In his analysis of Hillary Clinton’s critique of Donald Trump’s foreign policy positions at the Washington Post, Dan Drezner provides what I think may be the best pocket summary of the incipient election to date:
Look, if you want to intellectualize the foreign policy portion of this campaign, let me suggest relying on Walter Russell Mead’s typologies. On foreign policy, this election is about Clinton uniting the Hamiltonians and Wilsonians, the Jacksonians finding their savior in Trump, and the Jeffersonians pulling their hair out in despair. But I’m not even sure that’s completely accurate.
I’ve described those typologies here. I’m a Jeffersonian (with a dash of Jacksonian).
Dan, no Trump supporter, has the same problem Hillary Clinton does. Most of the electorate are not intellectuals. And “Dangerous Donald” is a bad nickname for her to latch onto Trump. For much of the electorate dangerous is good. Particularly when the status quo is intolerable.
To some extent Trump is Jeffersonian when he is critical of NATO, but mostly he comes across as someone wanting the other members to do more. And using American economic or military power to get a better deal, whether in trade or alliance commitments, strikes me as Hamiltonian. The foreign policy establishment won’t consider it Hamiltonian because it starts with the premise that free trade is in the economic interest of the U.S., but that’s rather a value judgment. Hamilton himself wasn’t known as a free-trader.
Basically, Trump appears to be the least Wilsonian major party candidate in my lifetime.
@PD Shaw
Basically, Trump appears to be the least Wilsonian major party candidate in my lifetime.
And, he is running in the least Wilsonian election in my lifetime.
PD- Since Trump isn’t that consistent, how do you reach that conclusion? Do you believe the Trump who says he will be neutral between Israel and Palestine, or the one who goes to AIPAC and gives his complete support to Israel? The one who says he would bomb Syria and not put troops on the ground, or the one who says we need 40,000 troops there? I don’t think Trump fits any particular category, he just wants to run things.
Steve
President Obama thought he was ushering in a new era, but it turns out he is closing out one. Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of history, but she still has not figured it out yet. For better or worse, Sen. Sanders supporters will be the ascendent influence in her party.
I know. We are all racists, homophobes, misogynists, blah, blah, blah. I saw the Trump supporters lynching black men, punching Muslims, and egging Mexican women in San Jose last Thursday (06-02-2016). I need to get back to lynching, punching, and egging.
I need to get back to lynching, punching, and egging.
Just keep your powder dry and your weapons clean. That’ll do for now.
@steve, the typologies don’t proscribe particular policies, just where values are rooted and how foreign policies draw on public support. One aspect is that the Hamilton/Wilsonian types are elite, establishment approaches, while Jacksonian/Jeffersonian types are more populist. You’re basically arguing that he is a Jacksonian.
Mead: “Although there are many learned and thoughtful Jacksonians, including those who have made distinguished careers in public service, it is certainly true that the Jacksonian philosophy is embraced by many people who know very little about the wider world. With them it is an instinct rather than an ideology—a culturally shaped set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas. But ideas and policy proposals that resonate with Jacksonian core values and instincts enjoy wide support and can usually find influential supporters in the policy process.”
http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html
Trump doesn’t have a guiding philosophy — he says whatever strikes him as a good idea at the moment, with no consideration of whether it makes a coherent whole, or whether it is even consistent with what he said yesterday on the same subject.
I don’t think we have had a president who was like this.
Jackson had no respect for the judiciary, and was responsible for the Trail of Tears, so I can see why people want to make the comparison, but Jackson wasn’t wildly inconsistent moment to moment.
PD- He has some Jacksonian attributes, but can you really see him at the gun range? Courage? LOL. The guy has a few of theorist, but then he also has a few traits consistent with fascism. If someone put a gun to my head and said I had to pick one of the groups above, I would pick Jacksonian, but mostly I think he is a narcissist (probably with a lot of sociopathy) who wants to run things. It will confirm his proper place in the world.
Steve
This election is really about war. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been on a rampage, invading numerous countries for no discernible reason and achieving only death, destruction and chaos. Hillary has been at the center of most of these wars, has supported all of them, and she will continue them, possibly to the point of world war. Trump, whatever his policies might be domestically isn’t going to start wars.