Conventional wisdom often labels the actions of Donald Trump as incoherent or contradictory, particularly concerning his approach to international relations. However, a deeper political analysis reveals a distinct, albeit unconventional, theory of global power underpinning his decisions, one that departs sharply from established diplomatic norms and influences US economics.
This unique framework can be best described as a “personalist” theory of power. Unlike traditional governance that relies on complex democratic machinery, Trump’s worldview posits power as flowing directly and personally from a central figure, aimed at imposing will on the world. This perspective simplifies intricate issues, appealing to those who feel disillusioned by what they perceive as opaque and dysfunctional political systems.
For many adherents, there’s a perceived visceral satisfaction in this exercise of power. It taps into a sentiment that past global interactions have been exploitative, and Trump’s assertive stance offers a means to “push back.” This resonates by presenting a seemingly more authentic and direct engagement with reality, contrasted with the perceived artificiality of conventional foreign policy.
This approach often bypasses nuanced policy debates, reducing complex societal and economic challenges to simplistic narratives. By framing traditional liberal-democratic orthodoxy as a series of “delusions” or “abstractions” propagated by an elite, it offers a liberating alternative for those seeking straightforward solutions, regardless of their complexity.
Even in areas like international conflicts, where his initial promises of quick resolutions have faced significant challenges, Trump’s personalist lens remains evident. Rather than admitting strategic missteps, he shifts blame, subtly reinforcing the idea that external forces, rather than his intrinsic power, are at fault for ongoing humanitarian crises.
A prime illustration of this personalist theory is his implementation of trade tariffs. These policies, reminiscent of historical protectionist measures, are distinctively his own, often lacking broad economic or political support. They reflect an individual’s will being imposed on the global stage, directly impacting US economics and international trade dynamics.
The seemingly arbitrary application of these high trade tariffs on various nations, from India and Taiwan to Switzerland, suggests they function less as calculated economic strategies and more as aggressive negotiating tactics or even “reality television” teasers. They are signals of personal leverage rather than reasoned decisions rooted in a conventional economic theory or comprehensive foreign policy strategy.
Ultimately, while voters may have sought tangible economic benefits like lower prices, a more profound appeal of Donald Trump lies in this novel—yet ancient—theory of political power. It represents a rejection of established norms, offering a thrilling, albeit potentially disruptive, alternative to familiar global relations and impacting US economics in unforeseen ways. The diagnosis of societal discontent might have been accurate, but the prescribed treatment introduces its own set of significant challenges.
