Few if any credentialed academics simply support the MAGA movement whole-hog from the inside. The anti-academic, anti-intellectual character of MAGA makes fulsome solidarity difficult. Nevertheless, there are a number of academics and serious intellectuals who lend theoretical support to Trump’s agenda and some who even endorse his policies. Their defense of his administration is often restricted to what they discern to be Trump’s ‘instincts,’ which they find to be generally serviceable.
On matters of foreign policy in particular, it’s important to recognize that while these Trump-aligned intellectuals generally share Trump’s skepticism of endless foreign engagements and excessive global commitments, many of them also criticize aspects of Trump’s execution, including his unpredictability and rhetorical style. This intellectual support of Trumpism is thus often in service of a broader strategic rethinking—favoring restraint and a focus on national interests—rather than a wholesale endorsement of Trump’s policy objectives. Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy has resonated in particular with intellectuals from a realist or non‐interventionist tradition.
Journals such as Commentary, The New Criterion, and First Things, and organizations such as the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution are resources for broadly conservative intellectual reasonings on matters of American foreign policy.
I’ll give a thumbnail sketch here of three scholars whose names show up in pro-Trump discussions: John Mearsheimer, R. R. Reno, and Victor Davis Hanson. There are of course many others.
John Mearsheimer, a leading international relations scholar and proponent of political realism, has long argued that the United States should avoid overextending itself in global affairs. His critique of liberal interventionism and emphasis on balancing power have resonated with “America First” logic, even though Mearsheimer himself does not publicly endorse Trump’s policies outright.
On the topic of America’s support of Ukraine in its war with Russia, R. R. Reno argues from a just war theory perspective that Ukraine is doomed to lose this fight. Ukraine is obviously unable to defeat Russia on its own, and the West is unwilling to supply sufficient force and commitment to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Given these “facts,” it is immoral to support continued fighting. While Reno’s analysis is aligned with key elements of Trump’s foreign policy gesticulations and rhetoric, he acknowledges that Trump’s thinking is “far removed” from just war theory.
Historian and public intellectual Victor Davis Hanson defends a more restrained U.S. role abroad. He has argued that re-centering national interest and skepticism toward overseas nation-building are necessary corrections to post–Cold War foreign policy. His writings in conservative outlets often echo Trump’s emphasis on American sovereignty and a reduced international footprint. Hanson approves of Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric and actions that consistently prioritize American autonomy and self-determination over international constraints, as well as Trump’s apparent aim of uprooting America’s global military presence.
These three examples represent a less-to-more adjacency to the MAGA perspective: Mearsheimer is often quoted by Trump apologists, although he himself is not a Trump supporter. (He supported Bernie Sanders in 2019.) Reno would seem to support Trump, though like most conservative intellectuals, he acknowledges grave defects in Trump’s character and rhetoric. Hanson’s political commitments seem to have evolved over the years; at this point he would seem to be a full-on Trumpist.
There are, of course, more examples we could mention here. Generally, these theoretical views of international relations emerge from a realist view of geopolitics. International institutions cannot contain politics at the largest scale, and the existence of these institutions is just another factor in the calculations of great powers, which are always only seeking to extend and deepen their hegemony. In this view, the only real imperative is the consolidation and extension of power, with the understanding that if this is not accomplished power will accrue to a rival nation or bloc of nations. Justice, right, morality, liberal ideals, cooperation, democracy, and decency are all merely tokens and gestures within a wider arena of power and sway.
My own view is hardly relevant at this level of debate, but, as I have remarked elsewhere, the 75-year period of near-total stability of national borders during the era of the United Nations would seem to speak for itself, even in the language of international political realism. I do recognize, however, that such a fact is not the final word on the matter.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.