I hate all of this so much. I don’t disagree with the thesis… the world is changing and this, apparently, is its new face. But I’m profoundly disturbed by it. I don’t want to live in a world of...
I hate all of this so much. I don’t disagree with the thesis… the world is changing and this, apparently, is its new face.
But I’m profoundly disturbed by it. I don’t want to live in a world of petty tyrants, conquest, paranoia, propaganda, arms races, environmental destruction and spiraling human rights abuses. The past 50 years have shown us that a better way is possible. That anyone would consider the question and conclude that such a bleak, regressive vision is the right path forward, boggles the mind.
What about cooperation? What about empathy and sustainability? What about the innate dignity and worth of all people?
I think this type of article about Trump is aspirational. As in, "please read this Trump, or please read this people near Trump, and mention it to him in case he decides to make the ideas here...
I think this type of article about Trump is aspirational. As in, "please read this Trump, or please read this people near Trump, and mention it to him in case he decides to make the ideas here come true. Please have some reason for your capricious and chaotic bullshit and don't make it turn out that you are just a Russian asset who is trying to profit from the collapse of the west". He isn't the brains behind "Trumpism" anyway, he's just the face of it.
People trying to influence Trump remind me of the what is power scene in Shindler's List. Hey, why not do the right thing Trump? Why not benefit other people in addition to yourself? They will think you are powerful if you have mercy or leave a legacy. Don't just be needlessly cruel. Meanwhile Trump is thinking about how mean Jimmy Kimmel was to him or something.
Trump also reminds me of the little kid in the Twilight Zone episode It's a Good Life. Everyone around him has to butter him up all the time to try to reduce the amount of horrible evil things that he does.
In the two decades that followed the Cold War’s end, globalism gained ground over nationalism. Simultaneously, the rise of increasingly complex systems and networks—institutional, financial, and technological—overshadowed the role of the individual in politics. But in the early 2010s, a profound shift began. By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization.
The shift arguably began in Russia. In 2012, Vladimir Putin ended a short experiment during which he left the presidency and spent four years as prime minister while a compliant ally served as president. Putin returned to the top job and consolidated his authority, crushing all opposition and devoting himself to rebuilding “the Russian world,” restoring the great-power status that had evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union, and resisting the dominance of the United States and its allies. Two years later, Xi Jinping made it to the top in China. His aims were like Putin’s but far grander in scale—and China had far greater capabilities. In 2014, Narendra Modi, a man with vast aspirations for India, completed his long political ascent to the prime minister’s office and established Hindu nationalism as his country’s dominant ideology. That same year, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had spent just over a decade as Turkey’s hard-driving prime minister, became its president. In short order, Erdogan transformed his country’s factionalized democratic ensemble into an autocratic one-man show.
Perhaps the most consequential moment in this evolution occurred in 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States. He promised to “make America great again” and to put “America first”—slogans that captured a populist, nationalist, antiglobalist spirit that had been percolating within and outside the West even as the U.S.-led liberal international order took hold and grew. Trump was not just riding a global wave. His vision of the U.S. role in the world drew from specifically American sources, although less from the original America First movement that peaked in the 1930s than from the right-wing anticommunism of the 1950s.
For a while, Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race seemed to signal a restoration. The United States was rediscovering its post–Cold War posture, poised to buttress the liberal order and to stem the populist tide. In the wake of Trump’s extraordinary comeback, however, it now appears more likely that Biden, and not Trump, represented a detour. Trump and comparable tribunes of national greatness are now setting the global agenda. They are self-styled strongmen who place little stock in rules-based systems, alliances, or multinational forums. They embrace the once and future glory of the countries they govern, asserting an almost mystical mandate for their rule. Although their programs can involve radical change, their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging.
The true roots of Trump’s foreign policy can be found in the 1950s. They emerge from that decade’s surging anticommunism, although not from the liberal variant that channeled democracy promotion, technocratic skill, and vigorous internationalism, and that was championed by Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy in response to the Soviet threat. Trump’s vision stems from the right-wing anticommunist movements of the 1950s, which pitted the West against its enemies, drew on religious motifs, and harbored a suspicion of American liberalism as too soft, too postnational, and too secular to protect the country.
Trump’s dislike of universalistic internationalism aligns him with Putin, Xi, Modi, and Erdogan. These five leaders share an appreciation of foreign-policy limits and a nervous inability to stand still. They are all pressing for change while operating within certain self-imposed parameters. Putin is not trying to Russify the Middle East. Xi is not trying to remake Africa, Latin America, or the Middle East in China’s image. Modi is not attempting to construct ersatz Indias abroad. And Erdogan is not pushing Iran or the Arab world to be more Turkish. Trump is likewise uninterested in Americanization as a foreign-policy agenda. His sense of American exceptionalism separates the United States from an intrinsically un-American outside world.
The foreign policies of these countries emphasize history and uniqueness, the notion that charismatic leaders must heroically uphold Russian or Chinese or Indian or Turkish interests. This militates against their convergence and makes it hard for them to form stable axes. An axis requires coordination, whereas the interaction among these countries is fluid, transactional, and personality-driven. Nothing here is black and white, nothing set in stone, nothing nonnegotiable.
This milieu suits Trump perfectly. He is not overly constrained by religiously and culturally defined fault lines. He often prizes individuals over governments and personal relationships over formal alliances. Although Germany is a NATO ally of the United States and Russia a perennial adversary, Trump clashed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in his first term and treated Putin with respect. The countries Trump wrestles with the most are those that lie within the West.
If Trump and his team can practice it, flexible diplomacy—the deft management of constant tensions and rolling conflicts—could pay big dividends. Trump is the least Wilsonian president since Woodrow Wilson himself. He has no use for overarching structures of international cooperation such as the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Instead, he and his advisers, especially those who hail from the tech world, might approach the global stage with the mentality of a start-up, a company just formed and perhaps soon to be dissolved but able to react quickly and creatively to the conditions of the moment.
Ukraine will be an early test. Instead of pursuing a hasty peace, the Trump administration should stay focused on protecting Ukrainian sovereignty, which Putin will never accept. To allow Russia to curtail Ukraine’s sovereignty might provide a veneer of stability but could bring war in its wake. Instead of an illusory peace, Washington should help Ukraine determine the rules of engagement with Russia, and through these rules, the war could gradually be minimized. The United States would then be able to compartmentalize its relations with Russia, as it did with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, agreeing to disagree about Ukraine while looking for possible points of agreement on nuclear nonproliferation, arms control, climate change, pandemics, counterterrorism, the Arctic, and space exploration. The compartmentalization of conflict with Russia would serve a core U.S. interest, one that is dear to Trump: the prevention of a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia.
None of the usual descriptors of world order apply anymore: the international system is not unipolar or bipolar or multipolar. But even in a world without a stable structure, the Trump administration can still use American power, alliances, and economic statecraft to defuse tension, minimize conflict, and furnish a baseline of cooperation among countries big and small. That could serve Trump’s wish to leave the United States better off at the end of his second term than it was at the beginning.
It seems to me to be a fairly well-written 3000 words of analysis on the current state of American nationalism, followed by about 1000 words of recommendations for the administration. While...
It seems to me to be a fairly well-written 3000 words of analysis on the current state of American nationalism, followed by about 1000 words of recommendations for the administration. While perhaps the author could be criticized for ascribing more deliberate action on Trump's part, as opposed to random lashing out, which parts seem to be apologia and propaganda to you?
The author seems to love the "great man" theory of history, and ascribes to the targets of the article - Putin, Trump, Xi, Modi, and Erdogan - the notion that they are "strong leaders" of "proud...
Exemplary
By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization.
The author seems to love the "great man" theory of history, and ascribes to the targets of the article - Putin, Trump, Xi, Modi, and Erdogan - the notion that they are "strong leaders" of "proud civilizations". Not as, y'know, autocrats and tyrants. Even when the article touches on autocracy, it does not do so with a critical eye; there is no analysis of what it means to live under autocracy, only that they exist.
[Trump] promised to “make America great again” and to put “America first”—slogans that captured a populist, nationalist, antiglobalist spirit that had been percolating within and outside the West even as the U.S.-led liberal international order took hold and grew.
It's not clear to me whether the author understands what, in many circles, the term "globalist" means. In right-wing circles within the USA, "globalist" is often used as a euphemism for Jewish people. This acts as a dog-whistle to the next point:
Although their programs can involve radical change, their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging.
... "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites" is not defined, other than as a vague hand-waive. These terms taken together often imply people of color within left-leaning areas. These points taken together imply that the author could be acknowledging that under Trump, we are moving away from a multi-racial and multi-ethnic democracy towards a white supremacist autocracy; but the author never actually states as much. And I believe that if people are paying attention, that is absolutely where we're headed - we're seeing it at every level of American government, what with the "elimination" of "DEI", the revoking of rights for LGBTQ+ people, the removal of accessibility for people with disabilities ... it's ethnic cleansing. It's eugenics.
The author does not acknowledge any of this. They could be viewing these points as unimportant to the thrust of the article ... which ... fine, okay, I suppose. But the article is absolutely falling over itself with praise of these autocrats, while denouncing the "weak" democracies:
Shoring up [the West], which has been crumbling for years, will be left to Europe, a loose confederation of states with no army and with little organized hard power of its own—and whose countries are experiencing a period of acutely weak leadership.
The article is decrying the weakness of multi-national confederacy and promoting the perceived strength and reliability of autocracy.
Trump and his team should regard conflict management as a prerequisite for American greatness, not as an impediment to it.
This ascribes forward-thinking that does not match what Trump did in 2017-2020, let alone what he's doing now.
He is sure to increase military spending, and by threatening to seize or otherwise acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal, he has already proved that he will not shy away from conflict.
Trump is threatening allies and the international order; it is not the same as "not shying away from conflict." Similar to how he threatened nuclear strikes in 2017-2020.
The fact that this article uncritically discusses Barry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan, and refers to their views and efforts as "decades-long conservative tradition", is unintentionally damning and quite indicative of where the author is coming from. They absolutely do resemble the American Conservative tradition, insofar as it is heavily, and I mean heavily, laden with white supremacy and racism at its core. But again, this is not mentioned - nor is it mentioned just how racist Trump is. Instead, the article states that
Trump relishes iconoclasm and rupture, seeks to upend the status quo, and loathes liberal elites and foreign-policy experts.
Who are "liberal elites and foreign-policy experts"?
Trump’s dislike of universalistic internationalism aligns him with Putin, Xi, Modi, and Erdogan. These five leaders share an appreciation of foreign-policy limits and a nervous inability to stand still.
Again, the article is downplaying the autocratic, tyrannical actions of these rulers and ascribing their actions as an "inability to stand still", and "sharing an appreciation of foreign-policy limits". As if breaking international order and law is just "testing the limits".
[Trump's] sense of American exceptionalism separates the United States from an intrinsically un-American outside world.
The author believes that the world is un-American, despite the fact that the world order has largely been set by American policy for decades. We have allies whose foreign policy is shaped by and with us (e.g., NATO). For Trump to be pulling away from such alliances and towards cooperation with other entities that are specifically anti-American (e.g., Putin's Russia) ... I have no idea how the author takes this view.
Erdogan’s revisionism is more literal. To advantage its allies in Azerbaijan, Turkey facilitated Azerbaijan’s expulsion of Armenians from the contested territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, not through negotiation but through military force. Turkey’s membership in the NATO alliance, which entails a formal commitment to democracy and to the integrity of borders, did not stand in Erdogan’s way. Turkey has also established itself as a military presence in Syria. This is not quite a reconstitution of the Ottoman Empire. Erdogan does not aim to keep Syrian territory in perpetuity. But Turkey’s military-political projects in the South Caucasus and the Middle East have a historical resonance for Erdogan. Proof of Turkey’s greatness, they show that Turkey will be wherever Erdogan says it ought to be.
The whole above paragraph is quite telling. First Turkey helped Azerbaijan ethnically cleanse Armenians - it was not an "expulsion", and stating it in that manner is trying to soft-sell reality. "Turkey established itself as a military presence in Syria", followed by "Erdogan does not aim to keep Syrian territory in perpetuity" ... time will tell, but militaristic autocrats often don't just give land back. Just look at Putin's Russia.
This milieu suits Trump perfectly. He is not overly constrained by religiously and culturally defined fault lines. He often prizes individuals over governments and personal relationships over formal alliances. Although Germany is a NATO ally of the United States and Russia a perennial adversary, Trump clashed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in his first term and treated Putin with respect. The countries Trump wrestles with the most are those that lie within the West. Had Huntington lived to see this, he would have found it baffling.
Trump is a Russian asset, either literally or as a "useful idiot". It is not hard to explain or see this. He acts from self-interest, and while the above paragraph does seem to recognize this, it does so in a manner as to explain "Trump the Strong Man" rather than "Trump the Compromised".
The Middle East appeared to be entering a period of relative stability facilitated in part by the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords, a set of deals intended to enhance regional order.
This is revisionist history, considering Trump openly declared Jerusalem as the recognized capital of Israel.
And in deed if not always in word, Trump conducted himself as a typical Republican president. He increased U.S. defense commitments to Europe, welcoming two new countries into NATO. He struck no deals with Russia. He talked harshly about China, and he maneuvered for advantage in the Middle East.
Again, this reeks of revisionism. He may have been a "typical Republican", but the damage he wrought to The United States is still rippling today. If that is a "typical Republican" then such glowing terms should not be constantly applied to Trump. Claiming Trump "struck no deals with Russia" disregards almost everything he said about Putin and Russia for the past 10+ years. He may not have struck "USA deals" with Russia, but it's not as though he took, or takes, a hard stance against them.
In his first term, Trump underscored the importance of territorial sovereignty, promising to build a “big, beautiful wall” along the U.S. border with Mexico.
This is ignoring the very, very obvious racism behind the whole idea of that wall. It was not about territorial sovereignty.
Just as Putin cannot afford to lose a war to Ukraine, Trump cannot afford to “lose” Europe. To squander the prosperity and power projection that the United States gains from its military presence in Europe would be humiliating for any American president.
Trump is already losing Europe, in large part because of his continual overtures to Russia. Trump is doing incredible damage to the United States' standing with the world, and in particular he is destroying our credibility with our allies. These actions make sense if one takes the view that Trump is compromised by Russia - which the Mueller Report laid out fairly clearly, and Trump's own actions continue to reinforce.
Alongside such worst-case scenarios, consider how Trump’s second term could also improve a deteriorating international situation. A combination of workmanlike U.S. relations with Beijing and Moscow, a nimble approach to diplomacy in Washington, and a bit of strategic luck might not necessarily lead to major breakthroughs, but it could produce a better status quo.
It is hard to see how anything Trump is doing is "improving a deteriorating international situation". It is certainly hard to see how him absolutely destroying the US government's institutions is going to result in a "better status quo". Again, who does the author think Trump is?
Not an end to the war in Ukraine, but a reduction in its intensity.
Promoting Russian interests will not do that.
Not a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but some form of U.S. detente with a weakened Iran, and the emergence of a viable government in Syria.
Has Trump shown any inclination towards helping to create stable government in Syria? Particularly considering how this author views Trump's views of the USA turning away from its international responsibilities, it's hard to see Trump giving any particular damn about Syria. Which is supported by the next paragraph:
With Trump back in office, that pressure has dissipated. The form of the governments in Russia and China does not preoccupy Trump, whose rejection of nation building and regime change is absolute. Even though the sources of tension remain, the overall atmosphere will be less fraught, and more diplomatic exchanges may be possible. There may be more give-and-take within the Beijing-Moscow-Washington triangle, more concessions on small points, and more openness to negotiation and to confidence-building measures in zones of war and contestation.
Again, the author seems to view increased diplomacy with Russia, China, et al as somehow more worthy than with Europe at large, or other non-authoritarian regimes.
If Trump and his team can practice it, flexible diplomacy—the deft management of constant tensions and rolling conflicts—could pay big dividends.
I've seen nothing from Trump to suggest he is capable of deft management of tension and conflict.
He has no use for overarching structures of international cooperation such as the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Instead, he and his advisers, especially those who hail from the tech world, might approach the global stage with the mentality of a start-up, a company just formed and perhaps soon to be dissolved but able to react quickly and creatively to the conditions of the moment.
I fail to see the United States as a "start-up", and fail to see any upside in viewing us in that fashion. And what's more, Trump is bad at managing businesses, so he's not even talented as a leader of a start-up.
The whole paragraph detailing how Trump should approach Russia and Ukraine is baffling to me. He talks about how the USA should focus on protecting Ukrainian sovereignty, but Trump has shown no interest in supporting that. He told Zelenskyy to "move fast" and establish peace with Russia before he doesn't have a country anymore. Trump believes that Ukraine started the war. Under Trump, Ukrainian sovereignty will only be more threatened.
But taking advantage of lucky breaks requires preparation as well as agility. In this regard, the United States has two major assets. The first is its network of alliances, which greatly magnifies Washington’s leverage and room to maneuver. The second is the American practice of economic statecraft, which expands U.S. access to markets and critical resources, attracts outside investment, and maintains the American financial system as a central node of the global economy.
This entire chunk of the article flies in the face of what the author cited as Trump's prerogative earlier - that he's a strong man throwing out traditional alliances. Why would someone intent on defying our alliances seek strength in them?
But even in a world without a stable structure, the Trump administration can still use American power, alliances, and economic statecraft to defuse tension, minimize conflict, and furnish a baseline of cooperation among countries big and small. That could serve Trump’s wish to leave the United States better off at the end of his second term than it was at the beginning.
How on earth does destroying the US government, threatening its own citizens with deportation, abolishing long-standing norms and civil protections, and upending everything we've known for decades "leave the United States better off"?
This author seems to have a deep-seated appreciation for autocrats and "strong men", and honestly seems to relish Trump as a dictator.
@fal touched on this a little, but I wish you had engaged with this article in good faith. I don't take any issues with the fact that you disagree. Not in the slightest. If you'd left it at "this...
@fal touched on this a little, but I wish you had engaged with this article in good faith. I don't take any issues with the fact that you disagree. Not in the slightest. If you'd left it at "this guy is whitewashing Trump's policies and here's why," I could get behind it. But stuff like "it's not clear whether the author understands what globalist means, in right-wing circles..." is totally unfair to the author. He has a PhD from Harvard and served in the senior ranks of the US's department of state under Obama. He is clearly a smart, well-informed guy.
There are plenty of smart, well informed people who also, intentionally or not, use loaded language. I fail to see how me reading the article in full, but disagreeing with it and explaining why,...
There are plenty of smart, well informed people who also, intentionally or not, use loaded language.
I fail to see how me reading the article in full, but disagreeing with it and explaining why, is somehow not acting in good faith.
I think maybe "good faith" was the wrong term to use, because it implies you were acting in bad faith, and that's understandably how you took it. I think it's more accurate to say that I wish you...
I think maybe "good faith" was the wrong term to use, because it implies you were acting in bad faith, and that's understandably how you took it. I think it's more accurate to say that I wish you had come from the assumption that the author had noble intent.
I don't have any issue with you disagreeing. Where I think you're not assuming that the author had noble intent is where you're reading antisemitism into the below sections, which were written in an article about politics in Foreign Affairs, an extremely well-respected journal (which happens to be published by a board with a Jewish chairman).
[Trump] promised to “make America great again” and to put “America first”—slogans that captured a populist, nationalist, antiglobalist spirit that had been percolating within and outside the West even as the U.S.-led liberal international order took hold and grew.
...their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging.
I wouldn't have brought it up, but since you mentioned that you may be too online... I don't mean this in an impolite way, but yeah, I think that's probably fair. I really struggle to see how the quoted sections could be interpreted as antisemitic without the lens of the sort of...trauma that spending too much time on the internet can bring.
(I recognize that you specified that you're not accusing the author of including loaded language intentionally, but when you're also saying things like the below, I think we can both agree it's fair to say that you're implying the author is problematic.)
please, please understand that there are many well-educated, intelligent people who also happen to be racist, or at the very least have an enormous blind spot to racism. I'm not saying that this author is racist, but [...]
Again, I'm not sure why I have to assume an author has "noble intent" behind an article that seems to have blinders on regarding Trump's actions and intentions. I've explained why I believe the...
Again, I'm not sure why I have to assume an author has "noble intent" behind an article that seems to have blinders on regarding Trump's actions and intentions. I've explained why I believe the author is misguided here already.
And please understand, you can be Jewish and unintentionally antisemitic.
That's not really what that means, but I think we're never going to agree on this so I'm going to let it go.
Again, I'm not sure why I have to assume an author has "noble intent" behind an article that seems to have blinders on regarding Trump's actions and intentions. I've explained why I believe the author is misguided here already.
That's not really what that means, but I think we're never going to agree on this so I'm going to let it go.
Would you have taken "the author is willfully ignoring that "globalist" is an antisemitic dogwhistle to the point of dishonesty" in better faith? Genuinely, assuming the author is ignorant or...
Would you have taken "the author is willfully ignoring that "globalist" is an antisemitic dogwhistle to the point of dishonesty" in better faith?
Genuinely, assuming the author is ignorant or oblivious is the kinder take.
Except the author is using "globalism" in its academic context, and viewing it as a dogwhistle is a wild reach? What other word would you use to describe the integration of global culture, society...
Except the author is using "globalism" in its academic context, and viewing it as a dogwhistle is a wild reach? What other word would you use to describe the integration of global culture, society and economy, especially at its greater pace following the end of the Cold War, that has since had a backlash and has been followed by a rise in nationalist movements?
Like maybe I'm crazy or biased because (doxing myself a bit here) I'm a graduate student in international politics, the same field as the author, but using "globalization", "globalism", and "globalist" like the author has are completely normal usages in this context. Like there are genuinely thousands of papers that discuss globalization without any allusion to being a rightwing dogwhistle
Taken in context of the article - the same one where the author bemoans "coastal liberal elites" - it doesn't feel like that much of a stretch. I did hedge my language, as did DefinitelyNotAFae....
Taken in context of the article - the same one where the author bemoans "coastal liberal elites" - it doesn't feel like that much of a stretch.
I did hedge my language, as did DefinitelyNotAFae. Why should our opinions be dismissed out of hand?
I feel like I'm going crazy; at what point is the author "bemoaning liberals"? In the section where he mentions liberal, urban, coastal elites, the quote is literally That's not a criticism of...
I feel like I'm going crazy; at what point is the author "bemoaning liberals"? In the section where he mentions liberal, urban, coastal elites, the quote is literally
their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging.
That's not a criticism of liberals? That's a pretty objective analysis that modern nationalist strongmen à la
Trump win their political power by appealing to rural voters?
And I feel like I'm going crazy too. That specific language is used as a dogwhistle for the right wing. If the author doesn't know that, then I'm not sure what to think. The article is stuffed...
And I feel like I'm going crazy too. That specific language is used as a dogwhistle for the right wing. If the author doesn't know that, then I'm not sure what to think.
The article is stuffed with coded right wing rhetoric. It's possible, if not likely, that I'm far too online.
It's also possible that this author absolutely loves an autocrat too.
Now, if I may ask - when he says that Trump appeals to "constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging" what do you think he means, exactly?
It's not enough to say "rural voters" because I know plenty of "coastal elites" that love traditions, and I think everybody wants to belong.
Literally anything could be a dog whistle for the right wing. 'Urban' is a dog whistle - is a sociologist secretly right wing when they talk about urban populations? The Roman empire is a dog...
Literally anything could be a dog whistle for the right wing. 'Urban' is a dog whistle - is a sociologist secretly right wing when they talk about urban populations? The Roman empire is a dog whistle - are architects secretly right wing if their building is inspired by Roman architecture? A historian discussing 'deus vult'? A mathematician for using the number 88? An economist calling OPEC a cabal? He's a political scientist with a focus on international affairs; globalization has had a huge impact on the field. Literally half of my courses deal directly or in part with the effects and aftermath of globalization. The slowdown of globalization and return of populist nationalism is a known and recognized phenomenon in the field. It is entirely normal for him to discuss globalization when discussing the rise of authoritarian strongmen in today's world. I don't want to be rude, but yes, it is entirely possible that you are far too online.
Maybe he loves an autocrat. Nothing in this article points me towards that conclusion, nor does a cursory examination of his other works (mostly analysis of the Russian government under Putin, its weaknesses and strengths, and more recently about the Russo-Ukrainian War).
I promise you that I'm not avoiding giving my opinions on Trump's constituencies - it is a complex topic and I'm on the move. I hope I can answer your claim more fully soonish.
Context rules over the discourse, and I've given my opinion on how I see it here. I could be wrong. I probably am wrong. But I still have questions about intention here, because of context within...
Context rules over the discourse, and I've given my opinion on how I see it here.
I could be wrong. I probably am wrong. But I still have questions about intention here, because of context within the article.
And please, please understand that there are many well-educated, intelligent people who also happen to be racist, or at the very least have an enormous blind spot to racism. I'm not saying that this author is racist, but he's giving Trump an enormous amount of credit and credibility where he deserves none. I can't fathom how someone can view what Trump is doing as anything other than destroying the United States.
I think the context is really important here. Some random dude on Breitbart talking about "globalist Soros elites?" Yeah, I totally buy that as a dogwhistle. An Obama official with a PhD writing...
I think the context is really important here. Some random dude on Breitbart talking about "globalist Soros elites?" Yeah, I totally buy that as a dogwhistle.
An Obama official with a PhD writing for Foreign Affairs, though? Whose words were "...[Trump's slogans were] slogans that captured a populist, nationalist, antiglobalist spirit that had been percolating within and outside the West even as the U.S.-led liberal international order took hold and grew"?
I really, really don't think it's fair to the author to call that a right-wing dogwhistle. In full seriousness, does that actually read as antisemitic to you guys or did we get dragged into an argument over nothing? I mean he didn't even say globalist in the quote in question, he said antiglobalist!
As I said to someone else, I'm not interested in going back and forth on the take itself. The take can be wrong but the accusations of bad faith would not have been lessened by accusing the author...
As I said to someone else, I'm not interested in going back and forth on the take itself.
The take can be wrong but the accusations of bad faith would not have been lessened by accusing the author of deliberate omission.
It makes more sense to direct this at the person who has the take.
Can a dog whistle be a dog whistle without intent? Since they rely on being coded behind innocuous language, remove the intent and it's just innocuous language. To convey the meaning the author...
Can a dog whistle be a dog whistle without intent? Since they rely on being coded behind innocuous language, remove the intent and it's just innocuous language. To convey the meaning the author wants to convey, the word choice seems appropriate and normal, so intent does not appear obvious to me.
Yes, because (as I've clearly demonstrated here) people can infer numerous meanings from otherwise innocuous language. Once again, I pose this question that has gone unanswered throughout this...
Can a dog whistle be a dog whistle without intent?
Yes, because (as I've clearly demonstrated here) people can infer numerous meanings from otherwise innocuous language.
Once again, I pose this question that has gone unanswered throughout this thread - when the author of the article mentions "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites", who does he mean? When he mentions "constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging", who does he mean?
Somehow, trying to court "liberal elites" is always viewed as a political mistake, while the counterpart is always viewed as the political default and "correct choice." Within the context of American politics, who are the "coastal elites" that the political pundit class is referring to? It can't be Mark Zuckerberg/Elon Musk/Jeff Bezos/et al, because all of them have bent the knee to Trump and the right-wing machine.
No, where you see the language "coastal elites" used most often is by Fox News and other right-wing propaganda rags, where it is used as coded language for people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and frankly anyone that isn't white and male. And yes, I understand that those people are not what "we" traditionally consider to be "the elites" - they are not in a politically-strong position. This is why fascism is so insidious - per Umberto Eco, "Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as 'at the same time too strong and too weak'."
So, once again - I question the choice of language here, because "liberal elites" is a pre-loaded term that carries with it a lot of assumptions about the audience. Is the author intentionally throwing out a dogwhistle? Probably not. But he is accidentally speaking to that audience using their own language in ways they can interpret to their liking.
Liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites -> I'm imagining an Ivy-educated person with liberal beliefs who lives in a big city in a high-paying white collar career. No ethnicity, gender, orientation, or...
Liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites -> I'm imagining an Ivy-educated person with liberal beliefs who lives in a big city in a high-paying white collar career. No ethnicity, gender, orientation, or anything else need be applied to the definition.
Do coastal elites, defined as "elites living on the coasts" and not your definition, not exist in your mind? They absolutely exist; I run into them a few times a year. It's a useful term and one I have never seen used in a way that implied a coded language meant to attack protected minorities.
What phrase would you rather be used to describe "elites living on the coasts" instead?
Of course "elites" exist, even in my internet-addled mind. I run into them several times a year as well. You know what we usually call them? Rich people. No coded language required. "Elites" exist...
Of course "elites" exist, even in my internet-addled mind. I run into them several times a year as well. You know what we usually call them?
Rich people. No coded language required.
"Elites" exist the same way that the mythical "rural voter" does. We have a default assumption of who an "elite" is (as you said, lives in a big city, high-paying career), and we have a default assumption of who a "rural voter" is (someone who lives in the sticks or on a farm, probably in the Midwest). Both of those ignore certain facets of reality - there is a huge rural population in states like California and Washington, and there's rich-as-hell people living in the middle of nowhere. Warren Buffet famously still lives in Omaha, not the largest city in the country, and still lives in the first house he ever bought.
As I said, when you take in the media I do and make yourself aware of certain coded language used by the far-right, things like "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites" start to take on a separate meaning. I've already stated that I am making an assumption about the author's use of that language, and I won't get into it again.
It seems like you're coming into the article with a preemptively negative outlook? I'll deal with the analysis and suggestions portions of the article separately. While I do agree with some of...
It seems like you're coming into the article with a preemptively negative outlook? I'll deal with the analysis and suggestions portions of the article separately. While I do agree with some of your criticisms of the article, especially those regarding the motivations of Trump (@TemulantTeatotaler and @stu2b50 have a good discussion of this elsewhere in the thread), your claims that the article is, as you say "apologia and propaganda" you seem to back up with either quotations taken out of context, or quite large leaps in logic. Additionally, in many of your points, you criticize the author for not outright criticizing Trump; however, I would argue that that isn't the point of the article, which instead is interested in analyzing the rise to power, motivations of, modus operandi, and ideological background of the style of nationalism of Trump, Putin, and the rest. Later, policy recommendations are given with these considerations in mind. If you wanted a skewering of this nationalist ideology, that's fine, but I don't think that every work written about it needs to do so.
The author seems to love the "great man" theory of history, and ascribes to the targets of the article - Putin, Trump, Xi, Modi, and Erdogan - the notion that they are "strong leaders" of "proud civilizations". Not as, y'know, autocrats and tyrants. Even when the article touches on autocracy, it does not do so with a critical eye; there is no analysis of what it means to live under autocracy, only that they exist.
This is about the literal first paragraph of the article, so our opinions will only diverge elsewhere, but I genuinely don't think that the author is claiming that the leaders discussed are Great Men of History; instead, as he mentions in the quote that you provide, "By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization." That is to say, the author is claiming that these leaders are using modern tools to portray themselves as great men. This isn't the author claiming they are, but rather that they are portraying themselves as such to maintain and keep power.
It's not clear to me whether the author understands what, in many circles, the term "globalist" means. In right-wing circles within the USA, "globalist" is often used as a euphemism for Jewish people.
I don't think that its much of a leap to presume that the author, who worked in foreign policy under Obama, was a professor, writing in the journal Foreign Policy, would use 'globalization' and 'globalism' in their academic forms, not as conspiratorial finger-pointing at the Jews.
... "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites" is not defined, other than as a vague hand-waive. These terms taken together often imply people of color within left-leaning areas. These points taken together imply that the author could be acknowledging that under Trump, we are moving away from a multi-racial and multi-ethnic democracy towards a white supremacist autocracy; but the author never actually states as much.
Again, I sincerely doubt that the author is interested in euphemistically referring to marginalized communities. Instead, I find it much more likely he is referring to actual liberal elites? Those who are much more supportive of globalization because they themselves benefited from and perceive themselves as benefiting from globalization?
But the article is absolutely falling over itself with praise of these autocrats, while denouncing the "weak" democracies: .... The article is decrying the weakness of multi-national confederacy and promoting the perceived strength and reliability of autocracy.
How'd you jump to that? The "West", as defined in the article itself, was composed of the US and Europe following the end of the Cold War. With the US less interested in continuing the project of Western globalization under Trump, continuing this idea of "the West" falls to Europe and the EU, which lacks hard power (a pan-EU military), and has relatively weak leadership in the post-COVID era. This seems like pretty objective analysis, where does praise of autocracy figure in to this?
The fact that this article uncritically discusses Barry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan, and refers to their views and efforts as "decades-long conservative tradition", is unintentionally damning and quite indicative of where the author is coming from. They absolutely do resemble the American Conservative tradition, insofar as it is heavily, and I mean heavily, laden with white supremacy and racism at its core. But again, this is not mentioned - nor is it mentioned just how racist Trump is. Instead, the article states that
The article, again isn't a critique of modern conservative/nationalist foreign policy; it's analysis. Goldwater is barely mentioned, and Buchanan is brought up as a forerunner to modern nationalist and antiglobalist foreign policy that Trump represents. Yeah, Trump is a raging racist, but that isn't particularly relevant to an analysis of his foreign policy ideology. It would be equally irrelevant to this particular analysis to bring up that Trump is a misogynist, a felon, or any other number of criticisms.
The author believes that the world is un-American, despite the fact that the world order has largely been set by American policy for decades.
He's literally saying this is Trump's view of the world?
I don't have much time to deal with the recommendations section of the article, so I'll come back to this today or tomorrow.
Correct, I criticize the author for not criticizing Trump. That's why I said this article is apologia and propaganda for him. My premise is that an article like this only serves to launder Trump's...
in many of your points, you criticize the author for not outright criticizing Trump; however, I would argue that that isn't the point of the article, which instead is interested in analyzing the rise to power, motivations of, modus operandi, and ideological background of the style of nationalism of Trump, Putin, and the rest.
Correct, I criticize the author for not criticizing Trump. That's why I said this article is apologia and propaganda for him. My premise is that an article like this only serves to launder Trump's image as a rational leader rather than as a compromised traitor to the nation. The author is ignoring vast, vast amounts of information that inform Trump's actions.
I do not believe one should try to make an "objective" view of Trump, for the same reasons that people should not take "objective" views of Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
Regarding being a Great Man, versus portraying ones-self as one ... what is the tangible difference? If they're using the tools afforded them to "maintain and keep power", how are they not "Great Men" in the sense of being men who are dictating and guiding history? This is about the Great Man theory of history, and men like Trump, Putin, and the like are absolutely trying to mold themselves in the fashion of Caesar, Alexander, and the like.
I find it much more likely he is referring to actual liberal elites?
Like who? Every time I see someone make reference to "liberal elites", there is never an actual example. And please, don't say George Soros - for all of the reasons you've dismissed, he's another bogeyman of the far-right, and he is used as a cudgel for antisemitism writ large.
This is also why I mentioned "globalists" and "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites". The author may not be interested in promoting euphemisms ... but they're sure doing it a lot. I'm not saying the euphemistic references to racism are intentional, only that they are present and unaddressed.
The whole article reads as praise of autocracy to me, as I've explained in my prior post.
Yeah, Trump is a raging racist, but that isn't particularly relevant to an analysis of his foreign policy ideology.
This seems absolutely bonkers to me. His foreign policy ideology is absolutely based on his raging racism, and I'm not sure how one could legitimately try to sever the two.
In what sense? He's racist against... Ukrainians and Canadians? Racist against Chinese but Kim jong Un is cool?
This seems absolutely bonkers to me. His foreign policy ideology is absolutely based on his raging racism, and I'm not sure how one could legitimately try to sever the two.
In what sense? He's racist against... Ukrainians and Canadians? Racist against Chinese but Kim jong Un is cool?
Racism does not require logic. In fact logic is antithetical to racism. But that doesn't really require an explanation does it? Much of Trump's foreign policy decisions and statements come from...
Racism does not require logic. In fact logic is antithetical to racism. But that doesn't really require an explanation does it?
Much of Trump's foreign policy decisions and statements come from deep racism. The man's got an extensive history of racism. To try and separate his racist views from his foreign policy seems bananas to me, particularly since the vast majority of people in the world are not white men.
Yes from all evidence it seems odd that someone would assume Trump is acting in good faith. The pattern for him is always apparently "how can I enrich myself or punish my enemies". Any of his...
Yes from all evidence it seems odd that someone would assume Trump is acting in good faith. The pattern for him is always apparently "how can I enrich myself or punish my enemies". Any of his stated goals should be met with suspicion. It's clear he lacks any basic level of concern for the negative effects of his actions.
If Trump is a Russian asset, intent on destroying the United States as quickly as possible, while he and his associates like Musk get richer from the remaining crumbs, then everything he does makes sense.
I think most of it is fine and at least a quick look suggests the author is knowledgeable and not a sycophant. The parts that put me off is the implicit acceptance that Trump wants to "leave the...
I think most of it is fine and at least a quick look suggests the author is knowledgeable and not a sycophant. The parts that put me off is the implicit acceptance that Trump wants to "leave the United States better off," that he fears nuclear war, or that he has any belief in something like "American exceptionalism" motivating him.
The evidence I've seen supports him being a narcisist who seeks praise, punishing sleights, and personal enrichment. He has a shallow understanding of geopolitics, economics, law, or really anything outside of dirty business. All evidence points to him furthering Russian interests whenever possible. The Mueller findings, Helsinki, threatening to veto sanctions until veto-proof, and really a few hundred pages of things you can point to as "this is real fucking weird unless you work with/for Putin."
It feels like the author eschews the sort of personality-driven analysis he mentions, ignoring the most obvious explanation in lieu of some hypothetically plausible game theory of irrational actors. Which would be interesting! Not very familiar but I know I've seen looks at that sort of pragmatic irrationality before. So, "Flexible diplomacy ... could pay big dividends", but that isn't what is happening, and ignoring that gets pretty close to apologia/sane-washing.
The simple explanation for Trump's handling of things like the Canadian tariffs--which are criticized by traditionally conservative academics-- is that he wants to weaken Western cooperation. Calling Zelensky a dictator with 4% approval rating and extorting/blaming Ukraine after our role in the Budapest Memorandum, scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, or things like hiring Bolton who openly called for regime change in Iran and the "Libya model" for NK isn't exactly making a case for the nuclear disarmament he is supposed to desire.
He wants to kill NATO, tank our international standing (post 1st term iirc only Russia/Israel had an improved opinion), and make concrete that the promises of the U.S. are useless at worst and have a 4-year shelf-life at best. Err, and loot the country like it was children's charity, cash-light contractor, or crypto connosieur, too.
These don't seem mutually exclusive? He wants to leave America better off than he started, because he's a narcissist. What's more glorious than to be remembered as one of the great american...
The parts that put me off is the implicit acceptance that Trump wants to "leave the United States better off," that he fears nuclear war, or that he has any belief in something like "American exceptionalism" motivating him.
The evidence I've seen supports him being a narcissist who seeks praise, punishing sleights, and personal enrichment
These don't seem mutually exclusive? He wants to leave America better off than he started, because he's
a narcissist. What's more glorious than to be remembered as one of the great american presidents?
He doesn't want nuclear war, because he doesn't want to die. I don't think most narcissist are suicidal.
As for American exceptionalism, I mean, that's his entire brand.
A giant golden tomb that took a million lives to build? A QAnon-friendly FBI head who goes after journalists who say mean things about him? It's much easier to be called the God Emperor by a...
What's more glorious than to be remembered as one of the great american presidents?
A giant golden tomb that took a million lives to build? A QAnon-friendly FBI head who goes after journalists who say mean things about him? It's much easier to be called the God Emperor by a favored in-group than it is to actually build a legacy, just like it's much harder to build wealth than it is to say the Trump brand is worth +/- a few billion depending on what is beneficial at the time. A narcissist doesn't want to earn praise; they're owed it.
He doesn't want nuclear war, because he doesn't want to die.
He's had two(ish) assassination attempts, so is he going to stop praising violence? Is he going to say he was wrong praising Gianforte for assaulting a journalist, or retweeting "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat"?
As for American exceptionalism, I mean, that's his entire brand.
I think it's easy to argue the opposite of that. His brand is that America is not great, and that he's the only thing that can fix this trash, mistreated, weak country. In large part by abandoning any admirable qualities we have. That isn't the rhetoric a patriot has.
I hate all of this so much. I don’t disagree with the thesis… the world is changing and this, apparently, is its new face.
But I’m profoundly disturbed by it. I don’t want to live in a world of petty tyrants, conquest, paranoia, propaganda, arms races, environmental destruction and spiraling human rights abuses. The past 50 years have shown us that a better way is possible. That anyone would consider the question and conclude that such a bleak, regressive vision is the right path forward, boggles the mind.
What about cooperation? What about empathy and sustainability? What about the innate dignity and worth of all people?
These idiots would burn it all down.
I think this type of article about Trump is aspirational. As in, "please read this Trump, or please read this people near Trump, and mention it to him in case he decides to make the ideas here come true. Please have some reason for your capricious and chaotic bullshit and don't make it turn out that you are just a Russian asset who is trying to profit from the collapse of the west". He isn't the brains behind "Trumpism" anyway, he's just the face of it.
People trying to influence Trump remind me of the what is power scene in Shindler's List. Hey, why not do the right thing Trump? Why not benefit other people in addition to yourself? They will think you are powerful if you have mercy or leave a legacy. Don't just be needlessly cruel. Meanwhile Trump is thinking about how mean Jimmy Kimmel was to him or something.
Trump also reminds me of the little kid in the Twilight Zone episode It's a Good Life. Everyone around him has to butter him up all the time to try to reduce the amount of horrible evil things that he does.
Archived Link
This all reeks of apologia and propaganda.
It seems to me to be a fairly well-written 3000 words of analysis on the current state of American nationalism, followed by about 1000 words of recommendations for the administration. While perhaps the author could be criticized for ascribing more deliberate action on Trump's part, as opposed to random lashing out, which parts seem to be apologia and propaganda to you?
The author seems to love the "great man" theory of history, and ascribes to the targets of the article - Putin, Trump, Xi, Modi, and Erdogan - the notion that they are "strong leaders" of "proud civilizations". Not as, y'know, autocrats and tyrants. Even when the article touches on autocracy, it does not do so with a critical eye; there is no analysis of what it means to live under autocracy, only that they exist.
It's not clear to me whether the author understands what, in many circles, the term "globalist" means. In right-wing circles within the USA, "globalist" is often used as a euphemism for Jewish people. This acts as a dog-whistle to the next point:
... "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites" is not defined, other than as a vague hand-waive. These terms taken together often imply people of color within left-leaning areas. These points taken together imply that the author could be acknowledging that under Trump, we are moving away from a multi-racial and multi-ethnic democracy towards a white supremacist autocracy; but the author never actually states as much. And I believe that if people are paying attention, that is absolutely where we're headed - we're seeing it at every level of American government, what with the "elimination" of "DEI", the revoking of rights for LGBTQ+ people, the removal of accessibility for people with disabilities ... it's ethnic cleansing. It's eugenics.
The author does not acknowledge any of this. They could be viewing these points as unimportant to the thrust of the article ... which ... fine, okay, I suppose. But the article is absolutely falling over itself with praise of these autocrats, while denouncing the "weak" democracies:
The article is decrying the weakness of multi-national confederacy and promoting the perceived strength and reliability of autocracy.
This ascribes forward-thinking that does not match what Trump did in 2017-2020, let alone what he's doing now.
Trump is threatening allies and the international order; it is not the same as "not shying away from conflict." Similar to how he threatened nuclear strikes in 2017-2020.
The fact that this article uncritically discusses Barry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan, and refers to their views and efforts as "decades-long conservative tradition", is unintentionally damning and quite indicative of where the author is coming from. They absolutely do resemble the American Conservative tradition, insofar as it is heavily, and I mean heavily, laden with white supremacy and racism at its core. But again, this is not mentioned - nor is it mentioned just how racist Trump is. Instead, the article states that
Who are "liberal elites and foreign-policy experts"?
Again, the article is downplaying the autocratic, tyrannical actions of these rulers and ascribing their actions as an "inability to stand still", and "sharing an appreciation of foreign-policy limits". As if breaking international order and law is just "testing the limits".
The author believes that the world is un-American, despite the fact that the world order has largely been set by American policy for decades. We have allies whose foreign policy is shaped by and with us (e.g., NATO). For Trump to be pulling away from such alliances and towards cooperation with other entities that are specifically anti-American (e.g., Putin's Russia) ... I have no idea how the author takes this view.
The whole above paragraph is quite telling. First Turkey helped Azerbaijan ethnically cleanse Armenians - it was not an "expulsion", and stating it in that manner is trying to soft-sell reality. "Turkey established itself as a military presence in Syria", followed by "Erdogan does not aim to keep Syrian territory in perpetuity" ... time will tell, but militaristic autocrats often don't just give land back. Just look at Putin's Russia.
Trump is a Russian asset, either literally or as a "useful idiot". It is not hard to explain or see this. He acts from self-interest, and while the above paragraph does seem to recognize this, it does so in a manner as to explain "Trump the Strong Man" rather than "Trump the Compromised".
This is revisionist history, considering Trump openly declared Jerusalem as the recognized capital of Israel.
Again, this reeks of revisionism. He may have been a "typical Republican", but the damage he wrought to The United States is still rippling today. If that is a "typical Republican" then such glowing terms should not be constantly applied to Trump. Claiming Trump "struck no deals with Russia" disregards almost everything he said about Putin and Russia for the past 10+ years. He may not have struck "USA deals" with Russia, but it's not as though he took, or takes, a hard stance against them.
This is ignoring the very, very obvious racism behind the whole idea of that wall. It was not about territorial sovereignty.
Trump is already losing Europe, in large part because of his continual overtures to Russia. Trump is doing incredible damage to the United States' standing with the world, and in particular he is destroying our credibility with our allies. These actions make sense if one takes the view that Trump is compromised by Russia - which the Mueller Report laid out fairly clearly, and Trump's own actions continue to reinforce.
It is hard to see how anything Trump is doing is "improving a deteriorating international situation". It is certainly hard to see how him absolutely destroying the US government's institutions is going to result in a "better status quo". Again, who does the author think Trump is?
Promoting Russian interests will not do that.
Has Trump shown any inclination towards helping to create stable government in Syria? Particularly considering how this author views Trump's views of the USA turning away from its international responsibilities, it's hard to see Trump giving any particular damn about Syria. Which is supported by the next paragraph:
Again, the author seems to view increased diplomacy with Russia, China, et al as somehow more worthy than with Europe at large, or other non-authoritarian regimes.
I've seen nothing from Trump to suggest he is capable of deft management of tension and conflict.
I fail to see the United States as a "start-up", and fail to see any upside in viewing us in that fashion. And what's more, Trump is bad at managing businesses, so he's not even talented as a leader of a start-up.
The whole paragraph detailing how Trump should approach Russia and Ukraine is baffling to me. He talks about how the USA should focus on protecting Ukrainian sovereignty, but Trump has shown no interest in supporting that. He told Zelenskyy to "move fast" and establish peace with Russia before he doesn't have a country anymore. Trump believes that Ukraine started the war. Under Trump, Ukrainian sovereignty will only be more threatened.
This entire chunk of the article flies in the face of what the author cited as Trump's prerogative earlier - that he's a strong man throwing out traditional alliances. Why would someone intent on defying our alliances seek strength in them?
How on earth does destroying the US government, threatening its own citizens with deportation, abolishing long-standing norms and civil protections, and upending everything we've known for decades "leave the United States better off"?
This author seems to have a deep-seated appreciation for autocrats and "strong men", and honestly seems to relish Trump as a dictator.
@fal touched on this a little, but I wish you had engaged with this article in good faith. I don't take any issues with the fact that you disagree. Not in the slightest. If you'd left it at "this guy is whitewashing Trump's policies and here's why," I could get behind it. But stuff like "it's not clear whether the author understands what globalist means, in right-wing circles..." is totally unfair to the author. He has a PhD from Harvard and served in the senior ranks of the US's department of state under Obama. He is clearly a smart, well-informed guy.
There are plenty of smart, well informed people who also, intentionally or not, use loaded language.
I fail to see how me reading the article in full, but disagreeing with it and explaining why, is somehow not acting in good faith.
I think maybe "good faith" was the wrong term to use, because it implies you were acting in bad faith, and that's understandably how you took it. I think it's more accurate to say that I wish you had come from the assumption that the author had noble intent.
I don't have any issue with you disagreeing. Where I think you're not assuming that the author had noble intent is where you're reading antisemitism into the below sections, which were written in an article about politics in Foreign Affairs, an extremely well-respected journal (which happens to be published by a board with a Jewish chairman).
I wouldn't have brought it up, but since you mentioned that you may be too online... I don't mean this in an impolite way, but yeah, I think that's probably fair. I really struggle to see how the quoted sections could be interpreted as antisemitic without the lens of the sort of...trauma that spending too much time on the internet can bring.
(I recognize that you specified that you're not accusing the author of including loaded language intentionally, but when you're also saying things like the below, I think we can both agree it's fair to say that you're implying the author is problematic.)
Again, I'm not sure why I have to assume an author has "noble intent" behind an article that seems to have blinders on regarding Trump's actions and intentions. I've explained why I believe the author is misguided here already.
And please understand, you can be Jewish and unintentionally antisemitic.
That's not really what that means, but I think we're never going to agree on this so I'm going to let it go.
Would you have taken "the author is willfully ignoring that "globalist" is an antisemitic dogwhistle to the point of dishonesty" in better faith?
Genuinely, assuming the author is ignorant or oblivious is the kinder take.
Except the author is using "globalism" in its academic context, and viewing it as a dogwhistle is a wild reach? What other word would you use to describe the integration of global culture, society and economy, especially at its greater pace following the end of the Cold War, that has since had a backlash and has been followed by a rise in nationalist movements?
Like maybe I'm crazy or biased because (doxing myself a bit here) I'm a graduate student in international politics, the same field as the author, but using "globalization", "globalism", and "globalist" like the author has are completely normal usages in this context. Like there are genuinely thousands of papers that discuss globalization without any allusion to being a rightwing dogwhistle
Taken in context of the article - the same one where the author bemoans "coastal liberal elites" - it doesn't feel like that much of a stretch.
I did hedge my language, as did DefinitelyNotAFae. Why should our opinions be dismissed out of hand?
I feel like I'm going crazy; at what point is the author "bemoaning liberals"? In the section where he mentions liberal, urban, coastal elites, the quote is literally
That's not a criticism of liberals? That's a pretty objective analysis that modern nationalist strongmen à la
Trump win their political power by appealing to rural voters?
And I feel like I'm going crazy too. That specific language is used as a dogwhistle for the right wing. If the author doesn't know that, then I'm not sure what to think.
The article is stuffed with coded right wing rhetoric. It's possible, if not likely, that I'm far too online.
It's also possible that this author absolutely loves an autocrat too.
Now, if I may ask - when he says that Trump appeals to "constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging" what do you think he means, exactly?
It's not enough to say "rural voters" because I know plenty of "coastal elites" that love traditions, and I think everybody wants to belong.
Literally anything could be a dog whistle for the right wing. 'Urban' is a dog whistle - is a sociologist secretly right wing when they talk about urban populations? The Roman empire is a dog whistle - are architects secretly right wing if their building is inspired by Roman architecture? A historian discussing 'deus vult'? A mathematician for using the number 88? An economist calling OPEC a cabal? He's a political scientist with a focus on international affairs; globalization has had a huge impact on the field. Literally half of my courses deal directly or in part with the effects and aftermath of globalization. The slowdown of globalization and return of populist nationalism is a known and recognized phenomenon in the field. It is entirely normal for him to discuss globalization when discussing the rise of authoritarian strongmen in today's world. I don't want to be rude, but yes, it is entirely possible that you are far too online.
Maybe he loves an autocrat. Nothing in this article points me towards that conclusion, nor does a cursory examination of his other works (mostly analysis of the Russian government under Putin, its weaknesses and strengths, and more recently about the Russo-Ukrainian War).
I promise you that I'm not avoiding giving my opinions on Trump's constituencies - it is a complex topic and I'm on the move. I hope I can answer your claim more fully soonish.
Context rules over the discourse, and I've given my opinion on how I see it here.
I could be wrong. I probably am wrong. But I still have questions about intention here, because of context within the article.
And please, please understand that there are many well-educated, intelligent people who also happen to be racist, or at the very least have an enormous blind spot to racism. I'm not saying that this author is racist, but he's giving Trump an enormous amount of credit and credibility where he deserves none. I can't fathom how someone can view what Trump is doing as anything other than destroying the United States.
I don't really want to argue but I do want to say that sharing your expertise is not doxing yourself.
I think the context is really important here. Some random dude on Breitbart talking about "globalist Soros elites?" Yeah, I totally buy that as a dogwhistle.
An Obama official with a PhD writing for Foreign Affairs, though? Whose words were "...[Trump's slogans were] slogans that captured a populist, nationalist, antiglobalist spirit that had been percolating within and outside the West even as the U.S.-led liberal international order took hold and grew"?
I really, really don't think it's fair to the author to call that a right-wing dogwhistle. In full seriousness, does that actually read as antisemitic to you guys or did we get dragged into an argument over nothing? I mean he didn't even say globalist in the quote in question, he said antiglobalist!
As I said to someone else, I'm not interested in going back and forth on the take itself.
The take can be wrong but the accusations of bad faith would not have been lessened by accusing the author of deliberate omission.
It makes more sense to direct this at the person who has the take.
I've already explained why I believe it to be a dogwhistle, and even that it was likely unintentional.
Can a dog whistle be a dog whistle without intent? Since they rely on being coded behind innocuous language, remove the intent and it's just innocuous language. To convey the meaning the author wants to convey, the word choice seems appropriate and normal, so intent does not appear obvious to me.
Yes, because (as I've clearly demonstrated here) people can infer numerous meanings from otherwise innocuous language.
Once again, I pose this question that has gone unanswered throughout this thread - when the author of the article mentions "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites", who does he mean? When he mentions "constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging", who does he mean?
Somehow, trying to court "liberal elites" is always viewed as a political mistake, while the counterpart is always viewed as the political default and "correct choice." Within the context of American politics, who are the "coastal elites" that the political pundit class is referring to? It can't be Mark Zuckerberg/Elon Musk/Jeff Bezos/et al, because all of them have bent the knee to Trump and the right-wing machine.
No, where you see the language "coastal elites" used most often is by Fox News and other right-wing propaganda rags, where it is used as coded language for people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and frankly anyone that isn't white and male. And yes, I understand that those people are not what "we" traditionally consider to be "the elites" - they are not in a politically-strong position. This is why fascism is so insidious - per Umberto Eco, "Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as 'at the same time too strong and too weak'."
So, once again - I question the choice of language here, because "liberal elites" is a pre-loaded term that carries with it a lot of assumptions about the audience. Is the author intentionally throwing out a dogwhistle? Probably not. But he is accidentally speaking to that audience using their own language in ways they can interpret to their liking.
Liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites -> I'm imagining an Ivy-educated person with liberal beliefs who lives in a big city in a high-paying white collar career. No ethnicity, gender, orientation, or anything else need be applied to the definition.
Do coastal elites, defined as "elites living on the coasts" and not your definition, not exist in your mind? They absolutely exist; I run into them a few times a year. It's a useful term and one I have never seen used in a way that implied a coded language meant to attack protected minorities.
What phrase would you rather be used to describe "elites living on the coasts" instead?
Of course "elites" exist, even in my internet-addled mind. I run into them several times a year as well. You know what we usually call them?
Rich people. No coded language required.
"Elites" exist the same way that the mythical "rural voter" does. We have a default assumption of who an "elite" is (as you said, lives in a big city, high-paying career), and we have a default assumption of who a "rural voter" is (someone who lives in the sticks or on a farm, probably in the Midwest). Both of those ignore certain facets of reality - there is a huge rural population in states like California and Washington, and there's rich-as-hell people living in the middle of nowhere. Warren Buffet famously still lives in Omaha, not the largest city in the country, and still lives in the first house he ever bought.
As I said, when you take in the media I do and make yourself aware of certain coded language used by the far-right, things like "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites" start to take on a separate meaning. I've already stated that I am making an assumption about the author's use of that language, and I won't get into it again.
It seems like you're coming into the article with a preemptively negative outlook? I'll deal with the analysis and suggestions portions of the article separately. While I do agree with some of your criticisms of the article, especially those regarding the motivations of Trump (@TemulantTeatotaler and @stu2b50 have a good discussion of this elsewhere in the thread), your claims that the article is, as you say "apologia and propaganda" you seem to back up with either quotations taken out of context, or quite large leaps in logic. Additionally, in many of your points, you criticize the author for not outright criticizing Trump; however, I would argue that that isn't the point of the article, which instead is interested in analyzing the rise to power, motivations of, modus operandi, and ideological background of the style of nationalism of Trump, Putin, and the rest. Later, policy recommendations are given with these considerations in mind. If you wanted a skewering of this nationalist ideology, that's fine, but I don't think that every work written about it needs to do so.
This is about the literal first paragraph of the article, so our opinions will only diverge elsewhere, but I genuinely don't think that the author is claiming that the leaders discussed are Great Men of History; instead, as he mentions in the quote that you provide, "By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization." That is to say, the author is claiming that these leaders are using modern tools to portray themselves as great men. This isn't the author claiming they are, but rather that they are portraying themselves as such to maintain and keep power.
I don't think that its much of a leap to presume that the author, who worked in foreign policy under Obama, was a professor, writing in the journal Foreign Policy, would use 'globalization' and 'globalism' in their academic forms, not as conspiratorial finger-pointing at the Jews.
Again, I sincerely doubt that the author is interested in euphemistically referring to marginalized communities. Instead, I find it much more likely he is referring to actual liberal elites? Those who are much more supportive of globalization because they themselves benefited from and perceive themselves as benefiting from globalization?
How'd you jump to that? The "West", as defined in the article itself, was composed of the US and Europe following the end of the Cold War. With the US less interested in continuing the project of Western globalization under Trump, continuing this idea of "the West" falls to Europe and the EU, which lacks hard power (a pan-EU military), and has relatively weak leadership in the post-COVID era. This seems like pretty objective analysis, where does praise of autocracy figure in to this?
The article, again isn't a critique of modern conservative/nationalist foreign policy; it's analysis. Goldwater is barely mentioned, and Buchanan is brought up as a forerunner to modern nationalist and antiglobalist foreign policy that Trump represents. Yeah, Trump is a raging racist, but that isn't particularly relevant to an analysis of his foreign policy ideology. It would be equally irrelevant to this particular analysis to bring up that Trump is a misogynist, a felon, or any other number of criticisms.
He's literally saying this is Trump's view of the world?
I don't have much time to deal with the recommendations section of the article, so I'll come back to this today or tomorrow.
Correct, I criticize the author for not criticizing Trump. That's why I said this article is apologia and propaganda for him. My premise is that an article like this only serves to launder Trump's image as a rational leader rather than as a compromised traitor to the nation. The author is ignoring vast, vast amounts of information that inform Trump's actions.
I do not believe one should try to make an "objective" view of Trump, for the same reasons that people should not take "objective" views of Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
Regarding being a Great Man, versus portraying ones-self as one ... what is the tangible difference? If they're using the tools afforded them to "maintain and keep power", how are they not "Great Men" in the sense of being men who are dictating and guiding history? This is about the Great Man theory of history, and men like Trump, Putin, and the like are absolutely trying to mold themselves in the fashion of Caesar, Alexander, and the like.
Like who? Every time I see someone make reference to "liberal elites", there is never an actual example. And please, don't say George Soros - for all of the reasons you've dismissed, he's another bogeyman of the far-right, and he is used as a cudgel for antisemitism writ large.
This is also why I mentioned "globalists" and "liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites". The author may not be interested in promoting euphemisms ... but they're sure doing it a lot. I'm not saying the euphemistic references to racism are intentional, only that they are present and unaddressed.
The whole article reads as praise of autocracy to me, as I've explained in my prior post.
This seems absolutely bonkers to me. His foreign policy ideology is absolutely based on his raging racism, and I'm not sure how one could legitimately try to sever the two.
In what sense? He's racist against... Ukrainians and Canadians? Racist against Chinese but Kim jong Un is cool?
Racism does not require logic. In fact logic is antithetical to racism. But that doesn't really require an explanation does it?
Much of Trump's foreign policy decisions and statements come from deep racism. The man's got an extensive history of racism. To try and separate his racist views from his foreign policy seems bananas to me, particularly since the vast majority of people in the world are not white men.
Yes from all evidence it seems odd that someone would assume Trump is acting in good faith. The pattern for him is always apparently "how can I enrich myself or punish my enemies". Any of his stated goals should be met with suspicion. It's clear he lacks any basic level of concern for the negative effects of his actions.
If Trump is a Russian asset, intent on destroying the United States as quickly as possible, while he and his associates like Musk get richer from the remaining crumbs, then everything he does makes sense.
I think most of it is fine and at least a quick look suggests the author is knowledgeable and not a sycophant. The parts that put me off is the implicit acceptance that Trump wants to "leave the United States better off," that he fears nuclear war, or that he has any belief in something like "American exceptionalism" motivating him.
The evidence I've seen supports him being a narcisist who seeks praise, punishing sleights, and personal enrichment. He has a shallow understanding of geopolitics, economics, law, or really anything outside of dirty business. All evidence points to him furthering Russian interests whenever possible. The Mueller findings, Helsinki, threatening to veto sanctions until veto-proof, and really a few hundred pages of things you can point to as "this is real fucking weird unless you work with/for Putin."
It feels like the author eschews the sort of personality-driven analysis he mentions, ignoring the most obvious explanation in lieu of some hypothetically plausible game theory of irrational actors. Which would be interesting! Not very familiar but I know I've seen looks at that sort of pragmatic irrationality before. So, "Flexible diplomacy ... could pay big dividends", but that isn't what is happening, and ignoring that gets pretty close to apologia/sane-washing.
The simple explanation for Trump's handling of things like the Canadian tariffs--which are criticized by traditionally conservative academics-- is that he wants to weaken Western cooperation. Calling Zelensky a dictator with 4% approval rating and extorting/blaming Ukraine after our role in the Budapest Memorandum, scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, or things like hiring Bolton who openly called for regime change in Iran and the "Libya model" for NK isn't exactly making a case for the nuclear disarmament he is supposed to desire.
He wants to kill NATO, tank our international standing (post 1st term iirc only Russia/Israel had an improved opinion), and make concrete that the promises of the U.S. are useless at worst and have a 4-year shelf-life at best. Err, and loot the country like it was children's charity, cash-light contractor, or crypto connosieur, too.
These don't seem mutually exclusive? He wants to leave America better off than he started, because he's
a narcissist. What's more glorious than to be remembered as one of the great american presidents?
He doesn't want nuclear war, because he doesn't want to die. I don't think most narcissist are suicidal.
As for American exceptionalism, I mean, that's his entire brand.
A giant golden tomb that took a million lives to build? A QAnon-friendly FBI head who goes after journalists who say mean things about him? It's much easier to be called the God Emperor by a favored in-group than it is to actually build a legacy, just like it's much harder to build wealth than it is to say the Trump brand is worth +/- a few billion depending on what is beneficial at the time. A narcissist doesn't want to earn praise; they're owed it.
He's had two(ish) assassination attempts, so is he going to stop praising violence? Is he going to say he was wrong praising Gianforte for assaulting a journalist, or retweeting "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat"?
I think it's easy to argue the opposite of that. His brand is that America is not great, and that he's the only thing that can fix this trash, mistreated, weak country. In large part by abandoning any admirable qualities we have. That isn't the rhetoric a patriot has.
Thanks for sharing. Clash of Civilisations always rubbed me the wrong way. This article helps me in understanding why.