Canadians in the 60's often used to wear a discrete Canadian flag or emblem when travelling, mainly to distinguish ourselves from Americans. That habit fell by the wayside as international travel became routine. Weeks ago, my Hong Kong born wife who knew nothing of this practice said me, "Next time we travel I think we should put some small Canadian flags on our stuff." I had been thinking exactly the same.
I somehow duplicated an earlier reply: sorry. What I MEANT to say was: that might all change with Poilievre ("Lie is my middle name") is elected. Won't take long.
Please! That adds as little to the conversation as "Trudoo is a jerk". I realize you've made up your mind and are looking for validation; however, it was Justin who immediately ran to the Donald after only a single tweet to demonstrate his fealty and then blurted out how weak Canada was by saying the tariffs would destroy the Canadian economy. Trump's trolling of Trudeau and Canada as the 51st state started right there. Pierre criticized the move saying that Trump can spot weakness a mile away, which is true.
I think we're better served by not indulging in characterizations of politicians.
Thoughtful (and persuasive) article, but a few cavils and thoughts:
1. The "shining city upon the hill" and the freedom it advocates is a myth of the American origin; the Pilgrims sought freedom, yes...for themselves. They were fleeing persecution only to impose strictures on any others who didn't embrace THEIR beliefs.
2. America's soft power was never more pronounced than with the Marshall Plan after WWII. Its generosity (and, yes, its realpolitik) not only helped European recovery but limited and foreclosed European embrace of communism.
3. Surprising Mr. Gardner didn't mention Machiavelli and The Prince once ("it is better to be feared than loved"). Clearly Mr. Gardner disagrees with The Prince.
Trump is all those things and more; a greater threat both internationally & domestically. But here’s the rub: he was RE-ELECTED, with this country knowing who and what he is—and isn’t. It is not just what Trump is, but it is now who we are.
As a country, we swallowed bullshit. My parents warned us of the "intellect of the electorate" so this is not a new story. We need to run at the trouble and do what we can to mitigate it--and refuse to hide under the covers for four years.
Such a strange few weeks of calm we have in January. Some like you can see the threat clearly but most choose to imagine it is not real. And so we move closer to the day it begins, in denial. It’s the same feeling I’ve had many times during the countdowns to war, seeing all the signposts on the road and knowing no one will stop where it all leads. And then waking up one morning to a thoroughly changed calculation. January 20th will tell us the scope of his ambition and determination, and whether economic chaos has been unleashed on Canada. Not exactly the fate of Melos, but an opening salvo in something big which will shape our future. 19 days to go.
We Canadians should start strengthening our military with Korean, Swedish, and German materials. International leadership must increasingly come from from the EU and countries other than the USA.
Greatly appreciate your writing and insights. It appears Canada now has two Russias as neighbours. We have unregulated oligarchies with conservative religions to control the struggling. Canadian conservatives are thrilled to join that category. We will not be Melos in the Athens analogy. We will be an easily absorbed arm of USA: the 51st state under Conservatives.
While your fate will not be as bad as Melos………..or will it? American voters had a choice between good and evil, and chose evil. If the EU chooses solidarity rather than Brexit, Canada could possibly the Melos syndrome.
Soft power is vitally important, as you note. But it’s complicated. In ways I’d wish were better recognized. Today’s many of today’s arguments about hard versus soft types of power have muddled rather than clarified the bases for future U.S. strategy — partly because the term’s definition has been biased since its coinage decades ago. Nye’s original definition tends to treat soft power as good and hard power as bad, or at least mean-spirited, for soft power is said to be fundamentally about persuasive attraction and hard power about coercion. But in fact, soft power is not just about beckoning in attractive upbeat moralistic ways. It can be wielded in tough, dark, heavy ways, too, as in efforts to warn, embarrass, denounce, disinform, deceive, shun, or repel a targeted actor. Moreover, soft power does not inherently favor the good guys; malevolent leaders often prove eager and adept at wielding soft power in their efforts to dominate at home and .abroad. Soft power is largely about whose story winds, and it’s alarming that Trump and his cohort appear to be experts at using dark forms of soft power to conduct narrative warfare.
Yes, quite agree. Birth of a Nation. Volkischer Beobachter. Oodles of soft power. And power in any guise is no different than a tool, and a knife can be used to prepare food or gut your neighbour. Everyone loves the Olympic torch relay and lighting of the Olympic flame but we politely forget that these theatrics were invented for the 1936 Berlin Olympics by Hitler's torch enthusiasts.
I see no clearer explanation of our American situation and the world. I like the comment about the Canadian flag. I do have some anger at the American flag being desecrated on the back of a truck also carrying a Trump flag. I know the American flag stands for way more than that. If I am traveling and choose to make a political statement I would put an American flag and a Ukrainian flag on my luggage.
It must frighten Canadians and rightfully so that trump refers to the prime minister of Canada as “governor”. I was reading this interesting article in the economist that Canada should join the EU. At first it sounded absurd but I remember in 2005 killington Vermont wanted to secede from Vermont and become part of New Hampshire. (Which is crazy being that killington is located in the middle of Vermont not on the border with New Hampshire.). I guess people have thought of crazier things.
I’m not sure which country or countries you think President Trump plans on invading. We will see what, if anything comes from his rhetoric on the Panama Canal and Greenland, I suppose. But if his first term has any predictive value, he doesn’t seem to be aggressive in much beyond his words. Deeds are few but narrowly targeted (killing Soleimani, for example). No equivalent to an invasion of Grenada so far.
As for your example of “soft power” working on French President Charles de Gaulle, his reaction just might have been different had not the U.S. also had overwhelming “hard power” to be a credible actor in international affairs. It was this Realpolitik that led to Stalin’s quip about how many divisions the Pope had to back up his rhetoric. Lack of “hard power” has bedeviled most European nations since WWII in their quest to be taken seriously on the world stage, the EU itself being seen as something of a joke on that score.
Their reckoning has come with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While difficult to fathom, I suspect that the GOP’s skepticism over that land war comes from the perception that it is fundamentally a European issue that the rich European countries should take the lead on - but can’t because of their underfunding of their militaries. We will see how they react.
The American presidency is not a dictatorship, thankfully, and in his first time Trump’s impulses were restrained by his Cabinet, Congress, and the entire foreign policy establishment. I hope that continues. I doubt it will. On Soleimani, you can belittle it by saying it was "narrowly targeted" but it was the deliberate assassination of foreign general; wars have started over much less and if that attack didn't lead to a war it is only because the Iranians thought themselves (rightly) hopeless overmatched. So it hardly bespeaks caution in the use of military force. And I have to say I find it bizarre that so many are willing to belittle his statement as "mere words." That makes sense for toddlers and the mentally ill, but it is, shall we say, unwise for a president of the United States.
On soft and hard power, I never suggested one was a simple substitute for the other. In fact, I think they are complementary. And the members of NATO that chose to free ride were foolish, in addition to unethical. But notice the past tense in that statement. Most NATO members have greatly increased their military spending since the Russian invasion, and most have plans already underway for more increases in the years to come. The Europeans are already talking about upping the floor from 2% to 3%. There are only a few holdouts (including Canada, which is painful for this Canuck to admit.)
For now, it seems the Senate is standing on its privileges and has rejected outright President Trump’s demand for recess appointment consideration for his Cabinet picks. We shall see how long their spine remains stiff.
As to the Presidency not being a dictatorship, that is mostly because of President Washington’s setting many precedents while in office that had, for the most part, been followed by his successors. Article II does provide for the possibility of overreach and this worry was raised in the debates. It was the knowledge that in all likelihood Washington would be the first President that assuaged these concerns.
A case can be made that President Lincoln did come closest to seizing dictatorial powers in some areas. While the context of a Civil War obviously needs to be considered, he was likely the most powerful President of the 19th century. His overreaching was often checked by the Supreme Court, though many of its decisions were rendered after the particular emergency had passed.
As to Soleimani, while perhaps not your intent, your comment implies that the U.S. had no legitimate cause to target him. While no public explanation was given, his involvement with fatal attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Syria - even if hiding behind Iranian controlled, armed and trained proxies - seems a relevant consideration. That he was the only Iranian military officer targeted - other high level officers could have also been taken out for similar reasons, does make it “narrowly targeted” in my view.
And, now, Iran is in a terrible bind, albeit of its own making. The IDF has demonstrated that Iran, while still dangerous, is extremely vulnerable. So it might just be that any future Trump “crazy” (as opposed to conciliatory) talk might be sufficiently confusing as to intimidate the Ayatollahs (for whom martyrdom seems to be for the proverbial “other guys”, preferably Arabs) into changing course. Though I won’t be holding my breath on that one, one might say that while the Persians may be good at chess, Americans will be playing high stakes poker.
But I see no circumstance under which Iran will involve itself in a hot war with the U.S., its leaders may be and say many things, but, notwithstanding their supposed desire to advance the return of the occluded Mahdi, they are not suicidal. And that too makes them vulnerable to pressure from the fear of U.S. and Israel’s hard power.
Finally, while some NATO members might legitimately be increasing their defense spending, there are reports of Germany’s relying on some accounting legerdemain to make it seem it has boosted defense spending when it remains below 2%. Whether that’s an accurate assessment or not is beyond my expertise to say.
The point on Ukraine remains, the European countries need to take the lead and allow the U.S. to focus on other parts of the world that are beyond European logistics.
Trump must not be seen as America. He was elected to be president but not voted to become the representation of our country--that's our collective responsibility. I hope we stand up and take that responsibility in every way we can.
That would be wonderful. (One of my more obscure opinions is that putting head of state and head of government in the same man was the most serious error of the constitution. The head of state should handle the ceremonial role, the head of government the use of executive power. Otherwise, the person holding the real power becomes invested with the symbolic role of "face of the nation" and ... bad things happen.)
What Trump understands, and you apparently do not, is that "soft power" must be backed by hard power, or else it is worthless. Witness Canada - a country that is disrespected not only by Trump and Putin and Khamenei, but by China and even our long-time Commonwealth partner, India.
"The United States has plenty of power to throw around, so Trump can bluster and bully and collect tribute." You know, Trump was in power for 4 years previously. He has a track record. Can you tell me which countries he extracted "tribute" from during that terrible time, and the amounts? (This is not a rhetorical question, Dan. As an amateur historian, you should back up your thesis with concrete historical examples; otherwise it is just blather.)
Or rather, did Trump simply decide that the allies had become mature enough since WWII to take care of themselves now - i.e. to live up to their international commitments - and so cut them off the international dole to some slight degree?
There comes a time in every parent's life when they must force their children to fend for themselves - if they care for what is best for their children. Sometimes in nature, that even has to be done violently, by kicking, biting, and pushing the young away from the teat and out of the nest. To the unobservant and ideologically obtuse, this might appear to be a case of parental "bullying." But to the experienced ethologist, who understands that physical violence has about a dozen different necessary functions in nature, it is the epitome of parental care.
On your first point: I agree. Which is one reason why I have been banging the drum for increased funding for the CAF for years. Thanks for noticing.
On your second point: In all my writing, as here, I discuss Trump's impulses and inclinations and whether he can be restrained. In his first administration, he *was* restrained, repeatedly by strong Cabinet members, Congress, and the whole foreign affairs apparatus, which is internationalist through-and-through. (The most notable example was Jim Mattis constantly drumming into Trump's head that, no, friends and allies are not a liability, and, yes, the US needs them and is made stronger by them.)
Your final point is invention or projection. It's simply not Trump. Never, in his entire life, has he expressed any concern for the development of foreign countries, and the idea that he is urging them to grow and get stronger for their own good is fantasy. As his 1987 full-page ad shows very explicitly, he has consistently and constantly belittled and insulted foreign countries, while calling on the US to make demands and extract tribute from them. And that line of thinking is entirely consistent with his behaviour in his business life, where had essentially nothing to do with real philanthropy, or even basic regard for the less fortunate, but instead behaved like a zero-sum predator, squeezing others for advantage whenever he felt he had an opportunity.
In sum, Trump as I conceive him is readily evident in every serious biography of the man. Trump as you conceive him is a product of your imagination.
I don't pretend to delve into the souls of men, Dan. I don't claim to know the "real" Donald J. Trump. Inscrutable essences are for palm readers and, I guess, historians. I'm merely a political philosopher by trade and training.
I look at people's actions. I interpret what they say based on what they have done. I won't comment on Trump's business record, because I don't know much about it, except to say that you don't generally build a $billion real estate empire over decades by being a jerk to everyone you deal with. Hell, the bankers he supposedly "scammed" by "over-valuing" Mar-a-Lago in one of those lawfare suits against him - even his "victims" stood up for Trump in that court case and told the prosecutors to go to hell!
The fact that Trump was in fact restrained in his first administration suggests that he isn't the bully you portray him as being. Prison predators and gangsters - your comparisons - can't be reasoned out of their destructive impulses. The inability to restrain their impulses is usually what causes their downfall. Trump, by all of the evidence you have alludes to, can be persuaded to be restrained. Or more likely, Trump's threats are just hyperbole to get attention in the first place; he doesn't need much restraint to modify them in the end to get a deal done. I asked you for concrete examples where Trump extracted "tribute" from other countries, and you pointedly produced *none*. So whose imagination is more overwrought?
When Trump advised Germany to not become dependent on Russian oil, that was good parental advice he was universally scorned for giving. When Trump asked Canada to get rid of our insane agricultural marketing boards during trade negotiations, that was good parental advice, also, which we refused to take to our own detriment. When he told Mexico to stop the train of immigrants at their southern border, and get a grip on the drug cartels (with American assistance), that was good parental advice that was not heeded. When Trump finally, after generations of American attempts, got Israel together with some Arab countries to sign the Abraham Accords, that displayed superb parenting skills. Many such examples that you turn a blind eye to in order to maintain your delusions, Dan.
Trump is parochial, and isolationist, yes. He doesn't see foreign countries as his children, and even if he did he isn't the hands-on nurturing parent. He's a more traditional dad, administering the tough love and discipline rather than cheerleading and nurturing. But the former is an approach the world sorely needs. If you prefer the Nobel-Prize-worthy Obama approach of giving Iran pallets full of $billions to prosecute their war of terror against Israel, if that's the kind of international poison you prefer, Dan, just say so.
Trump was, is, and will be a scoff-law, liar, cheat, and thief. He cares only for himself and does a crap job at that. He poses as a billionaire but fails to pay his bills. He's no more a father than a spider--a likely insult to spiders.
He learned his "craft" at the knee of Roy Cohn and his father (who learned his lessons from grandpa who was kicked out of Germany and ran whore houses).
Moving forward, his failure to pay contractors in Atlantic City--replicated by his failure to pay venues for his "rallies." You can look it up.
He's full of it like a Christmas goose. He's no parent--unless you're thinking of Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son.
I've had the unfortunate pleasure of viewing Trump's behavior for 50 years. And reading about it for 'only' 10+ years. You might want to rethink your 'observations' about Trump's very real behaviors.
From everything I have seen in his political life (2015 to present), Trump is far more sinned against than sinning. I'm not a fan - I find him vulgar, and in some ways badly educated - but he is at least directionally right in politics.
If you prefer the lunatics who don't know the difference between men and women, who prefer giving $billions to Khamenei than signing the Abraham Accords, who spring BLM rioters out on bail, who allow tens of millions of undocumented people from all over the world to flood into the country, if you prefer the unknowns who pull the strings of an obviously demented old man in the Oval Office... well, you are a total lost cause.
It's funny to consider now that, in my former role as a US diplomat, whenever I made the argument you make in this piece about American soft power, I knew that many foreign counterparts thought it was BS, totally hypocritical. Some told me so. Even so, perhaps naively, I always thought I was being at least somewhat sincere. I had real faith in the idea of the United States pursuing its own interests (as any power should and will) as part of a larger project that included the interests of others--at least that large subset of people and nations dedicated to more or less the same propositions, norms and rules, and not too diabolically hypocritical in their own right. (If there's one thing I learned, it's that the US may not be perfect--far from it--but that doesn't make even legitimate critics of the US any better. Usually not even close.) But under President Trump, re-elected this time with a decisive (if not overwhelming) mandate, the calculus clearly changes. I sometimes imagine those counterparts who used to pooh-pooh my naive idealism with respect to my own country wanting to laugh in my face, wag their finger, and say, "See, I told you so. You Americans are the biggest bullshit artists of all."
Absolutely right. If indeed the Pax Americana breaks down, much of the explanation for why will not lie with Americans, but with other countries that failed to appreciate -- as those who experienced WWII always did -- just how great an achievement the Pax Americana was, how beneficial to all free countries, and how much worse any alternative will be.
It took half a century and much tragedy for the United States and the world to learn the lessons, draw the right conclusions, and launch the Pax Americana. And now we're in danger of forgetting everything and ruining it all. It is horrible to watch.
Not sure I'm quite as prepared as you are to give Americans a free pass. I tried to ring the alarm bell in my humble way, to remind we lucky Americans that, whatever our real problems and clear need for reforms, we have it pretty well. I've seen from up close other people (with much better reasons than we have) elect to burn down the barn. Guess what? The barn ends up getting burned down. And then what? In some ways, the US has become the kind of Illiberal Democracy that Fareed Zakaria wrote about in the book that launched his career. As for you, Dan, I confess I'm reading your stuff with interest, in part because you're Canadian. While I've encountered my fair share of anti-American sentiment (both legitimate and ridiculous) in East Asia and Latin America where I served most of my 30 years as a diplomat, and also in Europe (where both of my parents were from), the virulent strain I recently confronted from a Canadian friend threw me for a loop. A former Canadian diplomat, he is now deep in the alt-right conspiracy rabbit hole sewage sphere, and blames "over 90% of the world's problems on your fucking country" (meaning mine). I understand Canadian conservative political movements are growing pretty strident in part for home grown reasons, but I frankly didn't know what to respond. Still don't. There may be blame to parcel out, but there's enough blame to go around. For my part, I hope we're still able to search for--and to find--some workable solutions as opposed to burning down the barn. Happy 2025 to you.
Yeah, that all sounds very familiar. Canadian anti-Americanism is older than Canada and almost as old as the US. And it can get remarkably dumb. (A story a US military officer told me: While at Queen's in Kingston during the Rwandan genocide, he was harangued by Canadians demanding to know why the US military wasn't intervening. He agreed the US should, but it wasn't. But then he noted that a force as big as the Kingston Police Department could put a stop to it, so, he asked, why wasn't *Canada* intervening? This caused much consternation and vituperation. Too many Canadians have turned freeloading into learned helplessness and combined it with the psychological need to denigrate the US, resulting in frankly infantile thinking.)
I've been spending a lot of time reading what people wrote and said in the years when the US was debating isolationism, and then what to do in the post-war world. (Most recently, Union Now by Clarence Streit.) It makes me weep. Everything is there: They learned lessons from the tragedies of the previous half-century. They were idealistic. Co-operative. They understood a fundamentally different approach was essential, with a hegemon, yes, but a hegemon backing a rules-based international order that would make for a fundamentally better world. And it worked! It worked spectacularly! No, it's not perfect, but perfection can never be the standard. Is it better than what came before it? Massively. Is it better than all the reasonably available alternatives? Massively. Has it delivered unprecedented peace and prosperity? Indisputably. Are we going to burn it all down? It increasingly seems so.
I do appreciate your thoughtful and -- dare I say it? - mature perspective. Late in my career I became obsessed with the inevitability of strategic error, which is a fancy way of saying inevitable opportunity costs. Does given approach X generate real costs, real problems? Well, yes. But what about option Y or alternative Z, or A or B for that matter? Before criticizing approach X, please provide your considered analysis about why (and how) each one of those other concrete options generate a more favorable combination of benefits and costs. By the way, magical thinking is not allowed. Moving back to your response, you remind me of the time I was accompanying a senior US government official to a public event in Southeast Asia. In response to the open ranting and raving of the raucous audience (this was just after September 11), he memorably responded: "Let me see if I understand you all correctly. You want for the United States to do both MORE and LESS at the same time. Did I get that right?" Pretty much skewered the target. Keep up the good work.
Alexis, have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky? A lot of Canadians are followers.
(In my view, Canada doesn't really have a conservative political movement. What is labeled "conservative" in Canada is mostly reactionary against the lunacy of the alt-left that has been dominating political discourse in Canada since Trudeau the Younger became our favourite abuser.)
Of course. Chomsky is the doyen of intellectual anti-Americanism. Proof of the proposition that Americans themselves (for good and ill) are often the most anti-American of all. I say this as an observation, not a criticism. I read Chomsky (or tried to) as an undergraduate in the 80s. And my own early knee jerk anti-Americanism served me well as a diplomat. I had heard most of the arguments before, and even agreed (to a degree) with some. As for Chomsky, he deserves credit as a scholar of language (his concept of grammar’s deep structure is deep indeed), but less so as a political analyst or critic. But to paraphrase the Dude, that’s just my opinion. 😀
Canadians in the 60's often used to wear a discrete Canadian flag or emblem when travelling, mainly to distinguish ourselves from Americans. That habit fell by the wayside as international travel became routine. Weeks ago, my Hong Kong born wife who knew nothing of this practice said me, "Next time we travel I think we should put some small Canadian flags on our stuff." I had been thinking exactly the same.
I somehow duplicated an earlier reply: sorry. What I MEANT to say was: that might all change with Poilievre ("Lie is my middle name") is elected. Won't take long.
Please! That adds as little to the conversation as "Trudoo is a jerk". I realize you've made up your mind and are looking for validation; however, it was Justin who immediately ran to the Donald after only a single tweet to demonstrate his fealty and then blurted out how weak Canada was by saying the tariffs would destroy the Canadian economy. Trump's trolling of Trudeau and Canada as the 51st state started right there. Pierre criticized the move saying that Trump can spot weakness a mile away, which is true.
I think we're better served by not indulging in characterizations of politicians.
Thoughtful (and persuasive) article, but a few cavils and thoughts:
1. The "shining city upon the hill" and the freedom it advocates is a myth of the American origin; the Pilgrims sought freedom, yes...for themselves. They were fleeing persecution only to impose strictures on any others who didn't embrace THEIR beliefs.
2. America's soft power was never more pronounced than with the Marshall Plan after WWII. Its generosity (and, yes, its realpolitik) not only helped European recovery but limited and foreclosed European embrace of communism.
3. Surprising Mr. Gardner didn't mention Machiavelli and The Prince once ("it is better to be feared than loved"). Clearly Mr. Gardner disagrees with The Prince.
Trump is all those things and more; a greater threat both internationally & domestically. But here’s the rub: he was RE-ELECTED, with this country knowing who and what he is—and isn’t. It is not just what Trump is, but it is now who we are.
As a country, we swallowed bullshit. My parents warned us of the "intellect of the electorate" so this is not a new story. We need to run at the trouble and do what we can to mitigate it--and refuse to hide under the covers for four years.
Such a strange few weeks of calm we have in January. Some like you can see the threat clearly but most choose to imagine it is not real. And so we move closer to the day it begins, in denial. It’s the same feeling I’ve had many times during the countdowns to war, seeing all the signposts on the road and knowing no one will stop where it all leads. And then waking up one morning to a thoroughly changed calculation. January 20th will tell us the scope of his ambition and determination, and whether economic chaos has been unleashed on Canada. Not exactly the fate of Melos, but an opening salvo in something big which will shape our future. 19 days to go.
Superb piece! One correction: it was Dean Acheson, not Adlai Stevenson, that JFK sent to brief De Gaulle during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Thanks, Jack. Another reminder to not rely on memory. (I relied on memory...)
Pete Sanderson
We Canadians should start strengthening our military with Korean, Swedish, and German materials. International leadership must increasingly come from from the EU and countries other than the USA.
Greatly appreciate your writing and insights. It appears Canada now has two Russias as neighbours. We have unregulated oligarchies with conservative religions to control the struggling. Canadian conservatives are thrilled to join that category. We will not be Melos in the Athens analogy. We will be an easily absorbed arm of USA: the 51st state under Conservatives.
While your fate will not be as bad as Melos………..or will it? American voters had a choice between good and evil, and chose evil. If the EU chooses solidarity rather than Brexit, Canada could possibly the Melos syndrome.
Soft power is vitally important, as you note. But it’s complicated. In ways I’d wish were better recognized. Today’s many of today’s arguments about hard versus soft types of power have muddled rather than clarified the bases for future U.S. strategy — partly because the term’s definition has been biased since its coinage decades ago. Nye’s original definition tends to treat soft power as good and hard power as bad, or at least mean-spirited, for soft power is said to be fundamentally about persuasive attraction and hard power about coercion. But in fact, soft power is not just about beckoning in attractive upbeat moralistic ways. It can be wielded in tough, dark, heavy ways, too, as in efforts to warn, embarrass, denounce, disinform, deceive, shun, or repel a targeted actor. Moreover, soft power does not inherently favor the good guys; malevolent leaders often prove eager and adept at wielding soft power in their efforts to dominate at home and .abroad. Soft power is largely about whose story winds, and it’s alarming that Trump and his cohort appear to be experts at using dark forms of soft power to conduct narrative warfare.
Yes, quite agree. Birth of a Nation. Volkischer Beobachter. Oodles of soft power. And power in any guise is no different than a tool, and a knife can be used to prepare food or gut your neighbour. Everyone loves the Olympic torch relay and lighting of the Olympic flame but we politely forget that these theatrics were invented for the 1936 Berlin Olympics by Hitler's torch enthusiasts.
brilliant piece. Really hope the political leadership in this country reads this and takes note.
I see no clearer explanation of our American situation and the world. I like the comment about the Canadian flag. I do have some anger at the American flag being desecrated on the back of a truck also carrying a Trump flag. I know the American flag stands for way more than that. If I am traveling and choose to make a political statement I would put an American flag and a Ukrainian flag on my luggage.
It must frighten Canadians and rightfully so that trump refers to the prime minister of Canada as “governor”. I was reading this interesting article in the economist that Canada should join the EU. At first it sounded absurd but I remember in 2005 killington Vermont wanted to secede from Vermont and become part of New Hampshire. (Which is crazy being that killington is located in the middle of Vermont not on the border with New Hampshire.). I guess people have thought of crazier things.
I’m not sure which country or countries you think President Trump plans on invading. We will see what, if anything comes from his rhetoric on the Panama Canal and Greenland, I suppose. But if his first term has any predictive value, he doesn’t seem to be aggressive in much beyond his words. Deeds are few but narrowly targeted (killing Soleimani, for example). No equivalent to an invasion of Grenada so far.
As for your example of “soft power” working on French President Charles de Gaulle, his reaction just might have been different had not the U.S. also had overwhelming “hard power” to be a credible actor in international affairs. It was this Realpolitik that led to Stalin’s quip about how many divisions the Pope had to back up his rhetoric. Lack of “hard power” has bedeviled most European nations since WWII in their quest to be taken seriously on the world stage, the EU itself being seen as something of a joke on that score.
Their reckoning has come with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While difficult to fathom, I suspect that the GOP’s skepticism over that land war comes from the perception that it is fundamentally a European issue that the rich European countries should take the lead on - but can’t because of their underfunding of their militaries. We will see how they react.
The American presidency is not a dictatorship, thankfully, and in his first time Trump’s impulses were restrained by his Cabinet, Congress, and the entire foreign policy establishment. I hope that continues. I doubt it will. On Soleimani, you can belittle it by saying it was "narrowly targeted" but it was the deliberate assassination of foreign general; wars have started over much less and if that attack didn't lead to a war it is only because the Iranians thought themselves (rightly) hopeless overmatched. So it hardly bespeaks caution in the use of military force. And I have to say I find it bizarre that so many are willing to belittle his statement as "mere words." That makes sense for toddlers and the mentally ill, but it is, shall we say, unwise for a president of the United States.
On soft and hard power, I never suggested one was a simple substitute for the other. In fact, I think they are complementary. And the members of NATO that chose to free ride were foolish, in addition to unethical. But notice the past tense in that statement. Most NATO members have greatly increased their military spending since the Russian invasion, and most have plans already underway for more increases in the years to come. The Europeans are already talking about upping the floor from 2% to 3%. There are only a few holdouts (including Canada, which is painful for this Canuck to admit.)
For now, it seems the Senate is standing on its privileges and has rejected outright President Trump’s demand for recess appointment consideration for his Cabinet picks. We shall see how long their spine remains stiff.
As to the Presidency not being a dictatorship, that is mostly because of President Washington’s setting many precedents while in office that had, for the most part, been followed by his successors. Article II does provide for the possibility of overreach and this worry was raised in the debates. It was the knowledge that in all likelihood Washington would be the first President that assuaged these concerns.
A case can be made that President Lincoln did come closest to seizing dictatorial powers in some areas. While the context of a Civil War obviously needs to be considered, he was likely the most powerful President of the 19th century. His overreaching was often checked by the Supreme Court, though many of its decisions were rendered after the particular emergency had passed.
As to Soleimani, while perhaps not your intent, your comment implies that the U.S. had no legitimate cause to target him. While no public explanation was given, his involvement with fatal attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Syria - even if hiding behind Iranian controlled, armed and trained proxies - seems a relevant consideration. That he was the only Iranian military officer targeted - other high level officers could have also been taken out for similar reasons, does make it “narrowly targeted” in my view.
And, now, Iran is in a terrible bind, albeit of its own making. The IDF has demonstrated that Iran, while still dangerous, is extremely vulnerable. So it might just be that any future Trump “crazy” (as opposed to conciliatory) talk might be sufficiently confusing as to intimidate the Ayatollahs (for whom martyrdom seems to be for the proverbial “other guys”, preferably Arabs) into changing course. Though I won’t be holding my breath on that one, one might say that while the Persians may be good at chess, Americans will be playing high stakes poker.
But I see no circumstance under which Iran will involve itself in a hot war with the U.S., its leaders may be and say many things, but, notwithstanding their supposed desire to advance the return of the occluded Mahdi, they are not suicidal. And that too makes them vulnerable to pressure from the fear of U.S. and Israel’s hard power.
Finally, while some NATO members might legitimately be increasing their defense spending, there are reports of Germany’s relying on some accounting legerdemain to make it seem it has boosted defense spending when it remains below 2%. Whether that’s an accurate assessment or not is beyond my expertise to say.
The point on Ukraine remains, the European countries need to take the lead and allow the U.S. to focus on other parts of the world that are beyond European logistics.
Such an eye opening piece. Thank you.
Trump must not be seen as America. He was elected to be president but not voted to become the representation of our country--that's our collective responsibility. I hope we stand up and take that responsibility in every way we can.
That would be wonderful. (One of my more obscure opinions is that putting head of state and head of government in the same man was the most serious error of the constitution. The head of state should handle the ceremonial role, the head of government the use of executive power. Otherwise, the person holding the real power becomes invested with the symbolic role of "face of the nation" and ... bad things happen.)
What Trump understands, and you apparently do not, is that "soft power" must be backed by hard power, or else it is worthless. Witness Canada - a country that is disrespected not only by Trump and Putin and Khamenei, but by China and even our long-time Commonwealth partner, India.
"The United States has plenty of power to throw around, so Trump can bluster and bully and collect tribute." You know, Trump was in power for 4 years previously. He has a track record. Can you tell me which countries he extracted "tribute" from during that terrible time, and the amounts? (This is not a rhetorical question, Dan. As an amateur historian, you should back up your thesis with concrete historical examples; otherwise it is just blather.)
Or rather, did Trump simply decide that the allies had become mature enough since WWII to take care of themselves now - i.e. to live up to their international commitments - and so cut them off the international dole to some slight degree?
There comes a time in every parent's life when they must force their children to fend for themselves - if they care for what is best for their children. Sometimes in nature, that even has to be done violently, by kicking, biting, and pushing the young away from the teat and out of the nest. To the unobservant and ideologically obtuse, this might appear to be a case of parental "bullying." But to the experienced ethologist, who understands that physical violence has about a dozen different necessary functions in nature, it is the epitome of parental care.
On your first point: I agree. Which is one reason why I have been banging the drum for increased funding for the CAF for years. Thanks for noticing.
On your second point: In all my writing, as here, I discuss Trump's impulses and inclinations and whether he can be restrained. In his first administration, he *was* restrained, repeatedly by strong Cabinet members, Congress, and the whole foreign affairs apparatus, which is internationalist through-and-through. (The most notable example was Jim Mattis constantly drumming into Trump's head that, no, friends and allies are not a liability, and, yes, the US needs them and is made stronger by them.)
Your final point is invention or projection. It's simply not Trump. Never, in his entire life, has he expressed any concern for the development of foreign countries, and the idea that he is urging them to grow and get stronger for their own good is fantasy. As his 1987 full-page ad shows very explicitly, he has consistently and constantly belittled and insulted foreign countries, while calling on the US to make demands and extract tribute from them. And that line of thinking is entirely consistent with his behaviour in his business life, where had essentially nothing to do with real philanthropy, or even basic regard for the less fortunate, but instead behaved like a zero-sum predator, squeezing others for advantage whenever he felt he had an opportunity.
In sum, Trump as I conceive him is readily evident in every serious biography of the man. Trump as you conceive him is a product of your imagination.
I don't pretend to delve into the souls of men, Dan. I don't claim to know the "real" Donald J. Trump. Inscrutable essences are for palm readers and, I guess, historians. I'm merely a political philosopher by trade and training.
I look at people's actions. I interpret what they say based on what they have done. I won't comment on Trump's business record, because I don't know much about it, except to say that you don't generally build a $billion real estate empire over decades by being a jerk to everyone you deal with. Hell, the bankers he supposedly "scammed" by "over-valuing" Mar-a-Lago in one of those lawfare suits against him - even his "victims" stood up for Trump in that court case and told the prosecutors to go to hell!
The fact that Trump was in fact restrained in his first administration suggests that he isn't the bully you portray him as being. Prison predators and gangsters - your comparisons - can't be reasoned out of their destructive impulses. The inability to restrain their impulses is usually what causes their downfall. Trump, by all of the evidence you have alludes to, can be persuaded to be restrained. Or more likely, Trump's threats are just hyperbole to get attention in the first place; he doesn't need much restraint to modify them in the end to get a deal done. I asked you for concrete examples where Trump extracted "tribute" from other countries, and you pointedly produced *none*. So whose imagination is more overwrought?
When Trump advised Germany to not become dependent on Russian oil, that was good parental advice he was universally scorned for giving. When Trump asked Canada to get rid of our insane agricultural marketing boards during trade negotiations, that was good parental advice, also, which we refused to take to our own detriment. When he told Mexico to stop the train of immigrants at their southern border, and get a grip on the drug cartels (with American assistance), that was good parental advice that was not heeded. When Trump finally, after generations of American attempts, got Israel together with some Arab countries to sign the Abraham Accords, that displayed superb parenting skills. Many such examples that you turn a blind eye to in order to maintain your delusions, Dan.
Trump is parochial, and isolationist, yes. He doesn't see foreign countries as his children, and even if he did he isn't the hands-on nurturing parent. He's a more traditional dad, administering the tough love and discipline rather than cheerleading and nurturing. But the former is an approach the world sorely needs. If you prefer the Nobel-Prize-worthy Obama approach of giving Iran pallets full of $billions to prosecute their war of terror against Israel, if that's the kind of international poison you prefer, Dan, just say so.
Trump was, is, and will be a scoff-law, liar, cheat, and thief. He cares only for himself and does a crap job at that. He poses as a billionaire but fails to pay his bills. He's no more a father than a spider--a likely insult to spiders.
He learned his "craft" at the knee of Roy Cohn and his father (who learned his lessons from grandpa who was kicked out of Germany and ran whore houses).
Ask the families denied --or read this https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html
Moving forward, his failure to pay contractors in Atlantic City--replicated by his failure to pay venues for his "rallies." You can look it up.
He's full of it like a Christmas goose. He's no parent--unless you're thinking of Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son.
I've had the unfortunate pleasure of viewing Trump's behavior for 50 years. And reading about it for 'only' 10+ years. You might want to rethink your 'observations' about Trump's very real behaviors.
From everything I have seen in his political life (2015 to present), Trump is far more sinned against than sinning. I'm not a fan - I find him vulgar, and in some ways badly educated - but he is at least directionally right in politics.
If you prefer the lunatics who don't know the difference between men and women, who prefer giving $billions to Khamenei than signing the Abraham Accords, who spring BLM rioters out on bail, who allow tens of millions of undocumented people from all over the world to flood into the country, if you prefer the unknowns who pull the strings of an obviously demented old man in the Oval Office... well, you are a total lost cause.
It's funny to consider now that, in my former role as a US diplomat, whenever I made the argument you make in this piece about American soft power, I knew that many foreign counterparts thought it was BS, totally hypocritical. Some told me so. Even so, perhaps naively, I always thought I was being at least somewhat sincere. I had real faith in the idea of the United States pursuing its own interests (as any power should and will) as part of a larger project that included the interests of others--at least that large subset of people and nations dedicated to more or less the same propositions, norms and rules, and not too diabolically hypocritical in their own right. (If there's one thing I learned, it's that the US may not be perfect--far from it--but that doesn't make even legitimate critics of the US any better. Usually not even close.) But under President Trump, re-elected this time with a decisive (if not overwhelming) mandate, the calculus clearly changes. I sometimes imagine those counterparts who used to pooh-pooh my naive idealism with respect to my own country wanting to laugh in my face, wag their finger, and say, "See, I told you so. You Americans are the biggest bullshit artists of all."
Absolutely right. If indeed the Pax Americana breaks down, much of the explanation for why will not lie with Americans, but with other countries that failed to appreciate -- as those who experienced WWII always did -- just how great an achievement the Pax Americana was, how beneficial to all free countries, and how much worse any alternative will be.
It took half a century and much tragedy for the United States and the world to learn the lessons, draw the right conclusions, and launch the Pax Americana. And now we're in danger of forgetting everything and ruining it all. It is horrible to watch.
Not sure I'm quite as prepared as you are to give Americans a free pass. I tried to ring the alarm bell in my humble way, to remind we lucky Americans that, whatever our real problems and clear need for reforms, we have it pretty well. I've seen from up close other people (with much better reasons than we have) elect to burn down the barn. Guess what? The barn ends up getting burned down. And then what? In some ways, the US has become the kind of Illiberal Democracy that Fareed Zakaria wrote about in the book that launched his career. As for you, Dan, I confess I'm reading your stuff with interest, in part because you're Canadian. While I've encountered my fair share of anti-American sentiment (both legitimate and ridiculous) in East Asia and Latin America where I served most of my 30 years as a diplomat, and also in Europe (where both of my parents were from), the virulent strain I recently confronted from a Canadian friend threw me for a loop. A former Canadian diplomat, he is now deep in the alt-right conspiracy rabbit hole sewage sphere, and blames "over 90% of the world's problems on your fucking country" (meaning mine). I understand Canadian conservative political movements are growing pretty strident in part for home grown reasons, but I frankly didn't know what to respond. Still don't. There may be blame to parcel out, but there's enough blame to go around. For my part, I hope we're still able to search for--and to find--some workable solutions as opposed to burning down the barn. Happy 2025 to you.
Yeah, that all sounds very familiar. Canadian anti-Americanism is older than Canada and almost as old as the US. And it can get remarkably dumb. (A story a US military officer told me: While at Queen's in Kingston during the Rwandan genocide, he was harangued by Canadians demanding to know why the US military wasn't intervening. He agreed the US should, but it wasn't. But then he noted that a force as big as the Kingston Police Department could put a stop to it, so, he asked, why wasn't *Canada* intervening? This caused much consternation and vituperation. Too many Canadians have turned freeloading into learned helplessness and combined it with the psychological need to denigrate the US, resulting in frankly infantile thinking.)
I've been spending a lot of time reading what people wrote and said in the years when the US was debating isolationism, and then what to do in the post-war world. (Most recently, Union Now by Clarence Streit.) It makes me weep. Everything is there: They learned lessons from the tragedies of the previous half-century. They were idealistic. Co-operative. They understood a fundamentally different approach was essential, with a hegemon, yes, but a hegemon backing a rules-based international order that would make for a fundamentally better world. And it worked! It worked spectacularly! No, it's not perfect, but perfection can never be the standard. Is it better than what came before it? Massively. Is it better than all the reasonably available alternatives? Massively. Has it delivered unprecedented peace and prosperity? Indisputably. Are we going to burn it all down? It increasingly seems so.
I do appreciate your thoughtful and -- dare I say it? - mature perspective. Late in my career I became obsessed with the inevitability of strategic error, which is a fancy way of saying inevitable opportunity costs. Does given approach X generate real costs, real problems? Well, yes. But what about option Y or alternative Z, or A or B for that matter? Before criticizing approach X, please provide your considered analysis about why (and how) each one of those other concrete options generate a more favorable combination of benefits and costs. By the way, magical thinking is not allowed. Moving back to your response, you remind me of the time I was accompanying a senior US government official to a public event in Southeast Asia. In response to the open ranting and raving of the raucous audience (this was just after September 11), he memorably responded: "Let me see if I understand you all correctly. You want for the United States to do both MORE and LESS at the same time. Did I get that right?" Pretty much skewered the target. Keep up the good work.
My heuristic: If someone doesn't mention tradeoffs, stop listening.
Alexis, have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky? A lot of Canadians are followers.
(In my view, Canada doesn't really have a conservative political movement. What is labeled "conservative" in Canada is mostly reactionary against the lunacy of the alt-left that has been dominating political discourse in Canada since Trudeau the Younger became our favourite abuser.)
Of course. Chomsky is the doyen of intellectual anti-Americanism. Proof of the proposition that Americans themselves (for good and ill) are often the most anti-American of all. I say this as an observation, not a criticism. I read Chomsky (or tried to) as an undergraduate in the 80s. And my own early knee jerk anti-Americanism served me well as a diplomat. I had heard most of the arguments before, and even agreed (to a degree) with some. As for Chomsky, he deserves credit as a scholar of language (his concept of grammar’s deep structure is deep indeed), but less so as a political analyst or critic. But to paraphrase the Dude, that’s just my opinion. 😀
Just so ...