Trump’s feel-bad foreign policy is guided by emotion, not logic

Donald Trump’s foreign policy can seem contradictory. He was described by many as isolationist, but has launched unprecedented bombing raids on Iran. He says he’s against wars, but is increasing defence budgets. He can sound like a realist, the ideals-free ideology where cold self-interest rules, but his state department promises illiberal interventionism to support far-right movements in Europe and champion white farmers in South Africa. Trump even nods towards regime change in Iran: a clarion call for neoconservatives.

But these contradictions make sense when you look at the data about how his policies satis­fy the emotional needs of his voters, and of himself. This is a foreign policy organised by feelings.

Recently, I’ve been ­reviewing ­polling and in-depth interviews that the Pennsylvania-based Worthy Strategies has been running for two years to work out how Americans view foreign policy. They show that self-described Maga voters are just as contradictory as their presi­dent. They are both among the most opposed to foreign entanglements and the most obsessed with US primacy in the world. Only 46% of Maga voters back US leadership in the world, compared with 74% of Democrats. However, 98% of Maga voters think it’s important for the US to be viewed as the most powerful nation militarily and economically, compared with 64% of Democrats. In short, they want to feel that America is strong but don’t want the responsibilities that come with leadership. They want both meanings of “America First”: the US as the world’s top dog, and putting America’s domestic priorities before international affairs.

The duality is particularly stark when it comes to views on China. Of Maga voters, 93% think that if China were to surpass the US economically and militarily, it would threaten America’s freedom – only 64% of Democrats agree. When it comes to backing Taiwan with troops, however, just 49% of Maga voters agree, compared with 54% of Democrats.

In-depth interviews give a sense of the psychological background to the survey data. Maga voters talk about their desire for the US to “set the clock”, to show that it is in control. Interviewees fear other countries will dictate to them, comparing themselves to kids who will be told by their parents when to go to bed.

This desire for assertiveness plays out against a background of perva­sive anxiety. These voters are the most worried about losing access to food, the most worried about the border and the most worried about getting pulled into a third world war. They fear the US economy spiralling out of control and the dollar crashing. They feel that something terrible is always imminent. Trump thus gives them the bravura they want, while feeding their anxiety with stories about a dark and scary world. He increases the feeling of vulnerability and offers a quick emotional fix.

More than anything, Maga voters describe the world as a fog of confusion. They see no structure to global conflicts, no clear battle between freedom and dictatorship, let alone any fealty to the “international rules-based order”. It is this confusion that is the enemy, rather than any one regime. The most important counterbalance is action that gives clarity through its certainty. They yearn for decisive actions and clear wins: the killing of Osama bin Laden; D-Day; the Moon landing. This is what Trump is attempting with his Iran raid.