Five days before his inauguration, Donald Trump received a tense phone call to the Prime Minister of Denmark and shows that he wanted to own the Danish Self -Lapeland. In his opening speech, Trump announced, “The United States will once again consider a growing nation, and it increases our wealth, expands our lands, adopts our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag to new and beautiful horizons.” Meanwhile, he repeatedly said that he intends to take control of the Panama channel, and that Canada become an American state. During the weekend, he announced the customs tariffs and sanctions on Colombia after the close American ally said that he would not accept American aircraft full of migrants who were deported. (Colombian President Gustavo Petro fell on Sunday night, agreeing to accept aircraft.)
Trump often considered these notes on aggression and expansion recently. It is still too early to decipher what Trump intends completely for his second term, but his increasing military comments relate to foreign allies and led to questions about what the next four years could look like in terms of how America exercises power abroad.
To talk about Trump’s approach to foreign policy, I recently spoke on the phone with Greg Grandin, Professor of Politzer’s History at Yale University, and next book author.America, America: a new history for the new world“During our conversation, which was liberated for length and clarity, we discussed why Trump was not supposed to be seen as isolation, whether he had a fixed vision of the national interest, and how his statements about Panama are part of a long historical tradition.
I do not want to fall into the trap of reading Trump’s sermons closely, but is there anything different from the way Trump talks about foreign policy and foreign affairs, compared to how he was in 2016, and for the first. condition?
Well, it is clear that there is a lot of continuity, such as threats to use definitions to enhance national interests and focus on China. But I believe that what is different, and what we saw clearly in the opening title, is that although there are still a lot of notes about the affected nationalism and talking about treason, there were moments when it seemed to have been looking for more prosperity, or more activated, Seeing the nation. And what this often means in the United States is a kind of protest with borders. In the case of Trump, he was clearly linked to it not only the new boundaries in science, science or space. It explicitly linked it to the return to regional expansion. There is not a lot of lands that were left to divide them. But I think he is looking for more crying, and he believes he found it in the form of a worn border.
When was the last time an American president spoke in this way?
I would like to distinguish between the boundaries as a general metaphor, and the actual lands. The last time he spoke as a president about the border as actual lands – I mean, even I do not think that William McKinley, before going to Spain, took Cuba and the Philippines, talked about Desst Destney as taking actual lands. I think you should return to James Polly, Mexico and Texas; Select the future acquisition on new lands as a key to American prosperity, luxury and fate. Certainly after the civil war, since the United States was concluding the invasion of the West, the presidents will refer to filling our nation in this way.
Trump is a fan of Andrew Jackson, and he was often talked about as Jackson in his first term. Is this logical for you?
Yes, they made a big deal on Andrew Jackson, and there was a lot of protesting in Jackson, meaning that he was the first popular president, the first president to combat the pride. It opens the doors to the White House, allowed people to enter, and expand the privilege of all white men. But now we seem to hear more about McKinley. Trump Repeat Mountain Mountain name [the mountain was called Denali]He loves McKinley’s tariff. In Jackson, he was inhaled to one variable of American political nationalism that defines freedom as a freedom from restraint – that white men define their freedom as freedom from government control. I think Jackson is a avatar for that.
I think Mckinley is a personal picture of other aspects that Trump is now trying to expand. McKinley was the president who mainly presided over the regional expansion on the continent to the Pacific Ocean, and to the Caribbean Sea, with the Spanish -American war of 1898. At the same time, he is famous for building a huge introductory wall to help the American industry by keeping European and British manufacturers. I think Trump gets to know McKinley more in terms of definitions. I do not know how aware of the war policy of 1898.
I have a guess.
However, more importantly, the 1898 war was a qualitative leap in the justification of the war. This was the first war that explicitly fought in the name of human rights. Spain was launching such a harsh rebellion in Cuba and Portorico to the point that the United States called for human rights as one of the justifications to go to it. As the story goes, McKinley fell on his knees on the night before making his decision to go to war, and he asked God about what he should do, and God said, enter and save Cuba, Portorico, and the Philippines.
This reminds me of George W. Bush in some ways, but not at all Trump. When I was explaining Trump’s vision earlier, there were ways I thought about in Bush, but it is really very distinct, and certainly in the speech.
Yes, I think this is true. Bush was very eager, despite the deviation sometimes in the talk of cow’s shepherds, to present his vision of the global war on terrorism as a progress of liberal values, or global values, and this, as I think, was the entire new conservative project, and I think that is why many see that many From the experts, they did not come out of that movement.
Trump integrates this use of the American Authority, which neo -conservatives and George W. Bush did not have any concerns, to a more aggressive vision of national interests. You can say what you want about the old liberal system; At least, it was based on the assumption that the diplomacy starting point was that countries had mutual attention, and that cooperation was the way to follow up. Trump says the exact opposite. Trump says the international system depends on domination, to confirm the individual’s national interests. It is an older vision of international relations. I think it is a dangerous vision.
I agree. But does he have a concept of the national interest behind the lining of his pockets?
I agree that it is likely, at one level, a full seizure bag. Someone used a drunk billionaire plane image flying to Las Vegas. This is the opening. Everyone is preparing to seize what they can. Trump currency, Melania. It is difficult to treat everything that happens. I think Trump appears. I think it is clear that he is out to enrich himself and his family. In some respects, it is a vision of a kind of patriarchal capitalism that has now won, and that Trump is Patefamilias and the family is the nation.
On the other hand, though, I must say, if I go back – his Trump Times Editorial About the reason for leaving the Islah party, in 2000. It is in fact a very sane article. He has always been hostile to fighting freedom from the beginning, and it will always happen. It will always be, like Reagan as a great president. I did not like some of his commercial treaties.