TrumpatCPAC
© TwitterThe U.S. president had some genuine insights about America’s international problems.
In a classic tragedy, the leading figure is usually a person with admirable qualities and even good intentions, drawn inexorably toward disaster by a tragic flaw. Othello is susceptible to jealousy, Macbeth is too ambitious, Hamlet cannot make up his mind, and Faust cannot resist an offer to trade his soul for knowledge and pleasure. In each case, a single flaw overwhelms their positive qualities and places them on the road to destruction.

From that perspective, it's hard to see Donald Trump as a truly tragic figure. Far from being heroic but flawed, he's just the spoiled, self-indulgent scion of a wealthy and odious father, with more deficiencies of character than one can count. Apart from a genuine gift for self-promotion, a decent golf game, and a practiced ability to connive on cue, he's decidedly lacking in other virtues.

Yet there is an undeniably tragic quality to the Trump presidency, even if he manages to avoid impeachment, jail, or permanent disgrace. Why? Because Trump did have some valid and important insights into America's current problems and he had a chance to do something about them when he got elected. That opportunity has been wasted, however, and Trump's flaws as a politician, strategist, and human being are the main reason why.

What did Trump get right? In 2016, when he called U.S. foreign policy a "complete and total disaster" and blamed repeated foreign-policy failures on an out-of-touch and unaccountable elite, he was on to something. He was correct to accuse key U.S. allies of spending too little on defense-a complaint many previous presidents had made-and right on the money in denouncing open-ended and costly efforts at nation building in places like Afghanistan. Trump and Bernie Sanders were the only candidates to acknowledge that globalization was not delivering as promised, and his message resonated with lower- and middle-class Americans who were deeply worried about lost jobs, flat income growth, and lax immigration controls. Trump also recognized China as America's principal long-term competitor and that Beijing would not stop its predatory trade practices if the United States just asked nicely. And Trump was nearly alone in recognizing that demonizing Russia was counterproductive and served only to drive Moscow closer to Beijing.

Moreover, Trump's expressed views on international affairs suggested he had a more or less realist perspective on foreign policy that might have served him well-if he had really meant it and grasped its implications. Although he was hardly a sophisticated or knowledgeable thinker on such matters, he seemed to understand that 1) international politics were inherently competitive; 2) foreign policy was not about philanthropy; 3) all nations pursue their selfish interests; and 4) foreign adventures whose costs exceed the benefits are dumb.

After his surprising electoral victory, therefore, Trump was in a position to chart a more realistic course for the country, based on some-but not all-of the positions he had taken during the campaign. Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, and much of the public would have been receptive to a foreign policy that corrected the excesses and mistakes of the past quarter-century. Had he assembled an experienced team and insisted that it follow his vision, he might have improved America's global position and won over many of his early critics. But as in a classic tragedy, Trump's vanity, stubbornness, poor taste in advisors, and other deficiencies of character have led to repeated disappointments at home and abroad.


Comment: As Trump said at the recent CPAC: "Unfortunately you put the wrong people in a couple of positions, and they leave people for a long time that should not be there. All of a sudden, they are trying to take you out with bulls**t,"


Let me count the ways.

With regard to Europe, Trump was correct in saying that Europe should get serious about its own defense and to stop relying on U.S. protection. Europe is wealthier, more populous, and spends a lot more on defense than Russia does, and there is no compelling reason for the United States to commit its own people to its defense. Accordingly, Trump could have proposed a gradual reduction in the U.S. commitment-say, over a period of 5-10 years - while making it clear that the United States wanted friendly relations with Europe and would continue to cooperate on areas of mutual interest. Indeed, Trump might even have tried to recruit Europe into a broader effort to check a rising China.


Comment: The US was willing to fund Europe's defense so long as it supported their project for world domination, and that they didn't complain about the consequences, like mass migration or being a base for nukes.


But that's not what he has done. Instead, Trump has repeatedly insulted European leaders and embraced some of Europe's most destructive political forces. He also increased the U.S. defense budget and the U.S. contribution to reassurance efforts in Eastern Europe, thereby giving NATO's European members additional reason to free-ride some more. To be sure, some NATO members have maintained their Barack Obama-era commitments to increase defense spending but not by enough to lessen their dependence on Washington. With respect to NATO, in short, Trump has managed to weaken ties with key allies without reducing U.S. burdens.

In Asia, Trump understood that China was America's primary long-term rival and it was time to get tough with Beijing about its economic practices. Unfortunately, he's pursued that goal in a singularly inept way. He started off by unilaterally abandoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal that would benefited the U.S. economy in several ways and strengthened its strategic position in Asia. Instead of lining up other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in a united front over China's trade and investment policy, Trump threatened to launch trade wars with several of them simultaneously. And in recent weeks, Trump's all-too-public eagerness for a deal with Beijing has undercut his own negotiating team, making meaningful progress on these issues less likely.


Comment: Abandoning the TPP was actually a smart move: False promises: Trans Pacific Partnership 'benefits' are strictly for the corporations


Trump is also singlehandedly responsible for the bungled U.S. approach to North Korea. To be sure, North Korea's nuclear arsenal is a problem that would challenge the shrewdest strategist, but Trump's handling of it has been a textbook case of wishful thinking and the antithesis of hardheaded realism. Experts inside and outside the U.S. government insisted that Pyongyang was not going to give up its hard-won nuclear weapons capability, which North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the regime see as the ultimate guarantee of their own survival. Yet Trump deluded himself into thinking that his personal charm and self-proclaimed skills as a "master dealmaker" would somehow persuade Kim to do something that was obviously not in his own interest. Not only did Trump miss an opportunity to make tangible if limited progress on this vexing issue, but his bumbling gave America's Asian partners yet another reason to question his judgment and competence.