When one thinks of Donald Trump, there is one word that hardly ever comes to the mind of the average person: consistency. Trump’s rhetoric and actions on everything from trade policies to foreign war to criminal justice reform to the vision for his border wall often change on a dime, and usually for no discernible reasons beyond the personal politics of the parties involved. Trump is not an ideologue, even if he has governed more conservatively (in some respects) than most people expected. Most things he says and does are on an ad hoc basis completely divorced from common ideologies or anything resembling academic theories on such matters.
However, there is one element of Donald Trump’s personal political compass that has remained remarkably consistent from the first day of his campaign, and that is his belief that brutality and strength go hand-in-hand, and that America would be better served by an autocratic strongman. On the campaign trail, in diplomatic capacities overseas, and in the Oval Office, Trump has made it abundantly clear that he respects brute strength and craves the power it entails. This is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination, political scientists have studied Machiavelli’s The Prince and contemplated the raw truths behind his contention that it is better to be feared than to be loved. Among American presidents, however, Trump stands alone in his willingness to publicly endorse policies and measures of cruelty and brutality.
On the campaign trail, Trump stood alone among all serious contenders for the White House by openly expressing support for American troops committing war crimes. Trump, for instance, had no qualms with troops murdering the families of captured terrorists, no matter how young or old the family members, or how guilty or innocent they may have been. Trump justified this by invoking an apocryphal tale of General “Blackjack” John Pershing committing war crimes in the Philippines by lining up Muslim POW’s, executing them by dipping bullets in pig’s blood, and leaving one alive to tell the tale. Trump’s contention was that we needed to be “tougher” in order to defeat terrorists and be respected all around the world, and to him, “toughness” means “brutal actions that strike fear into the hearts of the enemies.” In a normal campaign, this might have been a scandal that would have sunk other candidates, but for Trump (who had scandals emerging on a daily basis), it faded into the background.
Since winning the election, Trump has said or done little to dispel the notions that his campaign rhetoric was just that. If anything, his conduct in office has served to affirm his campaign rhetoric, particularly when he is overseas. Unlike Barack Obama or George W. Bush, Donald Trump’s closest overseas friends and allies do not generally come from liberal western democracies, such as the UK, EU, Canada, and so on. Trump’s closest allies, instead, seem to be more autocratic and, in the case of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, totalitarian. Figures like Rodrigo Duterte, Viktor Orban, Mohammad bin Salman, Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, and Jair Bolsonaro have replaced our more traditional friends, such as Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Scott Morrison, Justin Trudeau, and Emmanuel Macron. The first set of leaders generally have more power to “do things” and often exercise their powers in dictatorial and illiberal ways. Trump respects that, and seems to envy them and crave that kind of power for himself. He abhors the latter list’s inability to just “do things” and their more cautious approaches to matters such as restricting immigration and fighting crime. He sees their classical liberality as a weakness, rather than a strength, and prefers to converse with the autocrats.
On the homefront, brutality has been Trump’s preferred course of action whenever possible, and he likes to reward those are brutal. His zealotry on border issues, for instance, has split families apart and subjected innocent people to harsh imprisonment conditions. When it comes to electoral politics, Trump almost always includes some mention of his endorsed candidate being “tough on crime,” even if it has no bearing on the office the candidate seeks. And he is willing to dish out pardons, or hire for his administration, people like Joe Arpaio and David Clarke, both of whom gained notoriety for their excessively brutal methods of dealing with prisoners. And this week, rumors abounded that Trump would pardon American troops convicted of war crimes, as well as Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who has not yet been tried for a litany of truly horrifying crimes, in time for Memorial Day.
To Trump, war crimes are just a matter of troops “doing their jobs” and being “tough.” He has no conception of the higher ideals that American troops are supposed to represent in their uniforms; ideals that give Americans the moral high ground in such conflicts. Wars are not Tolkien-esque struggles where all the good are on one side and all the evil are on the other, but Americans expect their troops to serve honorably and make their nation proud. That means punishing the bad apples on our side when they break the rules. It is rarely clear-cut, as wars often force the troops to choose between bad options. Marcus Luttrell, for instance, was the only member of his squad who survived a mission because they decided to adhere to the Rules of Engagement, rather than murder a child. And therefore, when a soldier is court-martialed, it is usually for actions that are indisputably criminal, such as the murders Eddie Gallagher is alleged to have committed. Court martialing is not done lightly, and so the soldiers Trump wants to pardon are not the agonizing grey-area cases, but rather the indefensible cases. As such, these pardons should be viewed not as a way to honor our soldiers during Memorial Day, but as an insult to every American who died honorably in service to their country.
And so by pardoning these soldiers, Trump is sending yet another message that he condones war crimes, and still believes that brutality is strength and strength is good. His worldview is a vile brand of social Darwinism in which jungle law should prevail, and hindrances, such as ROEs and checks and balances, do not exist to hinder the powerful. This president is testing the endurance of our Madisonian checks on the executive, and it is up to Americans of conscience to send the message that such conduct is unacceptable and unamerican.
However, there is one element of Donald Trump’s personal political compass that has remained remarkably consistent from the first day of his campaign, and that is his belief that brutality and strength go hand-in-hand, and that America would be better served by an autocratic strongman. On the campaign trail, in diplomatic capacities overseas, and in the Oval Office, Trump has made it abundantly clear that he respects brute strength and craves the power it entails. This is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination, political scientists have studied Machiavelli’s The Prince and contemplated the raw truths behind his contention that it is better to be feared than to be loved. Among American presidents, however, Trump stands alone in his willingness to publicly endorse policies and measures of cruelty and brutality.
On the campaign trail, Trump stood alone among all serious contenders for the White House by openly expressing support for American troops committing war crimes. Trump, for instance, had no qualms with troops murdering the families of captured terrorists, no matter how young or old the family members, or how guilty or innocent they may have been. Trump justified this by invoking an apocryphal tale of General “Blackjack” John Pershing committing war crimes in the Philippines by lining up Muslim POW’s, executing them by dipping bullets in pig’s blood, and leaving one alive to tell the tale. Trump’s contention was that we needed to be “tougher” in order to defeat terrorists and be respected all around the world, and to him, “toughness” means “brutal actions that strike fear into the hearts of the enemies.” In a normal campaign, this might have been a scandal that would have sunk other candidates, but for Trump (who had scandals emerging on a daily basis), it faded into the background.
Since winning the election, Trump has said or done little to dispel the notions that his campaign rhetoric was just that. If anything, his conduct in office has served to affirm his campaign rhetoric, particularly when he is overseas. Unlike Barack Obama or George W. Bush, Donald Trump’s closest overseas friends and allies do not generally come from liberal western democracies, such as the UK, EU, Canada, and so on. Trump’s closest allies, instead, seem to be more autocratic and, in the case of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, totalitarian. Figures like Rodrigo Duterte, Viktor Orban, Mohammad bin Salman, Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, and Jair Bolsonaro have replaced our more traditional friends, such as Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Scott Morrison, Justin Trudeau, and Emmanuel Macron. The first set of leaders generally have more power to “do things” and often exercise their powers in dictatorial and illiberal ways. Trump respects that, and seems to envy them and crave that kind of power for himself. He abhors the latter list’s inability to just “do things” and their more cautious approaches to matters such as restricting immigration and fighting crime. He sees their classical liberality as a weakness, rather than a strength, and prefers to converse with the autocrats.
On the homefront, brutality has been Trump’s preferred course of action whenever possible, and he likes to reward those are brutal. His zealotry on border issues, for instance, has split families apart and subjected innocent people to harsh imprisonment conditions. When it comes to electoral politics, Trump almost always includes some mention of his endorsed candidate being “tough on crime,” even if it has no bearing on the office the candidate seeks. And he is willing to dish out pardons, or hire for his administration, people like Joe Arpaio and David Clarke, both of whom gained notoriety for their excessively brutal methods of dealing with prisoners. And this week, rumors abounded that Trump would pardon American troops convicted of war crimes, as well as Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who has not yet been tried for a litany of truly horrifying crimes, in time for Memorial Day.
To Trump, war crimes are just a matter of troops “doing their jobs” and being “tough.” He has no conception of the higher ideals that American troops are supposed to represent in their uniforms; ideals that give Americans the moral high ground in such conflicts. Wars are not Tolkien-esque struggles where all the good are on one side and all the evil are on the other, but Americans expect their troops to serve honorably and make their nation proud. That means punishing the bad apples on our side when they break the rules. It is rarely clear-cut, as wars often force the troops to choose between bad options. Marcus Luttrell, for instance, was the only member of his squad who survived a mission because they decided to adhere to the Rules of Engagement, rather than murder a child. And therefore, when a soldier is court-martialed, it is usually for actions that are indisputably criminal, such as the murders Eddie Gallagher is alleged to have committed. Court martialing is not done lightly, and so the soldiers Trump wants to pardon are not the agonizing grey-area cases, but rather the indefensible cases. As such, these pardons should be viewed not as a way to honor our soldiers during Memorial Day, but as an insult to every American who died honorably in service to their country.
And so by pardoning these soldiers, Trump is sending yet another message that he condones war crimes, and still believes that brutality is strength and strength is good. His worldview is a vile brand of social Darwinism in which jungle law should prevail, and hindrances, such as ROEs and checks and balances, do not exist to hinder the powerful. This president is testing the endurance of our Madisonian checks on the executive, and it is up to Americans of conscience to send the message that such conduct is unacceptable and unamerican.