Welcome to Need to Know, The Hub’s roundup of experts and insiders providing insights into the developments Canadians need to be keeping an eye on.
Today’s weekend edition dives into thought-provoking research from think tanks, academics, and leading policy thinkers in Canada and around the world. Here’s what’s got us thinking this week.
Another week, another round of destabilizing actions from the Trump administration. In the last few days, the president has called Ukrainian President Zelensky a “dictator.” This was shortly after his secretary of state sat down with real dictators in Riyadh ostensibly to negotiate an end to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Apparently, however, without the need for Ukraine to be at the table.
While Trump’s criticisms of Zelensky and Ukraine drew applause from Putin’s acolytes, the episode appears to be another in a growing list that signals America’s retreat from the prevailing international order and, ultimately, its decline as the world’s dominant power.
This trend is something we’ve begun to unpack recently, so let’s dive a bit deeper into some themes.
Yes, the United States is in (relative) international decline
Last weekend, The Hub released an essay on the sharp turn in American conservative policy thinking that has occurred from Reagan to Trump. If the thinking behind the Reaganite foreign policy vision was American primacy, then what Trump is choosing for America can be best described as embracing decline.
The most common criticism we received about the piece was that our use of the word “decline” to describe the intellectual and policy views of Trumpian Republicans was unfair, reflecting a normative view.
Co-author Sean Speer responded that “A conscious effort to reset the post-Cold War world from one of unipolarity to one of multipolarity can be described in various terms—including retreat, withdrawal or even realism—but decline strikes us as good as any.”
However, we wanted to address this criticism more directly. It is not simply a normative claim to state that America is in decline from a global perspective. This can be objectively proven.
The United States is experiencing a relative decline in the international system. While America’s absolute power may not be in decline (although Trump’s policies could threaten this), its relative share of power in the international system is.
After all, it is a state’s relative power that determines its security, influence, and ability to shape global outcomes toward its national interests. In fact, this is a key insight of realism, a worldview that many around Trump purport to subscribe to.
Consider findings from a global power index from scholars at the University of Denver. The index includes several measures that capture aspects of a state’s hard and soft power, like its military capabilities, demography, economics, technology, and diplomatic engagement. All the indicators are then combined into an index that can be used to assess each state’s share of the total power of the international system.
When looking at this measure, two things stand out. The first is that U.S. power is clearly in relative decline, and its principal competitor is China. Based on a forecast from the index, we will hit a true bipolar international order in 2040.
However, there is another key insight that comes from understanding the history of American power. The 1970s also saw a period of relative American decline. That is, until Reagan became president. The Reagan choice of American primacy turned into a material expansion of America’s global standing.
The question now must not be whether America’s global standing is in decline; it is instead how quickly Trump’s policies could speed up the decline.
Graphic credit: Janice Nelson.
Is Trump really a “realist”?
If you’re reading a lot of the commentary about the direction Trump’s foreign policy is taking, you’ve probably read the words “realist” or “realism.” What these terms refer to is a constellation of different theoretical views about how to make sense of international politics. The realist view tends to emphasize the role that anarchy plays in structuring state relations and that the primary goal for states is to ensure their security and survival by building up their domestic material capabilities.
While that is one of the main threads that holds the realist paradigm together, readers should understand that there is no one true “realism.” A lot of ink has been spilled in books and academic journals debating whether classical realism, neo-classical realism, neo-realism, structural realism, defensive realism, or offensive realism best describe the nature of global politics.
While some of those terms effectively mean the same thing, each of the different strands has its own assumptions and nuances, and these nuances rarely make it to the minds of policymakers or those covering them.
That being said, the term is out there, and those in the Trump orbit consider their foreign policy direction to be resulting from their adherence to realism. For example, during his first term in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Trump described his foreign policy as “principled realism.”
“If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent,” he told the crowd.
So, is Trump’s foreign policy in line with what we could expect from a realist?
No, says Boston College Professor Jonathan Kirshner, who recently published a book making the case for classical realism.
In a January Foreign Affairs article, Kirshner critiques Trump’s “America First” policy, arguing it deviates from traditional realist principles in international relations. He contends that true realism involves a pragmatic assessment of global dynamics and the cultivation of alliances to enhance national security.
In contrast, he says, Trump’s approach is characterized by unilateralism and a transactional mindset, which undermines established alliances and international institutions. This strategy, according to Kirshner, not only isolates the United States but also diminishes its influence on the global stage.
By prioritizing short-term gains and disregarding the complexities of international politics, the “America First” doctrine, as implemented by Trump, potentially jeopardizes long-term national interests and global stability.
However, these debates about who is or isn’t a true realist aren’t just academic. Former repeat Hub Dialogues guest Elbridge “Bridge” Colby, someone who has offered a distinctively realist approach to American foreign policy in Asia, is facing a difficult confirmation battle for his nomination to the position of under secretary of defense for policy.
Part of the challenge is that Bridge’s worldview doesn’t mesh with some Republicans, like Senator Tom Cotton. Others don’t believe his realist policy prescriptions align with Trump’s on issues like the Middle East.
As we continue to watch Trump’s foreign policy unfold in the coming weeks and months, expect to come across the term “realism” much more.
Yet, as of now, Trump’s rhetoric and action on global affairs leave a lot to be desired from the perspective of realists. As American conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg recently wrote, the Trump administration is following a path of “realism for a condo salesman.”
Taylor is The Hub's Research and Prize Manager. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto. He has worked with several think tanks in Canada and the U.S. and previously served as a senior advisor to the Ontario Minister of Finance....
