By Tom Nichols
Monday, June 30, 2025
Oops, he did it again.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump had a rambling conversation with the Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. It was a typical
Trump performance: He leaned into his trademark edge-of-the-chair crouch and
spooled off long strings of words that were only sometimes on topic or related
to one another. (“They call it ‘magnets,’” he helpfully informed Bartimoro at
one point when she asked about rare-earth minerals.) But when it came to China,
Trump returned to one of his favorite themes: moral equivalence between the
United States and authoritarian regimes.
Bartiromo noted that authorities recently arrested some Chinese
nationals accused of smuggling in biological materials
that could threaten the U.S. food supply. “We don’t know where that came from,”
Trump said, waving away the arrests as possibly nothing more than the
apprehension of a few “whackos.” Bartiromo pressed on: The Chinese have hacked
“into our telecom system; they’ve been stealing intellectual property;
fentanyl, COVID, I mean, you know, all of this stuff, so how do you negotiate
with obviously a bad actor and trust them on economics?”
And then Trump went for it. “You don’t think we do that
to them?” he said with a smirk. “You don’t think we do that to them?” he
repeated as Bartiromo struggled during a few seconds of silence. “We do,” the
president said. “We do a lot of things.”
“So,” Bartiromo asked, “that’s the way the world works?”
Trump shrugged. “That’s the way the world works. It’s a nasty world.”
As a card-carrying expert who taught international
relations for more than three decades, I can affirm the president’s assertion
that we do, in fact, live in a nasty world. But as a patriotic American, I have
a bit more trouble with the idea that the United States of America and the
People’s Republic of China are just two bad kids on the playground.
In my many travels to university campuses over the years,
I have often heard that America is only one of many horrendous regimes in the
world. Usually these pronouncements came from students trying out new
intellectual clothes in the safety of an American classroom, or from radicals
on the faculty for whom anti-Americanism was a central part of their academic
credo. And I know, especially from studying the Cold War, that presidents in my
lifetime did a lot of shady, immoral, and illegal things. But I have never
heard a president of the United States sound like a graduate student who’s
woozy from imbibing too much Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.
This isn’t the first time that Trump has resorted to this
kind of embarrassing equivocation. In early 2017, then–Fox host Bill O’Reilly
asked Trump about U.S.
relations with Russia and how he might get along with
Russian President Vladimir Putin. “He’s a killer,” O’Reilly said. “Putin’s a
killer.”
Trump bristled—and rose to Putin’s defense. “There are a
lot of killers,” Trump said, with the same kind of half-smiling smirk he
deployed at Bartiromo. “We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our
country’s so innocent?”
Of course, Trump’s only consistent foreign-policy
principle during the past 10 years has been to side
with Russia whenever possible. But leaving aside his
obsession with Putin, the president’s smears on his own country are not the
result of a deeply considered moral position, or even some kind of strategic
big-think. Principles are inconvenient, and if they get in the way of winning
the moment—the news cycle, a trade negotiation, an argument with a
reporter—then they are of no use.
Indeed, Trump has shown, over and over, that he has no
real ability to make moral distinctions about anything. Perhaps nothing
illustrates this vacuousness more than Bob Woodward’s report that when Trump decided to run for president, an aide told him
that his previous pro-choice stances and donations to Democrats would be a
problem. “That can be fixed,” Trump said. “I’m—what do you call it? Pro-life.”
As Groucho Marx is rumored to have said: “Those are my principles, and if you
don’t like them … well, I have others.”
But there is also a laziness in Trump’s casual slanders
against America. If Trump admits that the United States is a far better nation
than Russia or China, with a heritage of liberty and democracy that imposes
unique responsibilities on America as the leader of the free world, then he
would have to do something. He would have to take a stand against
Russia’s military aggression and China’s economic predations. He’d have to take
the hard path of working with a national-security team to forge policies that
are in the long-term interests of the United States rather than the short-term
interests of Donald Trump.
Likewise, when Trump depicts America as an unending
nightmare of crime and carnage, he’s not only trying to trigger a cortisol rush
among his followers; he’s also creating a narrative of despair. It’s a clever
approach. He tells Americans that because the world is nasty, all that “shining
city on a hill” talk is just stupid and all that matters is making
some deals to get them stuff they need. Meanwhile, he
paints America as something out of a medieval woodcut of hell, implicitly
warning that he can’t really extinguish the lava and the fires but promising to
at least put on a show of punishing some of the demons.
This nihilism and helplessness is poisonous to a
democracy, a system that only works when citizens take responsibility for their
government. It is a narrative that encourages citizens to think of themselves
as both scoundrels and victims, crabs in life’s giant bucket who must claw
their way up over the backs of their fellow Americans. The modern global order
itself—a system of peace, trade, and security built by the genius of American
diplomacy and the sacrifices of the American armed forces—is, in Trump’s view,
one big criminal struggle among countries that are no better than mob families.
In his world, the United States isn’t a leader or an example; it’s just another
mook throwing dice against the wall in a back alley.
Some people support Trump because they want certain
policies on immigration or taxes or judges. Others enjoy his reality-TV
approach to politics. Some of his critics reject his plans; others reject
everything about the man and his character. But none of us, as Americans, have
to accept Trump’s calumnies about the United States. We are a nation better
than the dictatorships in Moscow and Beijing; we enjoy peace and prosperity
that predated Trump and will remain when he is gone.
We live in an America governed by Trump. But we do not
have to accept that we live in Trump’s America.
No comments:
Post a Comment