Okay, here’s a breakdown of the article, summarizing its key arguments and points.I’ll organize it into sections for clarity.
I.Core Argument: The Return of 1898 Thinking
The central thesis is that the Trump administration‘s foreign policy isn’t just repeating actions of the late 19th/early 20th century (McKinley/Roosevelt era),but is fundamentally reviving the underlying worldview that drove U.S. policy at that time. This worldview prioritizes wealth, geography, and a hierarchical concept of “civilization” as measures of national power and security. The author warns that repeating the patterns of intervention from that era carries the risk of escalating involvement in conflicts and making it harder to disengage.
II.The Three Pillars of Power (McKinley & Roosevelt Era)
The article identifies three key tenets that defined power and security for McKinley and Roosevelt:
* Economics: A strong, self-reliant, industrialized economy was seen as the foundation of power. The focus was on domestic prosperity and avoiding economic crises (like depressions). Protectionist tariffs were favored.
* Geography/Territory: Expanding U.S. territory was considered vital for prestige, resources, and strategic advantage. Acquisitions like the Philippines were seen as proof of rising global power. Roosevelt expanded on this with a focus on strategic geography and spheres of influence.
* Civilization: This was the most meaningful and complex element.Elites believed in a hierarchy of societies, with the U.S. at or near the top, based on criteria like rule of law, self-government, innovation, morality, and Christianity. This belief shaped both domestic and foreign policy.
III.How the McKinley/Roosevelt Era Played out in Practice
* Monroe doctrine & Roosevelt Corollary: The original monroe Doctrine aimed to keep European powers out of the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt’s Corollary twisted this, asserting the U.S. right to intervene in Latin American countries to maintain stability (and protect U.S. interests). This was a contradiction of the original doctrine’s principle of sovereignty.
* Imperialism & Intervention: The belief in “civilization” justified intervention in other countries to promote progress, punish “bad behavior,” and secure U.S. interests.
* Immigration Restrictions: Concerns about the erosion of “civilization” at home led to efforts to restrict immigration and suppress perceived threats (like anarchists).
IV. Parallels to the Trump Administration
The article draws direct parallels between the thinking of McKinley/Roosevelt and the Trump administration:
* Economic Nationalism: Trump’s focus on “re-industrialization,” protectionism,and a mercenary approach to international economic relations mirrors the economic priorities of the late 19th century.
* Territorial Ambitions: Trump’s expressed interest in acquiring territory (Panama, Canada, Greenland, Venezuela) echoes the expansionist impulses of the earlier era. The Venezuela raid and promise to “run it” until a transition is a clear example.
* Civilizational framing: The author argues that Trump’s actions, particularly regarding Venezuela, are driven by a belief in the need to stabilize the region and punish a leader (Maduro) seen as representing a failure of “civilization.” This aligns with both Roosevelt’s Corollaries.
V. The warning
The article concludes with a cautionary note. The author warns that the more the U.S. intervenes abroad, based on these principles, the more it will become entangled in complex problems and the harder it will be to extricate itself. The lessons of 1898 – the unintended consequences of intervention - should be heeded.
In essence, the article argues that the Trump administration isn’t just repeating the what of late 19th/early 20th century U.S. foreign policy, but the why – a dangerous revival of a worldview rooted in economic nationalism, territorial ambition, and a belief in American exceptionalism and a hierarchy of civilizations.