.jpg)
By Elizabeth A. Cobbs
Donald Trump says he doesn’t care what the world thinks of him. The whole world.
Has any presidential candidate ever exhibited such boorishness? Does it matter?
Bad manners are the antithesis of diplomacy. They weaken international coalitions essential to physical security. But then, Trump discounts the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and key bilateral treaties with U.S. allies in Asia and Latin America.
Bad manners also undermine economic security. Trump advocates the same beggar-thy-neighbor tariffs that deepened the Great Depression in the 1930s and sparked World War Two.
Strangest of all, Trump delights in offending. This would also make it hard for him to sustain friendships or cooperation with allies that are as proud of their independence - and as sensitive to slight - as Washington is.
Trump demeans Mexico by threatening to build a wall along its border with the United States. He offends France by faulting it for the “Charlie Hebdo” and concert-hall massacres. He scoffs at Germany’s “insane” Syrian immigration policy and affronts Britain by smearing critics there as panderers. He scorns Japanese and Chinese trade policies as rip-offs, and insults all Muslims, a third of the world’s population, by proposing to bar them from the United States.
Foreign nations have not accepted Trump’s disdain with the humility of losers on his reality TV show, The Apprentice. British Prime Minister David Cameron calls the New York real estate developer “divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong.” The French ambassador to the United States dubs Trump a “vulture” whose tweet about the brutal “Charlie Hebdo” attack lacked “human decency.” Many more see Trump as a threat to peace.
If global warming, global terrorism and global economic uncertainty didn’t exist, this might not matter. That’s not today’s world, however. Trump’s contempt feeds enmities that threaten Americans and poisons friendships upon which Washington relies.
The institutions that the United States helped build after World War Two are what have kept us from World War Three: the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, NATO and many more. The Great Recession of 2008 did not evolve into another Great Depression because, unlike in the 1930s, central banks around the world pulled together to prevent economic collapse. Without the grease of goodwill, the machinery of cooperation freezes.
Some commentators liken Trump to President Andrew Jackson, a populist who also stoked public anger and invited mobs with muddy boots into the White House. But in foreign relations, the analogy doesn’t hold. In 1828, the year Jackson won the presidency, there was no telegraph, telephone, television or Internet to speed news. Jackson offered no commentary on foreign affairs and no one would have known - or cared - if he had. As a young, weak country, the United States then had few speaking lines on the world stage.
Former Republican presidential nominee Barry M. Goldwater is the better comparison. Like Trump, the Arizona senator brashly wooed controversy. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” he declared at the 1964 Republican National Convention. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed mandatory Social Security contributions and commended the extreme right-wing John Birch Society. In foreign affairs, Goldwater praised atomic “brinksmanship,” suggested that NATO’s commander be authorized to use nuclear weapons and advocated “bombing the living hell” out of Vietnam. He rejected peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union.
In the tightly interconnected world of the 1960s, when the United States aspired to effective leadership of the “Free World,” the Goldwater nomination set alarm bells clanging globally.
Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev called the Goldwater candidacy “a strange phenomena.” A more forthright commentator said Russians “feel they must be on their guard more than ever.”
Allies were blunter. A West German newspaper editorialized that Goldwater would “be more dangerous for world peace than Mao Zedong.” A British editorial warned that if Goldwater tried “to put his policies into effect, the whole Western alliance could be undermined.” One French newspaper commented that the senator sent “cold chills up your back.”
President Lyndon B. Johnson welcomed Goldwater’s challenge. He knew the Arizona extremist would be easier to defeat than anyone else the Republicans could nominate. Johnson’s campaign ran the infamous “Daisy” commercial - a little girl counts flower petals as she plucks them, which turns into the countdown for an atomic bomb explosion over her head. “These are the stakes,” Johnson intoned.
Goldwater lost. Since then, no candidate has prompted such overt international controversy. Normally, foreign leaders refrain from commenting on U.S. elections, given that they hope to cooperate with whoever is selected.
Goldwater developed a more centrist position over time. Today, he would fit somewhere between Mitt Romney and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the GOP. Had he been elected, his policies might have become more sensible than his rhetoric.
The same could be true of Trump, who pledges to be reasonable in office. But Goldwater refrained from ad hominem attacks on nationalities, religions and individuals. The New Yorker has trumped the Arizonan. He has already weakened confidence in, and increased fear of, America. Rebuilding trust will complicate the foreign policy goals he has begun to articulate, including the reform of important institutions and agreements.
If elected, Trump would face animosity whichever border he crossed. Half a million Britons have already signed a petition to ban him. Trump would most likely face long odds in negotiating with foreign leaders, having already flaunted his disrespect.
Average citizens might find themselves similarly disadvantaged. The president is the face of the nation, freely chosen to represent all Americans. Trump’s election would likely place every American serving or traveling abroad in the uncomfortable position of explaining why we picked someone who disses so many.
Perhaps more important, America’s greatest successes have resulted from its ability to inspire. Since 1776, the United States has made democracy look inviting and capitalism attractive. The world has become more stable as a result. Arrogance dims the nation’s appeal as a model, and undermines faith in humanity’s common future.
A remarkable image from the 20th century was the photograph of Earth taken by American astronauts on the moon. It revealed a beautiful blue marble in the immensity of space - and reminded all peoples that the planet isn’t really that big. Getting along is important to security and prosperity.
Remarkably, Trump just doesn’t care.
(Elizabeth A. Cobbs is the author of “American Umpire.” She is the Melbern G. Glasscock chair in American History at Texas A&M University and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Follow her on Twitter at @Elizabeth_Cobbs The opinions expressed here are her own.)
Reuters
