Trump’s Next Level International Relations Theory Is Winning

Donald Trump may be the most strategically sophisticated president in modern American history and almost nobody is using the right framework to understand why. To get what he’s up to, you need to understand the five frameworks that every serious geopolitical analyst uses to read the world and why Trump fits none of the ones you’ve heard of. First up is realpolitik or realism. You’ve probably heard of this one. We’ve seen this represented in the works of presidents like Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush. In realpolitik, power, national interest, and practical outcomes are more important than ideology, morality, or values. Bigger countries do what they want, smaller countries have to suck it up.

We bombed Laos in secret. We invaded Panama without United Nations approval. The only question realpolitik asks is whether it serves the national interest. This is contrasted by liberalism. We’ve seen this in presidents like Wilson and FDR. Liberal international relations theory says that cooperation is possible, international institutions matter, democracy, and trade reduce conflict. So, instead of just your army, you have the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. Realpolitik says power is everything, liberalism says international systems make countries less cruel. Then neoliberalism enters the chat and it says that the world is mean and international systems work even for mean nasty states, so you engage as many of your ideological adversaries into these organizations even if they’re cruel.

We’ve seen that in presidents such as Clinton and Obama. Neoconservatism goes further. It says that sometimes you have to use your army to bring people democracy even if international organizations don’t agree. We’ve seen this in George W. Bush. Now, Alexander Wendt’s constructivism enters the chat. You’ve probably never heard of that one. It’s my favorite school of international relations thought and it’s the most modern. Constructivism says that the world is anarchy, so be clever. Get what you want, but have a good story to explain it to everyone. Influence people’s belief systems and you might not even need to send an army. Be a genius, catch your enemies off guard, make friends in interesting ways.

Nobody’s ever tried this in the Oval Office until now. Consider what Trump has done so far. He has a story about US dominance, especially in the Americas. So, he buttons up the borders and attacks the cartels on home soil. Then he arrested Nicolas Maduro and replaced the regime in Venezuela, but not George W. Bush style. He replaced the regime without a ground invasion. And while it’s not really a democracy yet, it’s kind of a placeholder for one. Next, Trump attacked Iran, but only to make them reform. He’s not taking over Tehran. Cuba’s clearly next and he wants them to stop being communist and to stop attacking the United States. Trump’s approach to international institutions is also original.

He spent years building up NATO, getting the countries there to finance their own defense, but they aren’t really part of the story in Venezuela, Iran, or Cuba, so we don’t need them. Trump doesn’t seem to hate the United Nations, but he doesn’t need them either, yet. If anything, he’s been hardest on USAID, America’s own homegrown international institution, and he’s replaced that with the State Department. All of which is under the executive branch in terms of authority. Trump is expanding America’s role in the Western Hemisphere and the world and trying to attract other nations to that story. A constructivist doesn’t want independent institutions telling America’s story. He wants one narrator.

Trump is making the most of anarchy, so I think Trump is the first constructivist president. It’s wild. In 2018, I predicted that Russia had bet its future on constructivist tactics, influencing belief systems instead of invading countries, and lost. Now, I’m watching an American president use the same framework and winning. Donald Trump is beating Vladimir Putin at his own next level game. Any international relations experts want to debate me on this one?