Trump and the Nature of Political Power
A friend of mine, who leans towards progressive views, shared an interesting thought not long ago: “Trump doesn’t really feel powerful unless someone gets hurt.” This comment came amidst public discussions about the fallout from Trump’s remarks toward Elon Musk and his criticism of a significant immigration bill. Yet, it’s worth noting that Trump also deployed Marines to Los Angeles during riots related to immigration enforcement.
Tucker Carlson’s rhetoric emphasizes peace, but Trump’s approach to wielding power seems to validate his political authority. My friend, who studies political science, often references Machiavelli, specifically his insights from “The Prince” and “Discourses.” Machiavelli recognized that human motivations are often rooted in self-interest, suggesting that people will frequently engage in conflict to reach their aims.
Machiavelli argued that humanity is often characterized by traits like ingratitude and greed, perpetually competing for resources. He posited that any administration focused primarily on eliminating rivals can easily descend into chaos, whether confronted by internal dissenters or external threats. Thus, a strong leader must maintain control through suppression and punitive measures. In his view, politics is less about morality and more about ongoing conflict—an assertion backed by both historical and modern political figures.
Trump’s leadership style leans into conflict rather than consensus-building or collective governance, which is an unsettling truth that critics, especially when their own parties aren’t in power, vocally lament. This contrasts sharply with Barack Obama’s vision of politics, where he spoke of nurturing unity. Some of his views, like “bringing a knife to a gunfight,” have lost resonance over time, leaving behind a sense that pacifism might feel naive today.
Obama once said that he began as a community organizer rather than a politician, which shaped his belief that politics is, at its heart, a journey. This perspective, laced with almost Messianic tones, ironically leads to a destination defined by Trump.
From the onset of his campaign, Trump adopted combative language, calling out corrupt systems and fighting against illegal immigration. As he famously stated on January 6, 2021, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Trump’s commitment to conflict is evident not just in his domestic agenda but also in his foreign policy approaches.
This pattern was clear following military actions against leaders like ISIS’s al-Baghdadi, where Trump expressed triumph, declaring, “He died like a dog.” Such statements resonated with both supporters and critics, but they also illustrated the fine line within his own party. While some hailed military actions as triumphs, others criticized escalating conflicts, such as the drone strike against Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. For instance, Carlson pointed out that while many are bad actors globally, not all can be eliminated.
Recently, as tensions with Iran flared, a split emerged within conservative circles. Carlson expressed concern over unnecessary military involvement, stressing that domestic issues need focus instead of foreign entanglements. He even recounted biblical stories to underline that violence often leads to lasting consequences.
This dilemma raises further thoughts. In Luke, there’s a moment when Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords for protection. It’s curious because he acknowledges the need for defense without encouraging conquest. This keeps the balance between vital defenses and unnecessary conflicts alive.
The U.S. response to Iran might have led to temporary ceasefires or even negotiations. However, the cycle of violence appears endless, granting leaders like Trump opportunities to define their governance through might. Carlson’s notion of “peace first” contrasts starkly with Trump’s reaffirmation of power.
Machiavelli reminds us: “It is better to be feared than loved,” and in today’s landscape, Trump appears to embody both sentiments.
