One commonality in Presidents going back — well, to the FDR era, at the very least, is trying to have America be the "shining city on a hill" sort of place. Sure, the US was capitalistic verging into imperialistic in some areas, and often fell short of its ideals, but its goal, its mission statement — and, in fact, honest sentiment (however compromised at times) from its leadership, was that we were doing the stuff we did for all mankind, for principles of liberty and freedom and democracy. We built relationships, made long-term commitments, stood by allies, stuck up for friends. Again, the reality often fell short, sometimes far short, but that was the motif, the brand of America.
Trump — and, by extension, his Secretary of State nominee — put forward a different vision. Yes, they want to make America "great again," but not as the exceptional summit of Western liberal thought and freedom, the "shining city on a hill," but as the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet. Picking a global oil & gas CEO because he's a hard bargainer and will make the best deals marks turning foreign relations into transactions, into looking for advantage, for product, without muddying the waters with sentiment or morality, or any sense of long-term commitment to much of anything or anyone.
There may be much said for that approach, and I have no doubt that Tillerson and Trump will drive some hard bargains and make some big deals. But in the process, they'll be tossing away … well, that brand, that global perception, that idealized reputation, that sense of what America stands for outside itself, all in favor of the geopolitical bottom line. And that sort of thing a business man ought to appreciate the risks of.
The world’s a market: Tillerson’s appointment reflects Trump’s view of foreign policy | The Economist
Will Americans applaud the president-elect’s deal-making approach?
American business practically fetishizes short-term gains even at the known cost of long-term losses. That's what this looks like to me.
I would carry the "city on a hill" vision back to Woodrow Wilson, who (at least in some aspects of his Presidency) truly had a vision not only for the United States, but for all of the countries on Earth. Unfortunately for him (and for all who suffered through World War II), other countries didn't agree.
Many other Presidents clearly had world visions, including not only FDR, but also Truman, Carter, Reagan (who repopularized the "city on a hall" phrase), and even Bush 41 (who claimed to be weak in the "vision thing," but whose combination of action and restraint during the downfall of the Soviet bloc and the invasion of Kuwait probably marked the zenith of U.S power and influence in the world).
I've thought of one possible exception to "the vision thing" in the last 100 years. Nixonian diplomacy, as exemplified by Henry Kissinger, could at times be more tactical – for example, do business with the Chinese Commies to offset the power of the Russian Commies. But even then, Kissinger's tactics were guided by a grand strategy for the United States to be the leader of the free world.
Some would argue that Bush 43 was a more transactional President. If you believe that the only reason we invaded Iraq was to make money for the oil companies and defense contractors, then you would say that Trump is for all practical purposes another Dubya. I do not hold this particular view – I think that the invasion of Iraq was more driven by a hatred of the Axis of Evil than by the love of money. And even if you hold that view, Bush Cheney et al were still executing a strategic post-Cold War vision in which the good guys (NATO and the good Muslim countries) were trying to defeat the bad guys (Saddam, Gadaffi, Osama, the Kims in North Korea, and other bad Muslims and Commies).
With Trump, I don't know if anyone knows what his vision of America in the world is. Do we gut NATO as a waste of money, or do we build up NATO to get the bad guys? Do we position ourselves as a leader of the Pacific Rim, or do we alienate key players in that region? Do we champion American business interests, or do we rag on Boeing, Apple, and other US companies because we don't like the?
+John Bump Yup, precisely. Couple that with politics (short term gains to be able to show off to the Board of Directors / Shareholders / Voters), and it gets even worse.
+John E. Bredehoft I had forgotten about Wilson — that's fair enough. Other presidents before were visionaries, but as an example to the rest of the world.
And, yes, the Cold War was a big part of that whole thing — it wasn't "Join us against the Commies because we're more powerful," but "Join us against the Commies because we are defending the morally better position."
Nixon is an interesting case. I concur with your analysis in general, and regarding Dubya.
And, yes, Trump's vision is long on mantra, short on anything beyond that. It's all "Make America Great Again," and the example is a big military (for what purpose, beyond having the biggest one on the block?) and taking all the jobs back. What happens elsewhere in the world seems less important to him (except as it provides opportunities for businesses, including his own).