De-Trumping U.S. Foreign Policy

Can Biden Bring America Back?

Stanley R. Sloan

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9783110759464
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

America's reputation and power fell to new lows during Trump's presidency. Militarily, the United States held its own, but its soft power suffered mightily. President Biden pledges to work with the international community, rely on cooperation with like-minded allies, challenge adversaries, and restore American democracy, society and economy to levels that will once again command international respect. De-Trumping U.S. Foreign Policy will address the objectives, obstacles, and potential outcomes of this attempt over the next few years.

Sloan evaluates both elite and public opinion from democratic allies around the world, plus elite opinions from states less friendly to the United States. He documents and analyses Biden's approach to foreign policy and his goals for the U.S. role in the world. The volume will also examine how Biden's domestic policy objectives, in the areas of the pandemic, systemic racism, political equity, the economy and climate change, relate to his foreign policy goals. The early steps made by Biden will be laid out and evaluated and hidden chances of success or failure will be measured, with a striking analysis of what failure might mean for the USA and the world.

Chapter 1 Trump and America’s role in the World

This chapter analyzes how America’s place in the world’s eyes had changed by the time Donald Trump left office. Before approaching that challenge, however, the chapter first examines the component parts of Trump’s international involvement that contributed to the nation’s global status at the end of his presidency. Some elements of the 45^th president’s means and methods were present under previous presidents, but many aspects of Trump’s approach to the world beyond American borders were uniquely shaped by his personality and priorities. The discontinuities introduced by Trump’s unique foreign policy ideas and actions profoundly affected foreign governmental, elite, and public perspectives on the United States often in ways that disrupted America’s ability to defend and advance its national interests.

The starting point

The Trump presidency began with anything but an empty international slate. Under his predecessor, Barack Obama, the United States built up a large reserve of soft power based as much on who Obama was as on what he did or promised to do. In most of the countries allied to the United States, the fact that the country had elected a relatively liberal racial minority politician who seemed to represent a wide range of common values and interests was perceived as a strength and positive for relations with his government. But Obama had also carried forward some baggage left over from his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, the largest piece of which was the continuing conflict in Afghanistan. Bush had started the process of winding the war down, and Obama sought to continue that process, but he also got bogged down in the dilemmas posed by the choice between ending the war unconditionally or trying to do so on terms that could be described as a success, if not a victory.

Trump made it clear after his election that he would not be bound by anything that carried Obama’s imprimatur. This determination held true in foreign as well as domestic policy. Most of all, Trump seemed to resent the level of popularity that Obama had enjoyed overseas, particularly with U.S. allies. He boasted an approach that he believed would not require such popularity, convinced of his own arguably mythical status as master of “the art of the deal.” Trump believed that Obama had given away important American interests and that he could restore American strength and respectability with his talents finely honed by his business investment career, burnished by his role as a reality show host. The rejection of everything that Obama represented was one of the most important influences in the early stages of the Trump presidency. In cases where Trump was more-or-less following in the footsteps of an Obama policy, Trump’s explanation was that he could do it bigger and better.

Trump’s narcissism

Without going into scientific evaluations of Trump that concluded he was a malignant narcissist, it seems that Trump brought not just a rejection of everything Obama to the office but also an embrace of anything that could be labeled as Trump. To win the U.S. presidency, a candidate must have reasonably strong self-confidence. Trump was not the first American president to bring an inflated ego into the office, but his appeared to exceed any of his predecessors by some substantial distance.

The perception of Trump’s narcissism challenged foreign leaders to assess how they could best advance their interests, and those of their countries, in dealing with the new American leader. Among U.S. allies, French President Emmanuel Macron developed the most distinctive approach. Macron decided that playing to Trump’s ego would be the best means to promote France’s interests. He invited Trump to enjoy France’s Bastille Day (independence day) parade on July 14, 2017, featuring military units and much pomp and circumstance. But by the end of Trump’s term in office, Macron appeared to give up on his attempt to form a special bond with Trump and was even caught on video during the NATO summit in London in December 2019 making fun of the American president with other allied leaders.

In addition, Germany’s Chancellor Angel Merkel frequently clashed with Trump, at times simply appearing disgusted with his behavior and heavy-handed approach to relations with her country. Trump’s critical attitude toward both Merkel and Germany was likely deepened by the fact that commentators early in his term began referencing Merkel as the new leader of the West. Perhaps the most graphic demonstration of Trump’s narcissistic behavior came at the inaugural NATO summit at the alliance’s new Brussels headquarters in May 2017 where he was caught pushing his way past other leaders, shoving Montenegro’s prime minister out of the way in the process. The bottom line regarding this aspect of Trump’s approach to international leadership is that he sought reinforcement of his high opinion of himself and was resentful of those who did not give it. For those whose predisposition was critical of the United States for abuse of its international power position, Trump’s approach added more evidence to their perception of the United States not only as a hegemonic power but as an international bully.

As for Japan, the leading U.S. ally in Asia, a shock came quickly due to Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was a key political and economic link for Japan to the United States and other Pacific trading partners. Japan’s commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation is just as strong as that of America’s European allies. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe responded to the jolt by factoring Trump’s ego into his approach. According to one expert, “Breaking protocol, Prime Minister Abe organized a visit at Trump Tower ahead of the presidential inauguration. With the gift of a gold-plated golf club, Abe’s strategy to charm Trump was born.”¹ And so, Prime Minister Abe went down the same path as France’s Macron. He did so presumably from fear of the damage that Trump could do to Japan’s interests if he did not move quickly to ingratiate himself with the new American president. However, the approach seemed to have little impact on Trump’s complaints about trade specifically or his burdensharing concerns that included Japan and South Korea as well as NATO Europe.

Political philosophy and populism

Candidate Trump ran very much as a “conservative” populist for the Republican Party. As was frequently noted during the campaign and after, Trump was not a life-long Republican but had at various times aligned with the Democrats or had presented himself as an independent. He was known to have donated to both Republican and Democratic candidates for office at many different levels.

The conclusion of most observers has been that Donald Trump has no real political philosophy. His alignment with populism seems to have been intended to win enough voter support to convince more traditional Republicans to see his victory in the primary contests as inevitable. If any philosophy could be found behind his actions, it could be said to be transactional informed by conservative rhetoric. The actions of Trump and his supporters in Congress did not necessarily follow consistent traditional Republican lines: the GOP prides itself on favoring a small role for government and controlling government spending. While Trump’s rhetoric generally followed this line, the tax “reform” bill promoted by his administration and enacted with the support of a Republican-led Congress dramatically increased government deficit, largely to the benefit of corporations and wealthy individual businessmen and women.

Internationally, Trump did boast a policy guided by “America First.” This slogan perhaps was the closest his administration came to what could be called a foreign policy philosophy. To the rest of the world, however, it presented challenges. “America First” had deep roots in Trump’s populist domestic political strategy. His hard-core supporters seemed to love the pugnacious character of the approach, often on display at Trump campaign rallies in 2016 and throughout his presidency. Trump rejected the traditional U.S. role as the leader of the West because he did not want to make the compromises often required to develop multilateral approaches to international trade, economic, security and environmental issues. His rejection of the U.S. leadership role led some observers to judge that the “America First” concept had produced “America alone” outcomes. It also meant that Trump relied almost completely on “hard power,” the ability to get others to act in support of certain interests through coercion and payment rather than through “soft power” – the ability to gain support for interests and objectives through “co-option,” based on potential supporters’ admiration and respect as well as perceptions of shared interests.

One of the most dramatic rejections of international cooperation was Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement designed to delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons that the Obama administration had negotiated with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Iran. Trump intended to demonstrate a hard line toward Iran in leaving the deal, but there was no sign his approach had moved Iran away from acquisition of nuclear weapons capabilities. In fact, Iran moved more actively toward developing that capability. Trump’s move clearly represented the rejection both of a major Obama administration accomplishment and of cooperation with our key allies, further evidencing America’s unpredictability under Trump.

To allies of the United States, “America First” translated into burdensharing demands, threats and trade restrictions. Trump argued that friends and allies of the United States had been taking advantage of its generosity for years and promised that he was going to end that exploitation. The message received by traditional allies of the United States was that Trump-led America could no longer be counted on as a reliable ally. This understanding among allies inspired French President Macron – who, as noted above, sought to win Trump over by appealing to his ego – to try to rally other members of the European Union to strengthen Europe’s “strategic autonomy” under French leadership. On the other hand, some traditional American adversaries were likely pleased at the disruption “America First” caused within the West while also being somewhat reassured about their interests by Trump’s friendly outreach to them. Trump’s administration aligned firmly with the undemocratic leadership of Saudi Arabia, Iran’s leading enemy in the region along with Israel, whose then-prime minister Netanyahu strongly supported Trump and his message.

Trump’s radical right populism aligned him internationally with growing strength for like-minded politicians around the world.² The phenomenon was particularly strong in Europe, where radical right politicians came to power in several countries, including Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. If Trump had an international leadership role, it was largely one of setting an example that facilitated the rise of other radical right populists. It remains to be seen if the rejection by a clear majority of Americans of Trump will take some of the steam out of the radical right movements in other countries.

Authoritarian tendencies

Combining Trump’s populist approach with his narcissistic personality leads to another factor in his approach to governance: the tendency toward authoritarianism. One of the major themes of Trump’s attitude toward the world during his presidency was a focus on his alleged ability to make “deals.” In his business and media activities he claimed to have succeeded because of his mastery of the “art of the deal.” During his campaign for the presidency, Trump often declared “I alone can fix it.” As one observer pointed out, “I am your voice, said Trump. I alone can fix it. I will restore law and order. He did not appeal to prayer, or to God. He did not ask Americans to measure him against their values, or to hold him responsible for living up to them. He did not ask for their help. He asked them to place their faith in him.”³ The sure-fire path to authoritarian rule is convincing the public to put their faith in one leader, rather than their own values, precedent, the rule of law, or the political system.

Trump seemed to believe that he could apply his experience not just to domestic policy, but also to his relationships with some of the world’s leading authoritarian heads of state, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. In his meetings with such counterparts, he seemed to value their degree of control in their countries and therefore their bond with him. He most notably went so far as to tell the world in a now-infamous press conference after his meeting with Putin in Helsinki that, regarding possible Russian interference in the 2016 American elections, he trusted Putin’s word more than the conclusions by the U.S. intelligence community.

Because the U.S. political system divides power among three branches of government – the executive, legislative, and judiciary – some American and foreign observers hoped that the network of constitutional and political “guardrails” represented by the separation of power would protect the country against a president intent on building his own power. To some extent the system did put up obstacles to most of Trump’s authoritarian instincts, but with the Congress controlled by the Republican Party, which was largely becoming a Trump fan club, and the Supreme Court rapidly being populated by conservative judges nominated by Trump and fast-tracked to confirmation by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, many observers began to worry that those supposed guardrails were no longer as reliable as they had once thought. Trump’s mistrust of the government structure he came to head resulted in attacks on career government officials. This led to retirement and resignations of many key officials, particularly among seasoned career diplomats at the Department of State, seriously weakening the institution and U.S. diplomatic capacity in general.

It turns out that the constitutional system of protections against a president gathering excess power is very dependent on political decisions of other elected and appointed officials, most of whom owed their jobs and future potential to the president. Moreover, President Trump had one major national media outlet – Fox News – that he could count on to promote and defend his decisions, to the point where Trump opponents began referring to Fox as “state TV.” Even the role of the rest of a free press as protection for safeguarding democracy seemed to be diminished by the mainstream media’s fascination with and coverage of this unique American president, despite his constant attacks on media sources that did not fall in line.

The system’s guardrails, despite being put to their most severe test in American history, stood up through the Trump presidency. Whether they would have survived a second Trump term is an open question. The Trump campaign claim that the election had been stolen – known as “the big lie” – sought to delegitimize Joe Biden’s victory. Trump’s promotion of the insurrection aimed at preventing congressional certification of the election outcome further demonstrated the former president’s authoritarian tendencies and motivations. In 2021, it is possible to suggest that the tendency of the United States toward a more authoritarian form of government has been slowed, if not stopped. But the rest of the world, particularly U.S. allies, has remained uneasy about the future, wondering if the country has truly returned to a path on which democracy can be promoted and strengthened.

Inexperienced, unpredictable, incompetent, and corrupt

Virtually any American presidential administration is likely from time to suffer from one or more of these criticisms. But the Trump administration, in the eyes of the world as well as to many at home, seemed prone to a wide range of such defects.

On the question of experience, Trump probably came up shorter than any other president in American history. He had never served in public office, did not serve in the military at any level, and had never run a political organization. Many of his supporters touted his “business” experience and know-how as bringing a valuable type of expertise to the presidency. But others pointed out that Trump had basically been given a golden handshake by his successful and rich businessman father and that Trump always ran a family-type corporation, never having to deal, for example, with boards of directors or shareholders. He was accustomed to being in...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Trump and America’s role in the World
• Chapter 2 Biden confronts the challenge of de-Trumping U.S. foreign policy
• Chapter 3 Biden’s beginning a mixed bag
• Chapter 4 What obstacles stand in Biden’s way?
• Chapter 5 Why does it matter whether Biden brings America back?
• About the Author