Donald Trump’s lead in the race for the Republican Party’s nomination as its presidential candidate in November has caused consternation. The Republican establishment fears he will not be able to defeat former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee. However, some observers worry more about the prospect of a Trump presidency. Some even see Trump as a potential American Benito Mussolini.
Whatever its problems, the US today is not like Italy in 1922. The US constitution’s institutional checks and balances, together with an impartial legal system, are likely to constrain even a reality-TV showman.
The real danger is not that Trump will do what he says if he reaches the White House, but the damage caused by what he says as he tries to get there.
Leaders are judged not only on the effectiveness of their decisions, but also by the meaning that they create and teach to their followers. Most leaders gain support by appealing to the existing identity and solidarity of their groups. However, great leaders educate their followers about the world beyond their immediate group.
After World War II, during which Germany had invaded France for the third time in 70 years, the French leader Jean Monnet decided that revenge upon a defeated Germany would produce yet another tragedy. Instead, he invented a plan for the gradual development of the institutions that evolved into the EU, which has helped make such a war unthinkable.
Or, to take another example of great leadership, former South African president Nelson Mandela could easily have chosen to define his group as black South Africans and sought revenge for the injustice of decades of apartheid and his own imprisonment. Instead, he worked tirelessly to expand the identity of his followers both by words and deeds.
In one famous symbolic gesture, he appeared at a rugby game wearing the jersey of the South African Springboks, a team that had previously signified South African white supremacy.
Contrast Mandela’s efforts to teach his followers about a broader identity with the narrow approach taken by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. Unlike Mandela, Mugabe used colonial-era grievances to build support, and now is relying on force to remain in power.
In the US, while the economy is growing and the unemployment rate is at a low 4.9 percent, many feel excluded from the country’s prosperity. Many blame rising inequality over the past few decades on foreigners, rather than technology and it is easy to rally opposition both to immigration and globalization. In addition to economic populism, a significant minority of the US public also feels threatened by cultural changes related to race, culture and ethnicity, even though much of this is not new.
The next US president will have to educate Americans about how to deal with a globalization process that many find threatening. National identities are imagined communities in the sense that few people have direct experience of the other members. For the past century or two, the nation-state has been the imagined community that people are willing to die for and most leaders have regarded their primary obligations to be national. This is inescapable, but it is not enough in a globalizing world.
In a world of globalization, many people belong to a number of imagined communities — local, regional, national, cosmopolitan — that are overlapping circles sustained by the Internet and inexpensive travel. Diasporas are now connected across national borders. Professional groups such as lawyers have transnational standards. Activist groups ranging from environmentalists to terrorists also connect across borders. Sovereignty is no longer as absolute as it once seemed.
Former US president Bill Clinton has said that he regrets his failure to respond adequately to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, although he was not alone. Had Clinton tried to send US troops, he would have encountered stiff resistance in US Congress.
Good leaders today are often caught between their cosmopolitan inclinations and their more traditional obligations to the people who elect them — as German Chancellor Angela Merkel has discovered in the wake of her brave leadership on the refugee crisis.
In a world in which people are organized primarily in national communities, a purely cosmopolitan ideal is unrealistic. We see this in widespread resistance to acceptance of immigration. For a leader to say there is an obligation to equalize incomes globally is not a credible obligation, but to say that more should be done to reduce poverty and disease and help those in need can help to educate followers.
Words matter. As the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah put it: “Thou shalt not kill is a test you take pass-fail. Honor thy father and thy mother admits of gradations.”
The same is true of cosmopolitanism versus insularity.
As the world watches the US presidential candidates wrestle with issues of protectionism, immigration, global public health, climate change, and international cooperation, we should ask what aspect of US identities they are appealing to and whether they are educating followers about broader meanings. Are they stretching Americans’ sense of identity as best they can or just appealing to their narrowest interests?
Trump’s proposal to bar Muslims from entering the US and his demands that Mexico pay for a wall to stop migration would be unlikely to pass constitutional or political muster were he elected president. Then again, many of his proposals are not policies designed to be implemented, but slogans crafted to appeal to an insular populist mood among a segment of the US population.
Given his lack of a strong ideological core and his celebration of “the art of the deal,” Trump might even prove to be a pragmatic president, despite his narcissism.
However, good leaders help us define who we are. On that score, Trump has already failed.
Joseph Nye Jr is a professor at Harvard.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers