There has been a sea change in the US’ philosophical outlook – not the whole of the US, obviously, but of an astounding majority of its population under its new president. Under Trump, the US seems to be shedding its mantle of ‘prescribed modesty’. It is flexing its muscles and letting everybody know that it is the mightiest nation in the world. It seems done with pretending to play nice. What Trump is essentially doing is refusing to play by the rules, unwritten codes of conduct that have been followed by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike, even as they did exactly what they want. In that sense, these newfound fears, because Trump is President, seem unwarranted – this status quo has been present for more than century now – a world in which the US reigns supreme and pretty much influences most global events. It’s just old wine in a brash new bottle.
The US became a super power in the early 20th century. However, in the early years it was mostly at par with the UK. It was only after the Second World War that the world truly acknowledged the financial and military might of Uncle Sam. Overall, for well over a 100 years, the US has reigned supreme. The US President, any US President, has been widely acknowledged to be the ‘most powerful person in the world’.
In the early years of its ascension as a super power, the US’ approach to its strength was very matter of fact. It was the strongest and it did not bother to conceal its strength under a veneer of false humility. They say a picture speaks a thousand words. In that case, this photo of Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill at the end of the Second World War, speaks volumes.
This photo is arguably one of the most analysed by ‘body language’ experts who conclude that Roosevelt (and in turn America) knows that he is the most important and dominant, reflected in his easy and confident stance. Churchill, representing Britain, is hunched and almost subservient, reflecting his country’s diminishing status (he was sick at the time though), and Stalin, while reasonably confident, leans in towards Roosevelt, indicating his willingness to follow the leader. While body-language analysis might be debatable, the US did know for sure by then that it could steamroll its allies and enemies and make them eventually agree with whatever it wanted, and it was blasé about it.
For example, look at one of US’ earliest and biggest acts of aggression: the myth of the Pearl Harbour attacks and US’ subsequent ‘retaliatory’ atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941, in the middle of the Second World War. The US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – towards the end of the Second World War, apparently because Japan would not surrender and the whole world wanted the war to end. However, the real reason may be a little more chilling – because it could.
With the atomic bombings the might of the US was firmly established. Over the course of the next few decades, the US would be involved in major conflicts across the world (diplomatic and/or military) and would be heavily influencing policy in almost every country (at least the ones that were in its interest). The Korean War in the 1950s, the Vietnam War in the 1960s, war against communists in Thailand in the mid 1960s, the Persian Gulf war (against Iran) in 1987-88, Gulf War of 1990-91, numerous conflicts in Africa, Bosnian war in the mid 1990s, the Afghanistan War (which is now in its second decade), the Iraq War of 2003-2011, war in North West Pakistan from 2004, Libya, and ISIL – the list is almost endless.
However, something started to change in the mid 50s – television sets and the rise of television journalism (mostly far left), the rise of the ‘flower-power’ anti-war generation (hippies) within the US who heavily criticised its involvement in the Vietnam conflict, the rise of liberal ideas, the world in general becoming more aware about injustice and raising its collective voice, the rise of the principle of ‘tolerance’, and the rise of political correctness. These developments led to the US toning down its belligerence and gradually taking on a more politically correct tone. However, what is more important is that irrespective of which government was in power in the US (Democrats or Republicans), this ‘enforced humility’ and ‘obligatory political correctness’ was largely lip service! The US pretty much continued to do whatever it pleased.
It has been known to take a stance, usually in line with liberal ideas, while doing things counter to that rhetoric. The more the liberal press criticized America, the more ‘diplomacy’ it began to practice. Here are few of the things that the US has been criticised for, even while it was outwardly becoming ‘sensitive’ to the world’s problems.
• Making statements supporting peace and respecting national sovereignty even as it carried out military actions (Grenada, provoking a civil war in Colombia to break off Panama, Iraq)
• Advocating free trade while protecting its local industries with import tariffs
• Advocating concern for human rights while refusing to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Publicly opposing torture while, well, Guantanamo Bay
• Voicing concern about narcotics production in countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela, but not cutting bilateral aid programs
• Supporting dictatorships with economic assistance and military hardware
• Failure to support the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
Jim Webb (former Democratic senator from Virginia, former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration) has told the media that the Congress has an ever-decreasing role in US foreign policy making, with 9/11 precipitating this change. It is speculated that powers have shifted firmly to the Presidency, as centralised decision-making was considered best for a nation under attack where decisive action was frequently necessary. However, even before Jim Webb’s observation, it was fairly well known that US Presidents have a lethal weapon in the form of ‘executive orders’ to push their will in the face of dissent from the Congress. Executive orders DO NOT need the Congress’ approval to take effect, but they still have the same legal weight. So far, Trump seems to have used executive orders to show voters that he has a strong intention of following through on his election promises. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record of having issued more than 3,500 executive orders between 1933 and 1945, followed by Wilson, Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt at 1,803, 1,203, and 1,081. Obama issued 276, Bush (Jr.) 291, and Clinton issued 364! Trump has issued about 12 so far. The only real deterrent to Trump’s executive orders as of now is if the Supreme Court finds such orders unconstitutional.
Even so, none of this is new. The US and its Presidents have pretty much forced their will on the rest of the world through most of the last century – for both inward-looking and outward-looking policies. With Trump coming from a non-political background, and refusing to follow well-established political etiquette, it might seem that he is doing something outlandish. However, what he is essentially doing is simply not sugar coating anything anymore. It is also possible that his policies will tend to focus on repairing and restoring his country to what he believes was its former glory, rather than focusing outwards – it’s too early to say. What is for sure is, nothing is really too different from what it was before January 20th, 2017. The world is just the same, just a whole lot less PC.
Subscribe to enjoy uninterrupted access
