‘We need to talk’: Trump’s electoral rhetoric and the role of transatlantic dialogues

Published date01 February 2021
Date01 February 2021
DOI10.1177/0263395720936040
Subject MatterSpecial Issue Articles
/tmp/tmp-17emoHDBOXVBUu/input
936040POL0010.1177/0263395720936040PoliticsBlanc
research-article2020
Special Issue Article
Politics
2021, Vol. 41(1) 111 –126
‘We need to talk’: Trump’s
© The Author(s) 2020
electoral rhetoric and the
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
role of transatlantic dialogues
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720936040
DOI: 10.1177/0263395720936040
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
Emmanuelle Blanc
The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Abstract
Trump’s stinging electoral rhetoric regarding Europe has profoundly challenged the foundations
of the transatlantic relations. Exploring the link between electoral rhetoric and US foreign policy,
this article focusses on a key feature of transatlantic policy-making, that is, the multi-levelled
architecture of European Union (EU)–US dialogues, involving diplomats, legislators, and civil
society. While research shows that dialogues help promote cooperation, their relevance and
specific functions in times of elections have not been explored so far. To what extent do dialogical
interactions change at the approach of elections and right afterwards? Why do dialogues keep
going, in spite of fierce presidential rhetoric suggesting otherwise? To fill this gap, this article
explores the EU–US dialogues following Trump’s election to determine the extent to which these
dialogues endorse new functions that have so far been overlooked. Adopting a socio-psychological
approach, it shows that one of the functions that dialogue fulfils in times of elections is the
reassurance that the relationship identity of the actors will be respected to meet their ontological
security needs. Drawing on interviews and official documents, this article sheds a new light on
the importance of dialogical engagement at these critical points in the life of liberal democracies.
Keywords
dialogue, electoral rhetoric, ontological security, transatlantic relations, US foreign policy
Received: 27th September 2019; Revised version received: 28th February 2020; Accepted: 13th May 2020
Introduction
Donald Trump’s scathing electoral rhetoric regarding Europe has challenged the founda-
tions of the transatlantic relations in a way that no other US president had ever done –
leaving the future of the transatlantic relations more uncertain than ever (Cox and Stokes,
2018). In line with this special issue’s aim to explore the relationship between rhetoric
and US foreign policy at election time, this article focusses on the impact of Trump’s
rhetorical choices on the diplomatic practice of dialogue vis-à-vis the European Union
(EU). While the presidential populist rhetoric on the campaign trail and beyond has
Corresponding author:
Emmanuelle Blanc, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A
2AE, UK.
Email: e.blanc1@lse.ac.uk

112
Politics 41(1)
attracted much attention (Lacatus, 2021), a less visible yet no less important aspect of
transatlantic foreign policy-making during this critical transition has been neglected,
namely, the evolution and function of the multi-levelled architecture of dialogues between
the United States and the EU. Dialogues – defined as face-to-face interactions in an insti-
tutionalized framework – have been a central feature of the transatlantic relationship –
which is one of the richest in the history of diplomacy (Ginsberg, 2001). While research
shows that the multi-levelled architecture of dialogues is instrumental in promoting trans-
atlantic cooperation (Pollack and Shaffer, 2001; Steffenson, 2005), its relevance and spe-
cific functions in times of elections have not been explored so far. This is puzzling given
the high degree of uncertainty injected in the relationship as elections approach: electoral
transitions announce potential leadership turnovers with far-reaching consequences in
foreign policy (Wolford, 2007). During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump’s scornful
rhetoric against the EU put at risk the very continuation of these transatlantic dialogues,
as it is usually expected that the foreign policy of the president elect will by and large
follow its rhetoric (Lacatus and Meibauer, 2021). Yet rather than dwindling, these dia-
logues have gained in importance.
So, why do dialogues keep going, in spite of the fierce presidential rhetoric on the
transatlantic relationship suggesting otherwise? Taking a socio-psychological approach
to the study of dialogues in international relations (IR), this article shows that dialogues
perform a crucial function at election time. They provide an important reassurance that
the established relationship identity of the participating political actors will be respected
in the future to meet their recognition needs, thereby strengthening their ontological
security. Role identity or relationship identity corresponds to the kind of relationship that
international actors sustain through their interactions (Faizullaev, 2013: 108–110). This
role identity matters, not only because it places behavioural demands and expectations
on the actors in a social context, affecting their foreign policy choices (Holsti, 1970;
Thies, 2010), but also because it forms an integral part of their identity. International
actors will, therefore, constantly seek the recognition of this identity to reinforce their
ontological security (Lindemann and Saada, 2012: 15). Drawing on the literature on
ontological security (Kinnvall and Mitzen, 2017; Steele, 2008; Zarakol, 2010), I concep-
tualize electoral periods as potentially destabilizing the sense of self and highlight some
of the ways through which dialogues help tame the uncertainty and anxiety related to the
change of leadership. This article shows how dialogues can reinforce ontological secu-
rity by providing the opportunity to seek and grant recognition. As such, it answers
Kinnvall and Mitzen’s (2017: 9) call ‘to explore non-securitizing dynamics of ontologi-
cal security seeking in world politics’. It is within the framework of dialogues that rec-
ognition is potentially granted, acting as a powerful glue for endurable and stable
relationships.
An ontological security perspective articulates the socio-psychological and emotional
need behind the decision to strengthen these dialogical interactions. This article thus com-
plements both constructivist role theory approaches focussed on cognitive terms and his-
torical institutionalist accounts concerned with patterns of institutional development at
critical junctures based on the actors’ material interests (Fioretos, 2011: 375).
To test this claim, the article focusses on the case study of EU–US dialogues during the
transition period following Trump’s election as the US president. It examines the dynam-
ics of these dialogues at different levels, including meetings between diplomats, lawmak-
ers in the framework of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) and civil society
dialogues.1 The thematic analysis is based on textual, video, and interview data. The

Blanc
113
textual data include official documents (press releases and joint statements) issued after
these dialogues, and the video data consist of recordings of several debriefing meetings.
Forty semi-structured interviews were also conducted with European and American dip-
lomats, lawmakers, and civil society actors who have been taking part in these dialogues.2
Data triangulation provides a useful check against the weakness of one specific approach
thereby reinforcing the validity of my findings (Denzin, 1989). The analysis finds that
despite Trump’s disdainful electoral rhetoric against the EU, the transatlantic dialogues
that have been institutionalized over the last years persist in the first months following the
inauguration and fulfil an important socio-psychological function in providing reassur-
ance that the friendship identity is still relevant. Yet there are several changes in the qual-
ity and quantity of dialogues conducted at this critical period: content-wise, due to
Trump’s improvised and explosive way of communication, more time is dedicated to
clarifying his intentions instead of focussing on substantial cooperation and a sense of
urgency prompts numerous actors to build new bridges and consolidate ties over the
Atlantic. The fact that the presidential rhetoric does not easily translate into foreign policy
outcomes echo other contributions in this volume (Holland and Fermor, 2021; Meibauer,
2021) and suggests the existence of strong mechanisms limiting the impact of the presi-
dential biting rhetoric on the shape of US foreign policy. While institutionalized dia-
logues under the new administration keep going, a myriad of other actors actively seek to
preserve the friendship relationship through the practice of dialogue.
The article is structured as follows. First, I summarize the proposition that dialogues
fulfil important identity needs related to the quest for recognition and ontological secu-
rity. I then conceptualize the function of dialogues at election time as a mechanism that
mitigates uncertainty and provides reassurance that the relationship identity of the actors
will be respected. I illustrate this argument with the EU–US dialogues following the 2016
US presidential election. I zoom in on the presidential transition period (from election day
to the inauguration) and on the first months of governance under the Trump administra-
tion as they entail crucial transition-related activities.
Theorizing the function of dialogues in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT