
You don’t like the current order? Fine, I get it; nothing in this sublunary world is perfect. But just wait until you see what comes after it.
