In search of enemies: Donald Trump’s populist foreign policy rhetoric

Abstract

<jats:p> This article asks how Donald Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric during his presidential campaign and presidency has affected US foreign policy in the area of overseas counterterrorism campaigns. Looking at two case studies – the May 2017 Arab Islamic American Summit and the US role in the counter Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) campaign, it is argued that Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric has failed to accurately describe or legitimate his administration’s counterterrorism strategy, as per the conventional wisdom. Instead, Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric has largely been aimed at creating a sense of crisis (as populism requires) to mobilise his domestic base. In making this argument about the purpose of Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric, not only does the article contribute a new perspective to the extant literature on elections, rhetoric, and US foreign policy, but also to the burgeoning scholarship on governing populists and their foreign policies. Although these findings could be unique to Trump, the article’s novel framework – combining International Relations and populism scholarship to elaborate on how the foreign arena can be used to generate a state of perpetual crisis – can hopefully be applied in other contexts. </jats:p>

Introduction to the special issue: Elections, rhetoric and American foreign policy in the age of Donald Trump

“…Several contributions in this special issue engage directly with a growing body of scholarship on the proliferation of populist ideas and their impact on foreign policy (rhetoric) in the context of the 2016 election and the first half of the Trump administration (Hall, 2021; Holland and Fermor, 2021; Lacatus, 2021). This special issue does not seek to engage in conceptual debates about the nature of populism as a form of political mobilisation (Jansen, 2011; Levitsky and Roberts, 2011; Weyland, 2001), an ideology (Mudde, 2007), or a type of discursive frame (Bonikowski and Gidron, 2016; Hawkins, 2009; Jagers and Walgrave, 2007; Lacatus, 2019; Poblete, 2015; Rooduijn and Pauwels, 2011).…”

“…Lacatus (2021) shows in this special issue that both candidate and president Trump’s core argument is that the long-standing tradition of support for liberal democracy and liberal internationalism abroad has been a grave political and economic miscalculation with a negative impact on the American people’s wealth, employment, and personal safety. As Hall (2021) argues in this special issue, Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail fails to deliver a convincing position on foreign policy or a meaningful attempt to legitimate policy. Rather, his rhetoric is intended as a mechanism to reach his domestic base and perpetuate a sense of crisis to which only Trump, as a populist leader, can offer a solution.…”

“…In this respect, Trump’s position is no exception. Several contributors to this special issue show that, in fact, Trump’s rhetorical engagement with foreign policy in his electoral campaign and after his victory has remained consistent (Hall, 2021; Holland and Fermor, 2021; Lacatus, 2021). However, this consistency of public discourse does not necessarily translate into a more credible means to legitimate foreign policy either on the campaign trail or in office.…”

“…Trump’s electoral rhetoric prior to the 2016 election stood in stark contrast to the public discourse advanced by the Obama administration and by most other counter-candidates and presidential hopefuls. The strong mobilising effect Trump’s rhetoric had on his supporters undoubtedly contributed to its electoral success (Hall, 2021). However, counter-intuitively, as Holland and Fermor (2021) argue in this special issue, part of the success that Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric enjoyed may have been due to a strong initial resistance to it by political and media elites.…”

Bringing the boys back home: Campaign promises and US decision-making in Iraq and Vietnam

“…To be sure, what Trump actually said about Syria and Afghanistan on the 2016 campaign trail was vaguer than his later statements imply. This may come as no surprise, since Trump's campaign promises can be viewed more as rhetorical vessels designed to reach voters than serious policy proposals (Hall, 2020) and may be the product of his celebrity status more than political nous (Moon, 2019). Yet despite the lack of details, his limited appetite for the sustained presence of combat troops remained a common thread in a more consistent broader narrative which remained heavily critical of recent US interventions in the region.…”