The article discusses the complexities of interpreting Donald Trump's leadership style during his first administration, particularly his rhetoric which many interpreted as not being serious or deliberate. It highlights the emergence of a 'Trump doctrine' in foreign policy, characterized by a transactional approach that minimizes the significance of history and moral considerations in decision-making. This new doctrine emphasizes practicality and financial return over traditional political values, raising concerns among lawmakers about the implications for U.S. national security and the importance of taking presidential words seriously.
When it was suggested to Democratic senator Andy Kim, he lost it. I understand people are bending over backwards to try to mitigate some of the fallout from these statements that are made, he told Politico. But Trump is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world — if I can't take the words of the president of the United States to actually mean something, rather than needing some type of oracle to be able to explain, I just don't know what to think about when it comes to our national security.
Part of the problem is that people are reluctant to imbue Trump with any sort of coherence. But a Trump doctrine is emerging, most sharply in foreign policy. It has clear features, contours, and a sort of unified theory of conflict.
First, it is transactional, particularly when it comes to warfare in which the US is playing a role. Nothing has a history or any objective sense of right and wrong.
Time starts with Trump, and his role is to end things, ideally while securing some bonus for the US. That upside is the second feature of the Trump doctrine: financialisation, or the reduction of politics to how much things cost, what is the return and how it can be maximised.
Collection
[
|
...
]