Walt on Trump and his advisers

Stephen Walt wrote another piece in which he criticizes Trump. He makes some good points, although I find the constant virtue signaling annoying. To be sure, Trump is a clown and I’m sure he’s never read Hans Morgenthau, but in practice he still is the closest thing to a realist we have seen in the US in decades. I think Walt is probably right that Bannon’s conception of international politics is inspired by Huntington’s theory of the clash of civilizations and I also think he’s right that this theory is false. But it’s important to note that Huntington’s book has been systematically distorted and that it actually argued in favor of a more restrained foreign policy on the part of the West. Now, I don’t think his reasons for doing so were always correct (which is not to say that everything about his book is wrong), but it’s important that he did. Indeed, although people who haven’t read his book — that is to say, 99% of people who talk about it — often blame him for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Huntington actually opposed it. Unfortunately, I doubt that Bannon will show the same amount of restraint as Huntington, but he is still preferable to the alternative. Indeed, while I would have preferred that Trump surround himself with realists (that’s a huge understatement), I also think that, as bad as he may be, Bannon is a definite improvement over the lunatics who dominate Washington’s foreign policy establishment.

This is why I think that, even from a liberal point of view, it’s badly misguided to oppose his influence on foreign policy. People who go after Bannon without even thinking about who is likely to take his place are irresponsible. They need to understand that, if Trump doesn’t listen to Bannon, he will most likely get his advice from neoconservatives, who are far more dangerous. (In that respect, it speaks volumes that, in this article critical of his influence on foreign policy, the Washington Post complains he might push Trump to undermine the “America-centered world”. I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, I sure hope that he does.) Bannon may, for instance, push Trump to increase Obama’s drone warfare, which is bad, but unlike the de facto alliance of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists that controls Washington’s foreign policy establishment, he is willing to work out a compromise with Russia and has probably less inclination toward nation-building than the average foreign policy expert in Washington, which is far more important. I plan to write something on Bannon at some point, because I want to debunk the absurd propaganda that has been spread about him, but that’s enough for this post.