I find your account quite compelling. Perhaps another way of putting it is that Trump *is* transactional, but his goals are personal – he is not really concerned with advancing America’s interests; indeed, has no consistent conception of what those interests are.
I don’t know how aware you are of the fuss in Britain over David Lammy’s remarks about Trump: in 2017, as an opposition politician, he was scathing about him; now he’s foreign secretary, the Tories have been trying hard to push the narrative that this will mean Labour can’t handle a Trump presidency. (We’ve even had Lord Ashcroft, on Twitter, trying to draw Trump’s personal attention to Lammy’s remarks, which is arguably treachery. https://x.com/LordAshcroft/status/1854475654529429834) They claim that Trump doesn’t forgive an insult.
My hunch, which is in line with what you’ve written, is that the Tories have misunderstood Trump – he can hold a grudge, but will happily forgive previous slights as long as the slighter is prepared to pay homage: cf. Vance and Musk. Lammy made sure to send Trump an early message of congratulations on his win. That’s probably what matters.
"This is a very different theory of Trump, which has some consequences for what his foreign policy may be. It suggests that his approach is not transactional but personalist."
This is the nub of the matter. It is a category error to imagine that Trump negotiates on behalf of the United States of America. Trump, whether competently or incompetently, negotiates "transactions" on behalf of Trump. L'etat, c'est lui.
I don't think this is incompatible with what you have said, if I've read you correctly. But empirically, there is a problem with attributing to him a single-minded demand for obeisance. That problem is named Vladimir Putin. It is quite clear that in the dominance game, it is Putin who dominates Trump; that is why he quickly threw Trump under the bus by denying they had the conversation that Trump claimed and publishing nude photos of Trump's wife on state TV. The point, though, is that Trump did not respond to this with hostility, but with meek acceptance.
Have you got a theory about that? I'll read it if you write it.
I think there is a transactional aspect of Trump’s foreign policy even if he is also a personalist … the transactions are monetary in burnishing the Trump corporate brand to his financial and egoistic benefit. It was remarkable how little the Democrats made of the Trump family’s financial dealings during the interregnum, but I’m suspecting we’ll see even more this time around.
How much uncertainty is there about what he would like to do in relation to NATO? He thinks it's a waste of time and money, and who is left to say otherwise to him?
This is on the right track. Trump does not have goals in policy at all. He doesn’t bother to understand key policy issues, let alone take serious policy positions. ‘The show’ is his only interest.
Sadly, many of his voters share his disinterest in policy, and find his show entertaining.
"He doesn’t bother to understand key policy issues, let alone take serious policy positions. "
From what his people have said, he is incapable of understanding complex issues and prefers simple pictures to words. Given that, it seems likely that he is unwilling to even try to learn anything, which is why his ideas are so fixed, and why he reportedly relies on what his "close friends" or influencers tell him. That he persists in thinking that tariffs are paid by the exporter despite the many corrections, is indicative of his unwillingness to learn anything, possibly exacerbated by his need to always be right. Why learn if you can get sycophants to parrot what you say as correct, and in turn get the rubes to believe the nonsense.
I find your account quite compelling. Perhaps another way of putting it is that Trump *is* transactional, but his goals are personal – he is not really concerned with advancing America’s interests; indeed, has no consistent conception of what those interests are.
I don’t know how aware you are of the fuss in Britain over David Lammy’s remarks about Trump: in 2017, as an opposition politician, he was scathing about him; now he’s foreign secretary, the Tories have been trying hard to push the narrative that this will mean Labour can’t handle a Trump presidency. (We’ve even had Lord Ashcroft, on Twitter, trying to draw Trump’s personal attention to Lammy’s remarks, which is arguably treachery. https://x.com/LordAshcroft/status/1854475654529429834) They claim that Trump doesn’t forgive an insult.
My hunch, which is in line with what you’ve written, is that the Tories have misunderstood Trump – he can hold a grudge, but will happily forgive previous slights as long as the slighter is prepared to pay homage: cf. Vance and Musk. Lammy made sure to send Trump an early message of congratulations on his win. That’s probably what matters.
"This is a very different theory of Trump, which has some consequences for what his foreign policy may be. It suggests that his approach is not transactional but personalist."
This is the nub of the matter. It is a category error to imagine that Trump negotiates on behalf of the United States of America. Trump, whether competently or incompetently, negotiates "transactions" on behalf of Trump. L'etat, c'est lui.
I don't think this is incompatible with what you have said, if I've read you correctly. But empirically, there is a problem with attributing to him a single-minded demand for obeisance. That problem is named Vladimir Putin. It is quite clear that in the dominance game, it is Putin who dominates Trump; that is why he quickly threw Trump under the bus by denying they had the conversation that Trump claimed and publishing nude photos of Trump's wife on state TV. The point, though, is that Trump did not respond to this with hostility, but with meek acceptance.
Have you got a theory about that? I'll read it if you write it.
I think there is a transactional aspect of Trump’s foreign policy even if he is also a personalist … the transactions are monetary in burnishing the Trump corporate brand to his financial and egoistic benefit. It was remarkable how little the Democrats made of the Trump family’s financial dealings during the interregnum, but I’m suspecting we’ll see even more this time around.
And what is the impact of our future president’s dementia on the analysis?
Great read.
What is the source for that "squatting tyrant" image? I would like to contact the artist to discuss a possible book cover along the same lines.
How much uncertainty is there about what he would like to do in relation to NATO? He thinks it's a waste of time and money, and who is left to say otherwise to him?
This is on the right track. Trump does not have goals in policy at all. He doesn’t bother to understand key policy issues, let alone take serious policy positions. ‘The show’ is his only interest.
Sadly, many of his voters share his disinterest in policy, and find his show entertaining.
"He doesn’t bother to understand key policy issues, let alone take serious policy positions. "
From what his people have said, he is incapable of understanding complex issues and prefers simple pictures to words. Given that, it seems likely that he is unwilling to even try to learn anything, which is why his ideas are so fixed, and why he reportedly relies on what his "close friends" or influencers tell him. That he persists in thinking that tariffs are paid by the exporter despite the many corrections, is indicative of his unwillingness to learn anything, possibly exacerbated by his need to always be right. Why learn if you can get sycophants to parrot what you say as correct, and in turn get the rubes to believe the nonsense.
I have always thought Trump’s foreign, indeed any, policy was about him and not any world view or theory. I’ve seen no reason to change that view.