Hey Dad -
You sent me this article: America vs the World, by Peter Kagan
And reading it is very helpful to describe the era of relative peace we have lived in, and that is possibly drawing to a close. The description of how extraordinary it is that so many other smaller powers in the US have given up power in order to benefit from the US’s geographically strategic advantage and military and economic power and have in return served as a network of powerful trade Partners explains a lot about the post World War era that my generation and my parents’ generation have grown up in.
We live in a miraculous world where we can travel almost anywhere and enjoy goods from almost everywhere. Though there are two other superpowers, China and Russia, it is difficult to imagine them waging extreme territorial wars without threatening a US-driven world order.
In any case, this is Robert Kagan’s perspective, and it feels pretty accurate. I don’t know much about how the current world order evolved into what it is, or how fragile it is. But it does seem like the current approach entirely stakes itself on US might and anticipates granting the other superpowers greater ability to stake territorial and resource grabs than before.
On its face, in a crude way, I can see how a naively military-driven person might want to rely on military force rather than diplomacy or economics, and I’d be curious to talk about military strategists to understand what position it will put us in to strain the network of allies that the US seems to now be cutting ties with. We are asking them to pay us, and we are no longer offering them our protection.
To a bully, it’s simpler. That’s one narrative. Diplomacy is more complex and, in raw, in-the-moment dollar amounts, more costly. Kagan makes a great point about how it’s way cheaper in the long run to maintain economic and geographic security advantages with a network of allies worldwide.
My main question is, how much of this policy is Trump’s?
I think it fits his definition of social success: beating his competitors. Whereas I think a more intelligent person would measure success by popularity and likability, because those things denote a type of social security that, in my mind, surpasses might or power. But we’re talking about the world of Tolkien at this point, and the whole point of power is that it convinces you it’s all you need.
So sure, this approach to the US position in the world does fit Trump’s personality and outlook, but who else does it benefit? Even Trump has friends. I’d like to know more about them. In the end, I don’t think Trump is stupid, but I think he is chaotic and self-interested enough that, as a leader, his effect is the same as stupidity. But I don’t think he is completely immune to the advice or influence of others, and my guess is that viewing Trump as a figurehead may actually shed a lot more light on the philosophy behind his decision-making. I want to know more about Thiel, and Bannon, and Hegseth. I want to know more about men who can buy the ear of Trump and who are far smarter than him, but get to function in anonymity. I want to understand what they believe.
Because I can believe that Trump would just throw away the valuable relationships the US has built with the world, which has made it impossible for US citizens to feel impossible. But I can’t believe that he would do so in isolation, or that his advisors would do so unless they had a plan. Could their plan be based on a philosophy as insane as accelerationism? Maybe!