Donald Trump's 'Mad Man' Theory Of Foreign Policy
Trump loves to claim his unpredictability deterred aggression when he was president...it didn't.
The two biggest crises to hit the U.S. in the past 25 years have two big things in common: 1) Both 9/11 and the Covid-19 pandemic happened on a Republican president’s watch; and 2) in both cases, there was general, bipartisan agreement that we as a society would not blame the president for the crisis, despite the fact that keeping the nation safe from harm is among the top criteria by which a president usually is—and should be—judged.
Their responses to the crises, of course, are fair game and have already confined Bush and Trump to the basement of any presidential ranking list. But even with a damning presidential daily brief that came to light demonstrating that the Bush administration should have been on high alert, and indications that Trump got a much earlier heads up about the existence and spread of Covid than previously known, judgments of the two men’s presidencies have largely focused on their responses to the crises, not the fact that we had the crisis in the first place.
Oh, how times have changed.
Today, with the presidency in the hands of a Democrat, not only is any crisis here at home placed firmly at Biden’s feet, but so seemingly is every crisis around the world. To hear Trump and his Republican defenders tell it, Biden is to blame for both Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’ attack of Israel. And by extension, so the theory goes, neither would have happened if Trump were president.
Here’s how Trump tells it:
“When you think of it, how important elections are, you'd have millions of people alive right now. If the election wasn't rigged, they'd be alive. Ukraine. Israel. The attack would have never been made. All these people would be alive. The cities would be thriving."
For Trump, it’s a two-fer: spread his 2020 Big Lie PLUS present an unprovable counterfactual that Joe Biden’s election caused these two major international crises and that they never would have happened with Trump in the White House.
In today’s piece, I’ll dig into this bonkers Trump talking point and discuss why it’s yet another classic example of a Trump accusation actually being a confession.
In Trump’s Brand Of Fan-Fiction, He’s The Hero In Everyone Else’s Story
We all know Trump’s tendency to take credit for every success, whether or not it’s earned, and to place blame for each failure on everyone else, even when the responsibility really is his.
But this rewriting of history with unprovable counterfactuals is a less appreciated habit of Trump’s.
It’s one thing to cast yourself as the hero when you’re actually in a position of power. But to write yourself into the story as the hero when you’re not even a character is a level of narcissism that really only Trump achieves.
There’s a classic recent example of this from January. Trump took credit for the soaring stock market under Biden, based on the twisted logic that since polling had him ahead, the market was pricing in a Trump win and rising accordingly:
Setting aside the logical fallacies underpinning this, it’s funny how Trump is conveniently silent on the days the stock market dips.
But this was hardly Trump’s first foray into this sort of revisionist fiction. During his first run in 2016, after trying to get under Jeb Bush’s skin by flirting with blaming his brother for 9/11, Trump even cast himself as the hero of 9/11:
“I would have been much different,” Trump said. “I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I’m extremely tough on people coming into this country. I believe that if I were running things, I doubt those families would have — I doubt that those people would have been in the country.”
Again, putting aside the holes in logic…hoo boy.
And now, in 2024, Trump is somehow the hero of both Ukraine and Israel.
During an interview last year, Trump tried to lay out this theory:
“President Putin, he would’ve never gone in if I was President. Never. Not even a chance.”
“Why do you say that?”
“I know it. I know it. And you know why…He didn’t go in [when Trump was President]”
This is a far cry from his cheering on Putin in the invasion’s early days, as the interview host reminds us:
“Somewhat counter to Trump’s bravado on Putin, at the early stages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump had actually praised the Russian leader, saying that Putin declaring parts of Ukraine independent as ‘genius,’ ‘smart,’ and ‘wonderful.’”
Despite this clear flaw in Trump’s logic, many on the right have predictably adopted this claim as their own.
Trump Defenders’ “Madman” Hot Take
In the above interview, Trump is asked why he would have deterred Putin from invading, but Trump doesn’t even offer a rationale.
He simply says:
“You’ll have to figure that out. You know what, you’ll have to figure that out.”
But Trump’s defenders have their own hot take on how Trump supposedly did—and will again—deter foreign incursions, even halfway around the world: because he’s kinda crazy.
Here’s how conservative host Rich Lowry once put it on Twitter:
Here’s a similar take by Trump fan Pradheep Shanker, MD:
And let’s not forget Trump sycophant Hugh Hewitt:
These are variations on the “Madman Theory” of foreign policy, which essentially posits that Trump’s unpredictability and perceived (and actual) instability are somehow beneficial to our security on the world stage.
As The Conversation puts it:
For Trump’s supporters it is his unpredictable and risky nature that has led to some of his biggest foreign policy successes. To his detractors he comes across as dangerous and unpredictable.
Trump certainly has leaned in to the “madman theory” of foreign policy – the idea that an unpredictable and irrational leader would have an advantage in international bargaining.
The theory originated with President Nixon, as a genuine deterrence strategy during the Cold War:
Nixon reportedly claimed that he wanted his adversaries to think that he was so obsessed with communism that he could not be restrained – and would even be crazy enough to start a nuclear war, forcing his enemies to beg for peace.
But as deployed by Trump, it’s…a mess.
Again, from The Conversation:
In Trump’s case, he led a country with tremendous military power, but rather than being strategic and calculated like Nixon, he has been described as impulsive, ad hoc and incompetent.
When it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine for example, this notion that Trump served as some deterrent and would do so again when it comes to Putin falls apart at the slightest scrutiny.
Not only was Trump deferential to Putin, even famously publicly siding with him over U.S. intelligence at the 2018 Helsinki summit, but Trump was a useful idiot for Putin’s expansion project as he actively spread anti-Ukraine propaganda and undermined NATO, even threatening to leave it.
Even Trump’s own former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, debunked the notion that Trump served as a deterrent to Putin during a Newsmax interview:
In the exchange, Newsmax host Rob Schmitt brings up the sanctions the Trump administration imposed on Russia and tries to make the Trump “madman” case and is instantly shut down by Bolton.
“He took a very tough stance against Russia, I’m surprised you don’t think he would’ve handled this better than Biden.”
“He did not. He did not.”
“How did he not?”
“In almost every case, the sanctions were imposed with Trump complaining about it and saying we were being too hard. The fact is he barely knew where Ukraine was. He once asked John Kelly, his second Chief of Staff, if Finland were a part of Russia.
“It’s just not accurate to say that Trump’s behavior somehow deterred the Russians. I think the evidence is…”
“But then what did?”
“Russia didn’t feel that their military was ready.
As Chris Hayes succinctly summed it up:
Trump helped legitimize Putin, elevate his status in the world stage, undermine NATO.
So, when Republican politicians say that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine under Trump, they are probably right but for the wrong reasons. Putin likely would not have invaded because he did not need to because Trump was his ultimate gift doing everything Putin himself wanted to do, elevating Russia, denigrating NATO, delegitimizing Ukraine.
Without him in the White House, Putin took matters into his own hands, invading Ukraine, putting the country once again at the center of U.S. politics.
You can watch Hayes break it down below.
How Did Donald Trump Make The World Less Safe As President? Let Us Count The Ways
The record is clear: Far from an asset, Trump’s leadership style on the world stage was a detriment to our nation time and time again.
How so? For Foreign Policy Magazine, “the list is long”:
quitting the Paris Climate Accords,
dismantling the Iran-nuclear deal,
withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council,
threatening to withdraw from NATO and the World Health Organization
engaging in a bizarre back and forth with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, which resulted in a series of “love letters” between the two.
Back in October 2020, CNN’s UK and European Policy Editor Luke McGee made the point in his analysis titled:
“Four years of Trump has made the world less safe, and the damage might be irreversible”
For McGee, it’s Trump’s embrace of dictators that best demonstrates his “disdain for democracy” and undermines America’s strength:
He has called the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia a “friend of mine” who is doing a “really spectacular job.”
He has called North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un a “real leader” with whom he gets on “really well.”
He congratulated Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan on electoral triumphs that were declared by international electoral observers to be lacking in genuine competition and not fought fairly, respectively.
Trump has shown little interest in taking autocrats to task, even for grievous abuses. When journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by a Saudi hit squad, Trump gave the Crown Prince a pass, saying the Middle East was “a vicious, hostile place.”
After Russia meddled in the 2016 US election, Trump repeatedly refused to condemn Putin.
And at a G7 summit, Trump reportedly referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi – a key US ally long accused of human rights abuses – as “my favorite dictator.”
McGee sees Trump’s love of dictators as hand in hand with his contempt for the Western world order. It not only signaled a clear tendency toward unilateralism but also undermined efforts at multilateralism for presidents that followed him.
In a piece titled Trump’s ‘Madman Theory’ Isn’t Strategic Unpredictability. It’s Just Crazy, Foreign Policy Magazine lays out the central problem with Trump’s brand of “madman” diplomacy:
[U]npredictability isn’t a strength. For a great power such as America, it’s a recipe for instability, confusion, and self-inflicted harm to U.S. interests abroad…
If Trump wants America to remain a dominant power, and wants others to respect American interests around the world, he needs to bolster American credibility. This requires a good measure of predictability, not the attitudes of an unpredictable rogue state.
So while Trump may credibly be called a “madman,” there’s a reason dictators like Putin are rooting for another Trump victory.
They know that—just as it did for four years when he was president—Trump’s position on the world stage weakens the U.S., it does not strengthen it. And that’s precisely what Putin and his ilk are hoping for.
His policies were knee-Jerk, constantly back walked, alternate fact 'splained garbage. IMO only six things he actually accomplished were tax breaks for the rich, caging of kids, stacking the Courts with incompetent judges*, inviting an Insurrection and getting impeached twice. Everything else was double talk, lies, theft...did anyone confirm that Israel got their priceless artifacts back that he took? We know we didn't get everything back that he stole from US...*see FL docs/dox case where Cannon had witness statements posted for public consumption, egging on intimidation.
Great essay that gets right to the point. I can't even imagine what would have happened if Trump had actually won the 2020 election - it's the stuff of nightmares. Trump is not someone who has any knowledge of foreign affairs and does not want to learn.