Song Jae-yoon’s Sad China: The Chinese Dream of the Frontier
The era of Trump 2.0 is approaching. The whole world is asking the question again because a unique person named Trump has once again taken over the supreme power of the United States, which has the world’s strongest military and economic power. Who is Trump? What kind of person is this? Are you a Don Quixote in trouble? Is this Hamlet, who goes from left to right? This may be a natural question as so much power is concentrated in him, but analyzing the psychology of Trump alone cannot properly understand America’s rapidly changing global strategy.
In order to wisely respond to the Trump 2.0 era, we must not fall for the person named Trump but pay attention to the platform, policies, and value orientation of the American conservative forces that created the Trump administration. In particular, shouldn’t the people of the Republic of Korea, who have achieved prosperity and development under the cover of the ROK-US alliance for over 70 years, put aside sensational gossip and provocative speculation and explore America’s vision and strategy in the Trump 2.0 era?
If you want to know Trump, you have to look at the policies of the first Trump administration.
Korean YouTuber with over 500,000 subscribers a conservative debaterIntroducing a foreign media report predicting Harris’ victory on November 5th, when the US presidential election was held, he said, “If Trump is elected, Korea, Taiwan, and Ukraine will face a security crisis,” and “Trump’s victory means he will become a world dictator.” He claimed, “It will be their victory.”
Although it is an unrealistic extreme theory that Trump, who advocates an America-first policy, will abandon traditional alliances, neglect world peace for short-term national interests, and moderately compromise with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, people who have been exposed to biased anti-Trump reports in the mainstream U.S. media for a long time These words may sound appealing to you. However, if you truly want to know Trump’s global strategy, you should look back at the military and foreign policies of the first Trump administration rather than examining his physiognomy or words and actions.
According to Robert O’brien, national security adviser during Trump’s first term, in military and diplomatic terms, Trump consistently pursued “peace through strength.” Meanwhile, there has been speculation in the domestic and international media that Trump could threaten world peace with unexpected actions, but the Trump administration has never started a new war or expanded an existing war. Contrary to popular belief, the Trump administration was the first administration to not wage war since the Carter administration (1977-1981).
Trump consistently pursued a ‘strategy of winning without fighting,’ and as a result, in the last 16 months, the first Trump administration achieved at least four important diplomatic achievements. First, from September 2020 to January 2021, through the mediation of the United States, Israel signed the Abraham Treaty normalizing diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, respectively. Second, through the mediation of the United States, Serbia and Kosovo normalized economic relations between the two countries. Third, under pressure from the United States, Egypt and major Gulf countries ended the dispute with Qatar and lifted the blockade of the United Arab Emirates. Fourth, by actively negotiating with the Taliban, the Trump administration minimized the number of U.S. military casualties over the last year. Robert O’brien, “The Return of Peace Through Strength,” Foreign Affairs, 2024. 6.18)
“Peace through strength”: Trump inherited Reagan’s military and diplomatic line
Trump’s diplomatic line is based on the most important military and diplomatic principles that American conservatives have preached over the past 40 years. The principle is “peace through strength.” This one-word adage, said to have been left behind by the Roman Emperor Hadrian (76-138), contains the basic principles of national defense applicable to all times and all times. “Peace through strength” resonates with the wisdom of Sun Tzu’s Art of War, which states, “It is best not to fight but to subdue the enemy’s army.”
It is obvious that no country can maintain peace if it is overwhelmed by the military power of its enemy. Even a powerful country must continue to strengthen its military power and defend its homeland thoroughly in order to prevent war. As was the case in the past, as military technology develops, this principle is bound to become more important. This is because the large-scale genocidal wars of modern countries plunge all warring parties into the swamp of defeat, regardless of victory or defeat.
Even in the 250 years of American constitutional history, several presidents have made this very principle their golden rule. George Washington (1732-1799) also said, “If you want peace, always prepare for war,” and Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) said, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Entering the 1980s, Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) followed the principle of “peace through strength” and significantly increased defense spending, which reached 5.2% of GDP in 1980, spending 6-7% of GDP for all eight years, increasing military spending. augmented. As a result, the Reagan administration was able to achieve a world-historical feat of bringing down the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union without firing a single gun.
Trump, who praises Reagan as the best president in American constitutional history, declared in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2020, “The United States will fulfill its destiny as a ‘peacemaker,’ but it will be peace through strength.” This is evidence showing that the Trump administration explicitly inherited the military and diplomatic lines of the Reagan era. Reagan defined the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and expressed his religious and political conviction to Americans that “we win, they lose.” Trump, who inherited Reagan’s spirit, is calling for direct confrontation with China as the calling of the times.
The principle of “peace through strength” was expressed as a strategy to strengthen military power during the first Trump administration. In fact, the Trump administration accelerated military reform by significantly increasing the defense budget. The Trump administration is actively reviving the military-industrial complex, raising soldiers’ salaries three times, and creating a U.S. Space Force. Measures to strengthen military powerIt is a widely known fact that .
Even now, Trump seems to be maintaining that principle. In a phone call with President Yoon Seok-yeol on November 8, he singled out the shipbuilding industry among Korea’s many industries and asked for help. During the Reagan administration, the U.S. Navy had 592 battleships, but as of 2024, that number has decreased to less than 300. For that reason, in 2017, Trump planned to increase the number of warships to 355 by 2032, but was unable to properly implement the policy due to losing power (O’brien, above paper). When he returns to the White House in January next year, he is expected to ask for help from the Korean shipbuilding industry to strengthen U.S. naval power.
The Resurgence of American Conservatism: From Reagan to Trump
The slogan “Make America Great Again (MAGA),” which Trump has been shouting since the 2016 presidential election, was actually Reagan’s motto. Trump called for reviving the national reconstruction strategy of the so-called “Reagan Revolution” and rebuilding American society, which is facing crisis and chaos today.
One year before the 60th presidential election in 2023, in order to regain power for the Republican Party, American conservatives published “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” through the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. did it This policy book, which is over 920 pages in length, discusses in detail the conservative forces’ strategies for taking power and governance methods in five areas, including administrative organization, military strategy, social welfare, economic policy, and independent regulatory organizations, and is a look back on the “Reagan Revolution.” It starts from
In the late 1970s, when Jimmy Carter (1924- ) was in power, conservatives in the United States were overcome with a sense of crisis that American society was facing a total crisis and heading toward collapse. In the 1970s, the United States was mired in a swamp of ‘stagflation,’ where prices soared despite a recession as oil prices soared due to the oil crisis. As the industrial base shrank, factory land was shrinking day by day. In the cultural and academic fields, the rise of revisionism undermined Americans’ historical pride, and the rise of counter-culture movements threatened traditional values.
The anti-war protests and the “liberal revolution” that swept through American society at the time completely destroyed the historical pride, patriotism, and Christian values of Americans who were leading traditional lives. In particular, the shocking scene of the “Fall of Saigon” in Vietnam, which was broadcast to every home across the United States on April 30, 1975, seemed to signal the fall of the United States as a superpower and the rise of communism. There was widespread ideological fear among American conservatives that the U.S.-led liberal international order might collapse after being defeated by the Soviet-led communist camp. As families broke up, schools and churches collapsed, and village communities collapsed, crime rates soared throughout American society. At the time, the Carter administration tried to eradicate poverty and build a social safety net, but only the government sector grew, and low-income people fell into even more extreme poverty while remaining dependent on the government.
In the eyes of today’s American conservatives, the crisis in American society today is surprisingly similar to the situation in the United States in the late 1970s. In their eyes, the PC (Political Correctness) movement and wokism, which have been sweeping American society for the past 10 years, are similar to the hippie anti-social movement that was widespread in the 1960s and the “radical chic” that was popular in the 1970s. “It is nothing more than a trial.” (Here, “radical chic” refers to the tendency of the wealthy elite to sympathize with the claims of the radical left, without any beliefs or logic of their own, just as if they were purchasing fashion products. If translated into Korean, wouldn’t this be the level of false consciousness of the Gangnam left? )
As was the case in the late 1970s, today’s middle-class families in the United States are in economic trouble due to inflation, the lower class is unable to escape the poverty trap, the number of deaths due to abuse of the narcotic painkiller fentanyl is increasing day by day, and the trend of gender transition and pornography are rampant, and youth are I am experiencing serious identity confusion. The reality that China, which is rising at an alarming rate, is threatening the U.S. industrial base with cheap industrial products and is waging political warfare to destroy the U.S. from within in a subtle and aggressive manner is also a reflection of the Soviet Union’s attack on the U.S. in the past. It is reminiscent of the ideological, military, and political threats that were made. (Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise)
Trump’s Secret to Victory: Read the Mind and Tell the Truth
The 70-year-old Reagan, who was selected as the Republican candidate in the 1980 U.S. presidential election, aimed at conservative voters who were tired of the counterculture’s counterattack and wanted fundamental change. He actively preached his contribution to world history. As the eight-year “Reagan Revolution” came to an end, communist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed, and the Soviet Union was officially disbanded at the end of December 1991. It was the moment when the United States completely won the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, which seemed to last forever. Through the Reagan Revolution, American conservatives were able to regain not only national and historical pride, but also traditional values and a Christian worldview. In the long-awaited 1990s, they finally spoke of the victory of American-style liberal democracy and the “end of history.”
Entering the 2010s, Americans have largely lost the messianic hope that excited them in the 1990s. Conservative forces in the United States, remembering the glory of the 1980s, diligently launched a social movement to regain power ahead of the 2024 presidential election. They dreamed of the emergence of a hero who could revive conservative values like Reagan in 1980. The policy book they published presents the vision of American reconstruction in clear language. Their vision was established as a platform to revive the broken family, restore sound common sense, rebuild civic self-government, restore traditional values, and promote personal freedom. Trump was able to accurately understand the value orientation of American conservative forces and demonstrate excellent showmanship, playing the role of “Reagan of the 1980s” in the 2024 presidential election.
The United States is a country that has maintained and managed the liberal international order as the world’s police, both in name and reality, with military bases in over 140 countries around the world for 70 to 80 years. Although they may not say it out loud, many Americans have great pride in their country’s historic mission of maintaining world peace after World War II. Americans who grew up in small towns attending church and listening to the Bible have lived their lives praying every night and habitually calling out the name of Jesus. But at some point, they faced a world where it was difficult to express their religious beliefs. What is the atmosphere like when parents are afraid to even talk about or even convey traditional views of the opposite sex and sexual ethics to their children? With this presidential election, small-town conservatives have become as politicized as left-wing groups preaching freedom of gender transition and workism in the United States.
Trump regained the presidency based on their support. He publicly defended the suppressed pride, wounded religious sentiments, and unstable family views of Americans driven by cultural anxiety, and pledged to protect common sense and freedom, and he fired direct remarks at the opposing side without hesitation. As a result, ordinary American citizens with traditional values, who had been forced to hide their identity due to cultural Marxism, gave him enthusiastic support and support. This is because Trump read their minds accurately and honestly told them the truth about what they felt.
Looking at the genealogy of American conservatism from Reagan to Trump, it seems clear that Trump’s America First policy is not a strategy to reduce or give up the United States’ international status and role as a global police officer and mediator of peace. Trump’s military diplomacy strategy can be said to be a strategy to more effectively block China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran by further strengthening ties with traditional allies. The phrase “America First is not American Alone,” which high-ranking officials in Trump’s first administration recited like a mantra, speaks eloquently to this point.
From a military perspective, Trumpism is not a return to diplomatic isolationism, but rather a reaffirmation of the military self-strengthening policy pursued by the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Just as Reagan raised the flag of freedom and collapsed the evil empire of the Soviet Union, Trump has taken up the baton of freedom and predicted a confrontation with totalitarian China, which violates the freedom and human rights of its citizens. It is impossible to predict the Trump 2.0 era without looking at the trend of American conservatism from Reagan to Trump.
A return to the Reagan era is not just Trump’s opinion, but the general public opinion of American conservatives who created the Trump 2.0 era. American society, which has recreated Trump’s power, is longing for a hero like Reagan, who fundamentally healed the United States from the brink of shipwreck in the 1980s and rebuilt it into the world’s most powerful nation. It is unclear whether Trump will be able to fulfill Reagan’s role. However, in order for any country’s leader to establish an effective policy toward the United States, he or she must try to read the minds of ordinary American citizens who brought back Trump.
△Receive a newsletter containing 5 columns published in the Chosun Ilbo every day. You can gain insight into the world. Subscribe ☞ https://page.stibee.com/subscriptions/91170
[송재윤 캐나다 맥매스터대 교수·역사학]
– Copyrights ⓒ Chosun Ilbo & chosun.com, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited –
The categories of this article follow the classification of media outlets.
The category an article belongs to is classified by the media company.
News organizations can classify an article into two or more categories.
To what extent does the article accurately portray the relationship between social anxieties and the rise of both Reagan and Trump, and does it adequately consider alternative explanations for their political successes?
This article explores the intersections of American conservatism, populism, and foreign policy, particularly focusing on the comparisons between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Here are some open-ended questions to spark discussion based on the key themes:
**Section 1: The Historical Context**
* The article draws a parallel between the social and political anxieties of the 1960s and 1970s and those facing America today. Do you agree with this comparison? What are the specific similarities and differences between these eras?
* How accurately does the article portray the “radical chic” phenomenon of the 1970s? Does this concept still hold relevance in today’s society?
* The article mentions the “Soviet Union’s attack” on the US. Is this an accurate and unbiased depiction of the Cold War? How else could this historical period be framed?
**Section 2: The Reagan Revolution**
* What were the key elements of Reagan’s “conservative promise” and “Reagan Revolution”? How effectively did these policies address the issues facing America at the time?
* The article celebrates Reagan’s role in “winning” the Cold War. Is this a simplistic view of a complex geopolitical situation? What other factors contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union?
* The “end of history” concept, which emerged after the Cold War, is presented as a victory for American-style democracy. Is this an inherently optimistic or potentially problematic perspective?
**Section 3: The Rise of Trump**
* How does the article characterize Donald Trump’s appeal to American conservatives? Do you agree with their assessment?
* Trump is described as reading the “minds” of ordinary Americans. What are the dangers of politicians relying on emotional appeals and populism rather than evidence-based policymaking?
* The article highlights the “cultural anxiety” among Trump supporters. What are some of the underlying societal and economic factors contributing to this anxiety, and how might they be addressed?
**Section 4: Trump’s Foreign Policy**
* The article pauses to distinguish between “America First” and “American Alone,” arguing that Trump’s foreign policy isn’t isolationist. Do you agree with this interpretation? What evidence supports this claim?
* Is it fair to compare Trump to Reagan in terms of foreign policy? What are the potential parallels and distinctions between their approaches to global leadership?
* The article suggests that understanding Trump’s base is essential for any country seeking effective relations with the United States. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?
**Section 5: Reflection and Conclusion**
* The author concludes by emphasizing the desire for a “Reagan-like” figure in American politics. What are the potential pitfalls of nostalgia for a past era? Is there a risk of oversimplifying complex historical events and current challenges?
* How can we foster meaningful conversations about political ideologies and social issues in a polarized society?
* What are the prospects for American democracy in the wake of the Trump era?
These questions are designed to provoke critical thinking and encourage diverse perspectives on the complex issues presented in the article.
![I tried solving fortune-telling at Yongpu Street in Tainan… Unique Taiwan travel [오! 여기]｜Dong-A Ilbo](https://i0.wp.com/dimg.donga.com/wps/NEWS/IMAGE/2024/11/22/130481585.3.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1 "I tried solving fortune-telling at Yongpu Street in Tainan… Unique Taiwan travel [오! 여기]｜Dong-A Ilbo")
