Realism, Not Rupture: A Critical Response to "Donald Trump Will Upend 80 Years of American Foreign Policy"

 

   This article is adapted to: The Economist issue week’s cover | Jan 18th 2025 Edition 

    From the rise of nationalist movements in Europe to the assertive foreign policies of major powers like China and Russia; often referred to as  'revisionist states', competition and self-interest increasingly define the international landscape. The liberal belief that unity is possible in the global arena through cooperation, tolerance, and institutions promoting peace and governance, seems to be failing to hold the center. Recent developments strongly indicate that 'Realism' remains the best predictor of future policy positions politically and otherwise. 'Realism' as a paradigm in politics and international relations provides a quite plausible yet simple lens on alliances, wars, hindrances and cooperation, imperialism including other various political phenomena. It does so by simply acknowledging the fact that social interactions like politics and international relations are fundamentally driven by the pursuit of power and self-interest, therefore proposing the thesis that states act primarily to ensure their own survival and maximize their power relative to others. This to me seems to be the best plausible way to understand and describe what has characterized the seismic shifts in global power and relations.
    Having followed events keenly during Donald Trump's election, I noticed that the 'left'— the Democratic Party, consistently characterized his election campaign as an assault on democratic values. Now I would want to remind the World that given the increasingly fragmented nature of contemporary politics, the realist approach provides a pragmatic model of understanding and negotiating the intricacies of politics and international relations. The idea that states can cooperate in a concordant manner based on shared values and institutions is increasingly faced with the fact of power politics and national interest. As Tim Dunne says, "Realists claim to explain the world the way it is rather than the way we want it to be. The power-maximizing behavior of human beings and their interests of fear, honor, and profit shows the universality of realism."
    In its essence, the World witnessed the signing of the so-called 'Executive Orders', which are a fundamental shift in American foreign policy. This is indicative of the 'realist resurgence'—the modern realist revival within U.S. domestic and foreign policy and a precise expression of the realist renaissance. Trump's policy, faulted as unilateral and de facto isolationist, is actually a pragmatic reaction to the anarchic nature of the international system and to the inheritance the Biden administration has received. By His focus on national interest and economic security, Trump's policies emphasize the realist view that states have to act primarily in terms of their own self-interest if they are to survive and thrive. 'Self-help' is the basic principle of state action in an anarchical system, each state actor is charged with ensuring its own good and survival.
    To give context, The Biden presidency was also confronted with unprecedented economic challenges, that included trade deficits and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Trump's realist approach, by comparison, revolves around the re-negotiation of trade treaties to the American advantage, including the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) in place of NAFTA.  Therefore in terms of 'policy responsiveness', Trump's efforts are a quest to protect American industries and American jobs, consistent with the realist dictum that economic security underpins national power. That is why Trump and His camp are emphasizing "America's strength" as a means to "lead to peace with China.". More so, Biden's administration had continued to have military interventions and overseas deployments, which most realists would consider as overextension. 
    This also explains why Trump's policy of reducing troops in war zones such as Afghanistan and Syria is a strategic adjustment in the context that it focuses on immediate national security interests at the expense of extended foreign involvement. This is in line with the realist expectation that the military is to be spent sparingly for the defense of essential national interests. Therefore such a policy stance highlights that in world politics, all states have a vital interest in survival, and that is a prerequisite for realizing all other goals.
    Reserved on the possible implications and outcomes, in an anarchic international order, states must navigate an arena of constantly shifting power relations. Trump's withdrawal from multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal is based on the belief that these agreements did not adequately serve American interests. In reasserting national sovereignty, Trump is aiming at the assurance that international obligations would not come at the expense of domestic agendas, thereby rejecting universal values such as allowing "China and Russia to dominate" institutions like the UN for their own purposes. 
    As to the preference for 'Bilateralism' over 'Multilateralism', realists have often argued that bilateral agreements are more effective than multilateral ones because they allow for easier negotiation and enforcement of terms. Trump's preference for bilateral trade agreements and one-on-one dealings with other countries, like North Korea, is a textbook example of this realist principle. These operations project the belief that states should seek international relations on their own terms, thus maximizing their strategic advantages. Hence realists see a balance of power as essential to the protection of the sovereignty of states. If a State's survival is threatened by a preponderant state or combination of states, such a state should form alliances to maintain balance—equilibrium.
    Now there are also domestic foundations to Mr Trump's Foreign Policy (FP), and here 'Economic Nationalism' comes in strong. Trump's focus on 'America First' policies is alive and well to the realist principle that a strong domestic economy is paramount for national power —though their legitimacy and success rest on Mr. Trump's awareness of the 'Responsive Trap'—which is the paradoxical situation that threatens all democratic governments, as in their bid to be responsive to societal demands, and end up accumulating more and more policies and regulations leading to 'bureaucratic burdens'. Using tariffs and promoting domestic and manufacturing, Trump seeks to reduce dependency on foreign economies and strengthen the industrial base. Such an approach echoes the realist view that economic strength is the chief cornerstone where both military and political power rest. 

   While the left 'Liberal' cries fowl as they jostle in their political caucus, trying to understand what just happened to their 'idealism'. Their inclination towards more and more progressive policies, including their focus on international cooperation and humanitarian interventions, created a political climate in which realist principles reasserted themselves with relevance. Trump's response emphasizes the limitations of idealism in foreign policy, pursuing a more pragmatic interest-based foreign policy. This "retreat from universal values" emboldens tyrants who view foreign affairs as "a trial of strength" instead It's a 'jungle'.

    Realism's focus on the anarchic international system and self-interested state action gives it a strong predictive model of state action. Trump's policies, although frequently contentious, can be explained and anticipated using a realist perspective. This predictive power gives realism a useful tool for making sense of and navigating the intricacies of international politics. The trio of concepts—statism, survival, and self-help—constitutes the basic principles of realism, with the caveat that in an anarchical international system, states will prioritize their own survival above all else. therefore I am in agreement that Trump's second term "will not only be more disruptive than his first; it will also supplant a vision of foreign policy that has dominated America since the Second World War."