Gordon L. Weil
It all boils down to “common good” versus “liberty” – the
community interest against individual interests.
In his farewell New York Times column, David Brooks suggested
that the growth of individual freedom has become an end in itself, undermining the
sense of a national community.
President Trump did not invent this development, but he took
advantage of it and nourished it. He could hate his political opponents, making
compromise impossible.
Last week, at the Munich Security Conference, the same thinking
was starkly applied to the world community.
The U.S. favors nationalism for itself and advocates it for
others. It promotes the same selfish concept
of compromise abroad as at home: we will
treat you decently if you agree to follow our demands, which are admittedly made
in our own best interests.
After World War II, the U.S., as the world’s greatest power,
became the center of the political system based on agreed rules. The so-called “rules-based order” was meant
to place agreed limits on the behavior of nations in their relations with one
another. From an American viewpoint, it
could serve to keep the U.S. out of other people’s wars.
The U.S. backed international organizations that were meant
to enforce the rules and create conditions favorable to them. The prime example was the United Nations,
created under American auspices. It also
supported the European Union that could bind France and Germany into a relationship
making it impossible for them again to war against one another.
On the domestic level, the Democrats and Republicans might
differ, but they could find compromises that met the public’s interest in
stable and reliable government. Both
parties respected the understandings that had grown up around the constitutional
system.
On the international level, the rules-based system expanded
and cooperation grew. American security
was served both by its help to others and their dependence on it for the maintenance
of the system.
Nationalism was regarded as a threat to peace and should be
replaced by joint action. This concept
faced serious challenges as nations and individuals began to enjoy the benefits
of the rules-based order and prosperity.
It was something like the person who stops taking their medication because
they think themselves cured, only to relapse.
The UN quickly faltered as the Soviet Union rejected its
influence. The EU had proclaimed
supranationalism as its goal, with nations conceding powers to a central agency. But nationalism began to grow again, keeping
Europe half-finished. In the extreme case
of Hungary, the challenge is boldly asserted.
Trump’s America First policy means that U.S. power, used to
enforce the rules-based order, would be deployed to seek American advantage
wherever it could be obtained even by force or the threat of force. The U.S. would pay only lip-service to UN
reform and scorn the EU in the hope that their national interests would return
its members to American subservience.
A year ago, Vice President JD Vance had taken an aggressive and
threatening tone in addressing the Munich conference. His approach did not work. This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio
sent the same message but sugar-coated it with meaningless and faintly racist
assurances of common outlook. His approach
did not work.
Trump had overreached, replacing leadership with menace. He became an overt fellow traveler of Russian
President Putin, Europe’s obvious adversary.
He threatened the independence of Canada, America’s neighbor and closest
ally. He attacked the EU. He freely invaded Venezuela and bombed Iran.
But the ultimate issue that told the world that Trump’s America
could not be trusted was his demand to be given or to take Greenland, part of
the Kingdom of Denmark. That country has
been a committed American ally and was willing to accept a major U.S. role in
Greenland. But Trump’s cold aggression
gave Europe a permanent chill. Rubio
could not warm it up.
The results may not be his desired world of small nations
leaving its future to the US, China and Russia.
Europe has been given the incentive to find common ground on building a
common defense under a common policy and in building a more efficient and less
bureaucratic EU.
Similarly, on the national level, Trump has also
overreached. He has lost his popularity
on all major issues but most notably on immigration, his hallmark. He mistakenly believed that opposition to
excessive immigration meant that most Americans wanted to expel immigrants who
would undermine white political domination.
His approach did not work.
At home, Trump could turn to seeking practical solutions
instead of pursing his personal agenda.
If he doesn’t, after 2028, they could begin taking his name off buildings.
Cooperation and compromise have become dirty words for
authoritarians, nationalists and the MAGA movement. They fail to understand that nations and
individuals can freely decide on acting together to pursue common interests.
