Illiberal and irrational? Trump and the challenge of liberal modernity in US foreign policy
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117820954231 |
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820954231
International Relations
2021, Vol. 35(4) 533 –550
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117820954231
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Illiberal and irrational? Trump
and the challenge of liberal
modernity in US foreign policy
Haro L. Karkour
University of Birmingham
Abstract
Building on a growing body of literature on the application of Morgenthau’s ethics to post-Cold
War US foreign policy, this article applies Morgenthau’s concept of irrationality to Trump’s foreign
policy. Based on this application, the article highlights the limit of rationality in Morgenthau’s
theoretical analysis. Specifically, the article argues, pace neo-realist critiques of ‘liberal hegemony’,
that Trump reveals an empirical puzzle: US foreign policy can be both irrational and illiberal
simultaneously in the pursuit of nationalistic universalism. This is the case, the article argues,
because nationalistic universalism in Morgenthau’s analysis is not rooted in liberalism per se but
the dynamics of liberal modernity. The Trump puzzle thus reveals an on-going tension between
rationality and liberal modernity in Morgenthau’s theoretical analysis: rationality offers an
insufficient tool to take upon the challenge of liberal modernity from which Trump’s nationalistic
universalism stems. This, the article concludes, leaves Morgenthau’s concept of interest ‘defined
in terms of power’ open to misappropriation to ends contrary to their original aim: furthering
nationalistic universalism, rather than limiting power.
Keywords
irrationality, Morgenthau, Trump, US foreign policy
Introduction
This article builds on a growing body of literature on the application of Morgenthau’s
ethics to US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era.1 It does so by drawing on
Morgenthau’s concept of irrationality in US foreign policy. While Morgenthau’s con-
cept of irrationality has been implicitly and explicitly applied to post-Cold War US
foreign policy prior to Trump, this article’s aim is twofold: firstly, to extend the
empirical application beyond existing contributions to the Trump administration, and
Corresponding author:
Haro L. Karkour, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
B15 2TT, UK.
Email: h.l.karkour@gmail.com
954231IRE0010.1177/0047117820954231International RelationsKarkour
research-article2020
Article
534 International Relations 35(4)
secondly, based on this empirical contribution, to highlight the limit of rationality in
Morgenthau’s theoretical analysis. Irrationality, unlike liberal idealism, means more
than simply attempting to impose a mistaken liberal ideology.2 It implies, more gener-
ally, the reinterpretation of reality to inflate threats, and confuse vital and desirable
interests in a manner that ultimately renders excessive violence, or what Felix Roesch
referred to as ‘empirical power’,3 the end of a policy that serves the policymakers’ egos
and offers them the illusion of mastery of reality. Irrationality is driven by a national-
istic universalist drive that Morgenthau’s concept of rationality in Politics Among
Nations sought to counter. This drive depoliticises the nation’s interests and values,
that is, elevates them above political deliberation and adjustment, thus eschewing
diplomacy and raising the possibility of conflict.
The distinction between irrationality and liberal idealism explains a shortcoming in
current neo-realist critiques of US foreign policy. Neo-realist scholars, such as Stephen
Walt and John Mearsheimer, argue that the flaw in post-Cold War US foreign policy is
largely due to the policymakers’ Hell of Good Intentions or Great Delusion following
a strategy of ‘liberal hegemony’. These critiques cannot explain why a president such
as Trump follows the same pattern of his predecessors despite his attack on liberalism.
Trump’s attack on liberalism can be seen for example in his zero-sum logic on trade
and protectionism, his skepticism towards promoting liberal values such as human
rights and democracy in US foreign policy, and his flattering of authoritarian leaders.
Trump’s ‘illiberal hegemony’ presents a puzzle to neo-realist critiques of US foreign
policy.4 It shows that the flaw in US foreign policy is not its ‘liberal idealism’, that is,
the idealistic pursuit of a ‘concept of the liberal international order’ or ‘liberal hegem-
ony’.5 This puzzle becomes clear when neo-realists, on one hand, concede that Trump
challenges liberal ideology in US foreign policy, meanwhile they argue that Trump
represents a continuation of his predecessors’ policies. For example, despite accepting
Trump’s strategy of ‘illiberal hegemony’, Walt argues in his recent piece in International
Relations, that Trump’s ‘foreign policy is essentially a chaotic, confusing, and inept
version of his predecessors’ approach’.6 Despite conceding that Trump challenges key
liberal institutions and does not have the intention to pursue even ‘a “liberal-lite”
world order’, Mearsheimer argues that Trump shows ‘considerable continuity with his
predecessors’ policies’.7 Patrick Porter argues that Trump represents a ‘revolt’ against
the liberal order, but also a continuation in US foreign policy towards ‘permanent
war’.8 What explains this continuity?
The continuity lies in the persistence of irrationality, rather than liberal hegemony, in
US foreign policy. Trump’s foreign policy towards Iran illustrates this continuity.
Although Trump’s stance vis-à-vis Iran, scrapping the nuclear deal, deviates from his
predecessor, it is in line with the policy of regime change that long defined the US posi-
tion towards Iran. Trump’s scrapping of the nuclear deal thus, on one hand, represents the
continuation of this policy of the status quo that relies on the US-Sunni-Israeli alliance.
But despite representing such continuity, Trump’s Iran policy is not driven by a liberal
ideology. Rather, it is a case of irrationality in US foreign policy, namely a case where
US foreign policy reinterprets and inflates the reality of the Iranian threat, through com-
bining Iran’s nuclear ambitions with its support for terrorism and ability to dominate the
region in a manner that ultimately threatens the US homeland. In the process, US foreign
To continue reading
Request your trial