Donald Trump’s and Kamala Harris Magnificent Difficulty.
Donald Trump zeroed in on homegrown arrangement to the detriment of international strategy, making the discussion around homegrown issues become harmful. The greater part of his advanced ancestors did the inverse. The issue is that the administration has hoarded power to the detriment of the states, making it unimaginable for this one entertainer to address one region without zeroing in on it completely and leaving the other.
US President Donald Trump’s greatest key slip-up when he was in the White House was one of entropy.
As physicists make sense of, a shut framework constantly tends towards jumble. In more normal political terms: Since the public plan of practical issues is restricted, assuming the public authority eliminates international strategy from the fundamental focal point of consideration, it opens space for the rise of the multitude of homegrown issues that have never been settled.
Donald Trump’s presidency leaned heavily on domestic policy, often at the cost of a coherent foreign policy approach. His focus on internal matters, paired with controversial stances, fueled a polarized debate around these issues. In contrast, many of his recent predecessors prioritized foreign affairs, leaving domestic issues more decentralized. This centralization of power in the presidency has created an “imperial dilemma,” where intense focus on one policy area often leads to the neglect of the other.
One of Trump’s key missteps was his embrace of isolationism, an approach that viewed global alliances and foreign engagements as less of a priority. He focused on limiting immigration, imposing tariffs, and distancing the U.S. from NATO, signaling to leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un that they could act with fewer constraints. This inward turn created a vacuum in foreign policy, making space for unresolved domestic tensions to surge forward, from immigration and racial justice to climate and public health. Trump’s rhetoric and management style, coupled with structural imbalances in the political system, only amplified these issues.
Historically, the U.S. as a superpower has benefited from a governance model that resembles what historian Michael Rostovtzeff described as a “diarchy” in the Roman Empire under Caesar Augustus. While the central government should ideally manage foreign policy, defense, and public finances, local governance should address regional and community-specific issues. Presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower adhered somewhat to this model by focusing on international concerns like World War II and the Cold War while leaving internal matters to states. This approach, however, often came at a social cost—such as allowing racial segregation to persist in southern states.
A similar approach reemerged during the second Cold War, with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush primarily focused on the Soviet Union. The U.S. experienced a brief period of international dominance following its Cold War victory and the success of the 1990 Persian Gulf War. President Bill Clinton continued this internal decentralization approach, although this meant limited federal intervention in social policies.
Yet, maintaining a strong imperial presence abroad can backfire. Eisenhower warned about “imperial overload” in his 1961 farewell address, cautioning against the unchecked power of the military-industrial complex. His successor, John F. Kennedy, made moves to scale back on foreign interventions, such as starting to withdraw troops from Vietnam and reducing nuclear tensions with the Soviet Union, but he faced pushback. This resistance paved the way for the civil rights movement and opposition to wars in Vietnam and Cambodia. These military failures abroad, coupled with domestic unrest, meant that Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter all struggled to sustain two full terms.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush’s administration pursued a series of aggressive, “preventive” wars as part of a broad “Global War on Terrorism.” These efforts, though initially stirring patriotic sentiment, led to a series of disappointing outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, fueling more internal discontent.
Trump’s isolationist approach was a reaction to these previous foreign policy failures, yet it spurred intense internal conflicts and political polarization. The resulting rift between the presidency and Congress exemplified the cyclical nature of America’s imperial dilemma. When the U.S. asserts dominance abroad, it risks both military and economic strain; when it turns inward, internal divisions deepen, creating a crisis of governance.
The solution to this dilemma may lie in a balanced, modern “diarchy.” The U.S. should prioritize defense and foreign policy without engaging in perpetual wars, instead bolstering alliances to maintain stability. Decentralizing controversial domestic issues—like current cultural debates—could reduce polarization and allow states to tailor solutions to their communities.
If she assumes the presidency, Vice President Harris may face the same imperial dilemma Trump did. Learning from Trump’s experience, she will need to plan carefully, considering how to navigate the balance between foreign policy and domestic stability.