I was somewhat alarmed at the title of Dan Drezner’s latest piece in Foreign Affairs, “The End of American Exceptionalism”. I was relieved to learn that he didn’t actually mean “American exceptionalism” but something that has come to be associated with like a barnacle on a ship’s hull—Wilsonian foreign policy, i.e. “spreading democracy”:
Trump will navigate world politics with greater confidence this time around. Whether he will have any better luck bending the world to his “America first” brand is another question entirely. What is certain, however, is that the era of American exceptionalism has ended. Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy will cease promoting long-standing American ideals. That, combined with an expected surge of corrupt foreign policy practices, will leave the United States looking like a garden-variety great power.
The emphasis is mine.
Actually, I tend to agree with him in that I don’t believe that Donald Trump is likely to pursue as Wilsonian a foreign policy as did Biden or Obama and I agree that he and his appointees are likely to follow the same pattern as federal government officials in recent administrations. Here’s what he means:
Trump’s reelection augurs two trends in U.S. foreign policy that will be difficult to reverse. The first is the inevitable corruption that will compromise U.S. policies. Former policy principals in prior administrations, from Henry Kissinger to Hillary Clinton, have profited from their public service through book deals, keynote speeches, and geopolitical consulting. Former Trump officials have taken this to a whole new level, however.
I think it would be hard to equal the record of the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton, generally, although Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner come close. I question such largesse but I suspect it would be hard to crack down on it. I think we should be willing to try.
However, at most it will be a hiatus in our mostly futile attempts to “spread democracy”. The internationalist interventionists are not out they’re just down and will continue their possibly well-intentioned efforts in due course.
Dave Schuler: I think it would be hard to equal the record of the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton, generally, although Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner come close.
There is no evidence that the Clintons financially profited from the Clinton Foundation, unlike Trump and the Kushners. Indeed, the Clinton Foundation has had regular independent audits, while the Clintons have released decades of their tax returns. Clinton’s profited from the Foundation in other ways, of course. As with all charitable giving, the Clintons and other contributors do good while being *seen* to be doing good. Also, the Clintons and other contributors used contacts developed through the Foundation to build their political networks. That’s how charitable giving typically works.
Dave Schuler: However, at most it will be a hiatus in our mostly futile attempts to “spread democracy”.
“Spreading democracy” is counterproductive: People have to find their own paths. However, standing for democracy is not only the moral policy, but builds American alliances based on shared values and acts as a force multiplier. Bullying friendly countries to bend to America’s power will only yield a temporary advantage, and bullying will ultimately weaken America when resentful peoples assert their independence. Trumpian transactional corruption will accelerate the weakening of American power.
What makes you think that it’s only corruption if the money goes directly into your pocket? That donations to the Clinton Foundation decreased so precipitously after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election strongly suggests that the contributors thought they were buying influence. That’s corrupt, too.
Dave Schuler: What makes you think that it’s only corruption if the money goes directly into your pocket?
Donations started to drop in 2015 when Clinton announced her intention to run for president, resigning from the board of the Foundation. Of course, contributors were seeking influence by networking with the Clinton Foundation. Again, that’s how charitable giving typically works, even at the local level. It’s a selling point! Do good and be seen as doing good, and don’t forget to network at the charity ball.
Regardless, that’s an entirely different type of “corruption” to Trump or the Kushners who reaped direct personal financial benefits.
I am definitely NOT defending Trump or his family. My record is intact. I did not vote for him in 2022 and I will never vote for him. As I said in the post I’m not quite sure how you go about preventing that sort of corruption.
My solution as I said back in 2016 was politicians of higher character. I still think that’s the solution.
Dave Schuler: I am definitely NOT defending Trump or his family.
Didn’t say you were. But you were equating the Clinton Foundation with the Kushners.
Dave Schuler: As I said in the post I’m not quite sure how you go about preventing that sort of corruption.
The power of connections is intrinsic to the human condition. Financial enrichment could be constrained by law, but the US Supreme Court has made that very difficult.
We did address “spreading democracy” and the importance of shared values.
It was clear that donations to the Clinton Foundation were aimed at influence. There was no clear evidence it succeeded and the Clinton Foundation actually did some decent charitable work. The money the Saudis and others gave to Jared, the money they spent on Ivana and the money spent at Trump facilities and spent on DJT all go directly to Trump and family so it benefits them only.
Steve