‘Popular control’: Covid-19 vaccine rollout under fire

Key Concepts

• Australian-US Relations & Credibility: Australia’s pandemic response negatively impacted its standing with conservative Americans.
• American Political Philosophy & Government: The fundamental difference in the US and Australian approaches to government – stemming from historical origins and differing views on the role of state power.
• Trump’s Foreign Policy: Characterized by interventionism, a disregard for international norms, and a revival of 19th-century “great power” politics.
• Trump’s Approach to Negotiation: A pattern of aggressive posturing followed by eventual compromise, designed to achieve US-centric outcomes.
• Historical Parallelism: Drawing comparisons between Trump’s actions and historical figures like Napoleon and Andrew Jackson.

Australia’s Credibility & Divergent Political Philosophies

The discussion began with noting the absence of a US ambassador to Australia. More significantly, the speaker addressed Steve Bannon’s assertion that Australia lost credibility with conservative Americans due to its stringent COVID-19 response. The speaker agreed with this assessment, stating that Australia’s “political class” overemphasizes the success of its “experiment in popular control” regarding the vaccine rollout. This contrasts sharply with the US experience, where even in “the reddest of red states” like Wyoming, mask mandates were quickly abandoned due to “popular discontent.”

The core difference, according to the speaker, lies in the foundational philosophies of the two nations. Australia, due to its historical isolation, historically sought government protection. Conversely, the United States was born against government, stemming from its late 18th-century rebellion against British rule. This historical divergence has resulted in a fundamentally different understanding of government power, with Australia being perceived as more deferential to state authority. The speaker noted that while Donald Trump isn’t a “big reader of history,” he “instinctively” understands this difference, recognizing that the American system is “predicated on a different understanding of government power.”

Trump & Greenland: A Pattern of Interventionism

The conversation then shifted to Donald Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland, including his ambiguous statements to reporters ("You'll find out" regarding how far he’d go) and his simultaneous tariff threats against European allies. Macron’s warning against “new imperialism” and the EU’s threat of trade retaliation were also mentioned.

The speaker characterized Trump’s approach as “classic Trump” – a pattern of initial aggression followed by eventual negotiation towards a US-favorable outcome. He predicted that Trump’s second term would be “the most activist, the most interventionist” of his presidency, citing the “deposing of regimes in his own backyard” and “attacking of Iran” as evidence.

Historical Analogies & the Revival of “Great Power” Politics

The speaker argued that understanding Trump requires a “19th-century great man template.” He sees Trump as embodying a tradition stretching back to figures like Napoleon and, within the American context, Andrew Jackson. Jackson, known for his “flamboyant hair” (a humorous aside), waged war against Spain to acquire Florida, demonstrating a historical precedent for US territorial expansion.

The speaker emphasized that Trump, while perhaps not consciously referencing these historical precedents, has “embied a certain understanding that territory counts,” reflecting a “millennia old imperative of great power politics.” He lamented that contemporary academic and journalistic discourse lacks the “vocabulary” to comprehend a leader who disregards international law and embraces “violence and force” as legitimate tools of power.

The Absence of Strong Leadership & a Call for New Analytical Frameworks

The interviewer briefly expressed a sentiment that Australia could benefit from a leader exhibiting similar qualities to Trump, acknowledging the current lack of strong leadership.

The speaker concluded by reiterating the need for a new analytical framework to understand Trump’s actions, which represent a “modern reinvention” of traditional power dynamics. He highlighted the inadequacy of existing analytical tools, particularly those rooted in international law and moral arbitration, to interpret a leader who prioritizes force and territorial gain.

Conclusion

The discussion painted a picture of Donald Trump as a uniquely disruptive force in international politics, driven by a historically-rooted understanding of power and unconstrained by conventional norms. The speaker argued that Australia’s pandemic response damaged its standing with conservative Americans, and that a fundamental difference in political philosophy separates the US and Australia. Ultimately, the conversation underscored the need for a re-evaluation of analytical frameworks to effectively understand and respond to Trump’s unconventional and assertive foreign policy.