Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat, recently tweeted a provocative take on Trump foreign policy. He wrote: "NATO. Paris Accords. Saudi Arabia. Cuba. Trump foreign policy has only one guiding principle: do the opposite of Obama, no matter the cost." Of course, his is a partisan take.
That said, it makes for an interesting debate topic, as it does at least have the veneer of truth, right? He's only been in office a few months, yet Trump has already targeted several of Obama's key foreign policies. So, with that in mind, I asked my CWCP colleague Yohanes Sulaiman for his thoughts on Murphy's tweet. His response is below, and mine follows afterward.
Yohanes Sulaiman: Trump as anti-Obama?
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that he is against a lot of
stuff that Obama was for, like the Paris Accords. But at the same time, Trump is
basically responding to what his main constituents, those in the rust belt who
voted for him, think and want politically, economically, and so on. His supporters are against trade deals and the Paris Accords, for example, because they fear both are job killers. Like it or not, that's what many people
in the so-called flyover states believe.
To simply call whatever Trump does as anti-Obama risks
ignoring the real and valid concerns of Trump's base and that, in turn, could hand Trump another term in 2020 on a silver platter.
Brad Nelson: At first glance, there does seem to be an
anti-Obama bent to Trump's foreign policy. After all, there have been a number
of shifts or reversals, on a wide range of issues, from the Obama era: climate
change, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Europe (NATO/EU), and so on. I suspect
there are a number of motives in play; it's not as simple as an anti-Obama
reflexive impulse. Here are a few guesses.
First, Trump could genuinely believe that Obama foreign
policy was misguided, that he sincerely thinks Obama was dragging the US in a
wrong direction globally and regionally on security, diplomatic and economic
affairs.
Second, he might seek to limit the successes and preferably
damage Obama's legacy because of a personal beef with Obama. It's possible. Some
say jealously is a factor: that he can’t get past the fact his predecessor was
so beloved by the media and a considerable swath of the American public. Others
point to personal animosity. For instance, if Trump really sees the ongoing
Russiagate negative headlines and investigations as a conspiracy driven by
Obama and his staff (like Susan Rice) and Obama holdovers in the US government,
it would make sense that he has a big axe to grind against Obama himself.
Rolling back or watering down his purported "successes,” like the Paris
Accords, the opening to Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, among other things, are
viable ways to spite Obama.
Third, as you suggest, domestic politics likely play a big
role here. Many of Trump’s foreign policies and policy statements—including,
yes, his tweets—are supported by his core supporters. He’s simply doing what
his base wants. For instance, his base wants the wall built, think they’re
being ripped off on trade deals by foreign nations, want a more aggressive
approach to Islamic terrorism, demand US allies and friend to do more “burden
sharing,” see climate change as either a hoax or something that’s been overly
dramatized by liberals, and don’t see Russia, and Putin in particular, as
enemies of the US. As a result, then, Trump has a domestic political incentive
to move away, more or less, from certain Obama foreign policies.
Fourth, Trump seems to have an affinity for strongmen, for
autocrats, and that’s moved US foreign policy away from prizing human rights
and reform, which stands in contrast to the Obama years. At one time or
another, he’s complimented or praised a wide array of foreign autocrats, including al-Sisi, Putin, Kim Jong Un, Erdogan, King
Salman, Duterte, Xi Jinping, just to name but a few. Now, why is this the case?
Perhaps it’s because his strategic thinking is in line with realpolitik, which
coldly prioritizes national security interests above mushy-headed ideals. Maybe
it’s because he sees the world’s autocrats as political brothers, with whom he
shares similar political beliefs and instincts. Perhaps it’s because he has
business interests in some authoritarian countries, and so he feels the need to
cozy up to and flatter leaders there.
