[EAI Commentary] The Trump Phenomenon: The Impulsive Instinct Hidden in American Diplomatic Tradition

[Editor's Note]

Following the election of Republican candidate Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States in November, various speculations have arisen regarding the implementation of his campaign pledges on foreign policy. Na Ji-won, a researcher at EAI, argues that Trump's championed policy of 'America First' is not an exceptional phenomenon in American political history. This can be interpreted as a 'Jacksonian' tradition, and like his predecessors who espoused Jacksonianism in the 20th century, Trump is likely to eventually return to interventionism and engagement. However, the author contends that as this transition may cause confusion or increase pressure for choices, South Korea must pay closer attention to the political and economic situation in the United States.

An Unprecedented 'Trump-Style' Foreign Policy?

Taxonomy is the most basic technique for understanding the unknown. Just as modern biology developed based on Carl Linnaeus's taxonomy, the act of grouping and dividing subjects through a systematic framework of knowledge is the beginning of science. In this regard, the attempt to understand and predict the direction of foreign policy, among other policies, that Donald Trump, the President-elect of the 45th United States, will pursue during his term, through taxonomy, is by no means futile. As many experts point out, Trump, a 'political outsider,' is an unknown entity with no track record to aid in predicting his policies, and his signals are mixed.

Although the contours of the domestic and foreign policies pursued by the Trump administration are beginning to emerge as the cabinet selection process progresses, it remains uncertain at what point Trump will find a balance between rhetoric and practice. Amidst this uncertainty, the most reliable and secure first step would be a process of typification, identifying commonalities and differences by comparing with the most similar cases. So, what position does he occupy within the flow of American political and diplomatic history?

Throughout his campaign, Trump repeatedly emphasized the image of the United States being taken advantage of and ripped off by the international community. While experts dismissed and criticized Trump's diagnosis, American voters responded enthusiastically. The country he particularly targeted on foreign policy issues was China, which is emerging as a potential competitor to the United States. The message Trump consistently conveyed regarding U.S.-China relations was that the U.S. is always being 'ripped off' because China abuses America's goodwill and generosity. In particular, he frequently employed rhetoric contrasting China's 'smart and shrewd leaders' with America's 'weak and incompetent leaders.'

Alarmingly, Trump's aggressive remarks also included America's allies and friendly nations. His pledge to build a "big, beautiful wall" on the southern border and make "Mexico pay for it," while stating that Mexico is sending "a lot of problems," was so famous that it was parodied in many places. Furthermore, he appealed to the sense of victimhood among the American people by claiming that long-standing allies such as NATO, South Korea, and Japan were also exploiting America's goodwill and freeloading.

Trump's aggressive and self-righteous foreign policy pledges and remarks, which spared neither friend nor foe, drew even indirect criticism from former President George W. Bush and his associates, who were criticized for their unilateral and dichotomous foreign policy. So, is the 'Trump phenomenon' an unprecedented anomaly in American political history? In fact, looking back at American history, Trump's emergence and the enthusiasm for him are not an exception but can be seen as a facet of American political civilization that intermittently erupts. And interestingly, its roots are not shallow at all.

Trump's Predecessors in History: The Jacksonian Tradition

In July, The New York Times defined Trump's foreign policy as 'fortress conservatism,' suggesting it aligns with the worldview of the white working class, which seeks to isolate itself from the outside world and focus solely on defending America's security and economic superiority. What is interesting is that his espoused American exceptionalism, protectionism centered on manufacturing, and nationalism based on white supremacy were already political slogans presented by different individuals in different eras of American political history.

In other words, 'America First' was championed by figures like Douglas MacArthur and Charles Lindbergh, who are well-known to us; concerns about the decline of manufacturing and protectionism were advocated by businessman Ross Perot, who ran as an independent presidential candidate in 1992; and strong law and order based on racial discrimination was a platform of George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama. However, what distinguishes Trump from them is that he is the 'final boss' who has combined all these extreme ideologies. In other words, Trump embodies the most extreme foreign policy ideology that American political institutions and civilization can produce.

This implies, on the one hand, that the 'Trump phenomenon' or 'Trumpism' should be accepted not as an 'abnormal' event that cannot occur in American politics, but as a rare but normal occurrence within the range of possibilities. In this sense, the 'Trump syndrome,' characterized by the series of events resulting from the combination of Trump's pledges and public enthusiasm, can be interpreted as the so-called 'Jacksonian' tradition within American political thought, which strongly appeals to populism and nationalism.

This political view, originating from the name of Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the United States, appears isolationist on the surface, as it opposes any external expenditure of national power for causes such as the spread of democracy. The strong driving force behind this isolationist path is the public's anxiety due to economic crises and the general public's aversion to foreign interventions, which come at a high cost when the economy is unstable. Isolationism, economic prioritization, and populism, all grounded strictly in American national interest, converge at this point.

The reason this political line was initially named 'Jacksonianism' is that President Jackson, as the second-generation Irish immigrant and orphan, was the first president to reject elitism and promote a commoner image. The mainstream media described him as a "clumsy president." After his inauguration, when Harvard University attempted to award him an honorary doctorate, his political opponents attacked him, saying, "How can a man who doesn't know how to spell be a doctor?" In every respect, he was a symbol of American populism.

Populism, which dictates that one should only focus on creating a strong America where its citizens prosper, manifests in foreign policy as isolationism, showing no interest in spreading universal values like democracy or ensuring free trade, or maintaining relationships with allies. In his speech on April 27, Trump clearly expressed his opposition to foreign intervention for the spread of democracy, stating, "It is a dangerous idea that we can democratize countries that have no interest in democracy and have never experienced democracy." His failure to mention human rights issues in Asia, unlike Hillary Clinton, also reveals his stance that foreign policy should not be judged by ideology or values.

However, on the other hand, due to a strong belief in a 'strong and always victorious America,' Jacksonianism advocates for the unconditional punishment of external forces that oppose it in unfair and contemptible ways. This is the moment when selfish isolationism transforms into aggressive interventionism. In this regard, Trump can be called a typical Jacksonian, as he oscillates between the extremes of isolationism and interventionism. For instance, a statement opposing Trump released on March [date] by 121 Republican foreign policy experts pointed out his inconsistency, stating, "He oscillates between isolationism and military adventurism within a single sentence."

Experts point out that Trump's assertion that allies are profiting from the U.S. market while the U.S. expends its national power defending allies like South Korea and Japan is illogical and far-fetched. However, as the repercussions of the Bush administration's intervention in the Middle East continued into the Obama administration, and as American voters, particularly manufacturing workers, did not significantly feel the effects of economic recovery, a strong skepticism has spread throughout American society about the necessity of the U.S. expending vast resources and enduring criticism to guarantee the security of other nations.

Trump's claims have effectively tapped into those public sentiments. Although the logic may be flawed, he has consistently conveyed a contrasting image of a cunning and cowardly foreign force versus a just and strong America that is wasting its power, thereby simultaneously satisfying Americans' sense of moral superiority, their desire for strength, and their compensatory psychology for economic losses.

Tensions and Contradictions Between Global Hegemony and Jacksonianism

As mentioned earlier, in terms of foreign policy, the essence of this 'Trump phenomenon' is not an abnormal deviation but rather an 'impulse' or 'instinct' that lies dormant in American political civilization and intermittently surfaces in vulnerable moments. The problem is that this is the first time since the mid-20th century, when the United States assumed the role of leader in the international system, that a president espousing Jacksonianism, overtly represented by isolationism and populism, has emerged.

However, the U.S. has become too significant in global politics and economics to simply focus on internal matters. The world is a stage for the U.S. that cannot be abandoned, and other countries still need the U.S. Therefore, the Reagan and Bush administrations, which emerged with foreign policies similar to Jacksonianism after the two World Wars, inevitably shifted to interventionism.

The problem is that it is difficult to expect similar outcomes from Trump's path, even if it follows a similar course to theirs. The crucial variables here are the timing and trigger for the shift from (relative) retrenchment to aggressive intervention, and the nature of the competitor. Reagan's austerity during his term reversed into a renewed Cold War and arms race. While Reagan attempted domestic economic reform and reconstruction with a pledge to tackle the twin deficits, he did not and could not completely ignore foreign affairs in a situation where a firm political and economic rival like the Soviet Union existed. And ultimately, when the system competition resumed, it was the U.S. that emerged victorious. However, the result of offering conditional tolerance to the loser left behind resentment and animosity.

Meanwhile, the turning point for the Bush administration was, as is well known, 9/11. This event meant that the U.S. enjoyed its unipolar moment for literally only a moment. Moreover, the new adversary was not a state but an entity, and without accurately assessing their capabilities, the U.S. had to engage in a seemingly endless war for years. Ultimately, the front lines became deadlocked, the victory and defeat became ambiguous, and greater threats emerged.

The Trump administration faces a significant handicap in that it may have to establish another potential adversary while all these threats have not been fully resolved. Furthermore, while previous adversaries were primarily military competitors, the strongest competitor today is deeply intertwined economically with the U.S., making aggressive action potentially very costly.

Moreover, Trump's emergence, with a foreign policy more nationalistic than that of the Reagan or Bush administrations, can be seen as reflecting the fatigue of American society with accumulated international political challenges, and it could ultimately lead to a regression of sophisticated foreign policy. In this context, if foreign policy develops in a direction where Jacksonianism's typical course, namely interventionism through a decisive turning point, is revived, the uncertainties and risks that the U.S. must bear will double. The signals exchanged between the U.S., its allies, and its competitors will become more mixed, increasing the likelihood of miscalculation, and the chain of uncertainty will be amplified as the scope for alliances among existing allies widens.

Amidst Uncertainty, What Should Serve as a Guide?

Looking at the key foreign and national security appointments of the Trump administration recently revealed, it seems as if the inherent instability of Jacksonianism has already been recognized, foreshadowing an aggressive foreign policy from the outset of the term. Defense Secretary-designate James Mattis is evaluated as being "most similar to George Patton" and is a hawkish hardliner, and not only National Security Advisor-designate Michael Flynn but also David Petraeus and John Kelly, who are rumored to be candidates for Secretary of State, are former military officials. This could lead to an unprecedented situation in American history where the majority of key foreign and national security line positions are filled by former generals.

Furthermore, the paradoxical revival of Jacksonianism in a society as internationalized as the U.S. is today, in terms of demographics and economic structure, suggests the possibility of a major transformation within the U.S. itself. When Trump made disparaging remarks towards the parents of Army Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim American soldier killed in the Iraq War, during a memorial service in August, it was evaluated as a 'fatal' gaffe that overlooked the sentiments of the American public, including former and current military personnel, who emphasize respect for soldiers and patriotism. Nevertheless, his eventual election as president appears to be evidence that American society already harbors a fundamental undercurrent of animosity towards 'outsiders,' both externally and internally.

In this context, for countries including South Korea to establish appropriate foreign policies for the coming era and gauge the direction of global affairs, it is necessary to pay close attention not only to the Trump administration's foreign policy but also to its domestic policies, particularly its socio-economic policies. If the U.S. led by Trump enters a phase of military competition and conflict from the early stages of his term, the variables that will determine its endurance to absorb the shock of severed economic interdependence will be its economic situation, social stability, and technological superiority. Conversely, if the U.S. temporarily retreats from the international stage and then returns, these same variables will determine its resilience. ■

※ This commentary is a revised and supplemented version of an article originally published in 'Weekly Kyunghyang' on November 22, 2016.

〈EAI Commentary〉 is a commentary series designed to provide a platform for discourse where experts from various fields can offer in-depth analysis and policy recommendations on major domestic and international issues.

Please cite the source when quoting.

EAI is an independent research institution independent of any partisan interests. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not affiliated with EAI and solely represent the views of the individual author.