Trump’s Diplomatic Approach Faces Criticism
Donald Trump’s vigorous attempts to establish ties with Arab leaders have drawn criticism from some neoconservative commentators. A notable example is Rich Raleigh’s article, “The Trump Doctrine,” in the New York Post, which highlights perceived inconsistencies in Trump’s domestic policy while echoing a neoconservative diplomatic perspective.
Rory contrasts Trump’s aims with those of George W. Bush, suggesting that while Bush sought to spread democracy, Trump wants to promote glamorous urban development. Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia focused solely on “peace and prosperity,” without the lofty ideals Bush espoused. In what some might describe as an awkward address, Trump recognized Riyadh’s role as a burgeoning center for business, culture, and technology rather than its political status.
Laurie points out that Trump’s statements were made to a monarch, not an elected leader, raising questions about America’s commitment to democratic values. “Maintaining democratic ideals is crucial to America’s global appeal,” Laurie notes, but this prompts a deeper inquiry.
Is Our Democracy Truly Exemplary?
There’s something puzzling about the notion of the current “democracy” in the Western world being a model for others. Should we really look to export our values without first addressing our own challenges? Concerns abound regarding how gender distinctions, freedom of speech, and so on are being attacked within our own borders. Plus, the influence of the Deep State alongside its counterparts in Europe and Canada raises alarms about democracy’s state, especially amid ongoing immigration issues. Perhaps tackling these matters should come before telling other nations how to govern.
Moreover, what is even meant by a “democratic” society? Can we truly claim to be democratic when limitations on voting persist? The United States might only be considered fully democratic after the 19th Amendment was passed or even the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which aimed to curtail racism in voting practices. It makes one wonder if Laurie envisions a specific brand of democracy that suits his preferences, perhaps one that aligns with the latest definition of American democracy devoid of diversity and equity obligations.
To his credit, Trump seems to be addressing many of the internal issues noted earlier. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has pointed out undemocratic practices persisting even in other self-proclaimed “free” nations. Both Trump and Vance appear to focus on reinstating a traditional Western political ethos rather than instigating regime changes elsewhere.
Trump also grasps the significance of constructive relations in the Middle East. If peace efforts can be bolstered through negotiations with Saudi monarchs and their counterparts, he will pursue that. Neoconservatives may express discontent, yet even some democratic politicians commend Trump’s strides towards “peace and prosperity” in the region. He returned with over a trillion dollars in trade agreements, underscoring the practical benefits of such diplomacy.
However, launching a global campaign for democracy might not necessarily serve the U.S. well as it navigates its rivalry with China. While it may resonate with neocon think tanks, geopolitical standings often rest on more substantial motivations than ideological adherence. European nations may lean towards purchasing energy from the U.S. over Russia, not purely due to shared values but rather out of pragmatic concerns regarding Trump’s potential reactions.
Is Democracy a Reliable Guarantee?
This brings us to a frequent assertion from Laurie: that friends are more reliable and lead to prosperity, preventing civil unrest. Yet, in the current political landscape under Kamala Harris’s administration, this notion might not hold. Notably, constitutional democracy can regress into chaotic systems, and given the current climate of freedoms in parts of the West, trusting Laurie’s claims seems increasingly naïve.
Interestingly, while Raleigh dismisses monarchy altogether, Saudi Arabia’s theocratic governance hasn’t faced a civil war or revolution for centuries. Is that what we define as “reliability”?
