Trump's Politics of Resentment, Victim Narrative Make America Less Great
Kagefumi Ueno
Among the characteristics of U.S. President Donald Trump, what particularly perplexes me is his obsessive use of popular resentment for his own political purposes. Trump has repeatedly alleged that the United States is a victim exploited by foreign countries, be they allies or non-allies.
'For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,' Trump said on April 2 when he announced sweeping tariffs including 10% global levies plus often far higher duties on a country by country basis.
This type of politics of resentment was foreseen over a decade ago by Michael J. Mazarr, who was then a professor at the National War College of the United States. In his article titled 'The Age of Grievance: How to Play Resentment Politics' in Foreign Affairs in July 2014, Mazarr said that the world should be prepared for the arrival of an age of grievance in which the dynamics of international politics are no longer shaped only by geopolitical factors.
Equally important are such psychological factors as anger, grievance and a sense of alienation, he argued. He also said that political leaders have become keener to rebuild identity and to demand redemption in line with the seriousness of humiliations collectively incurred.
Mazarr referred to Russia and China as the major players of resentment politics. He also commented that jihadist groups successfully expanded their spheres of influence by capitalizing on people's grievances in the Middle East.
His account looks as though it foretold Russian President Vladimir Putin's current aggression against Ukraine, which started eight years later. Putin has tried to justify the outrageous assault by portraying Russia as the victim, having long been menaced by Western powers.
It was natural that Mazarr did not describe the United States as a victim, as the nation is an unquestionable winner in the world economy. The global market dominance of American tech giants is a case in point.
One could argue that the United States has even acted as a bully on a number of occasions in history. It repeatedly meddled in the domestic politics of Latin American nations such as Guatemala, Cuba, Chile and El Salvador during the Cold War. Its interventionist approach was again evident in its destructive wars in Vietnam and Iraq.
Trump's threats to retake the Panama Canal, acquire Greenland and take over Gaza, and his efforts to force Ukraine to accept his deal with Moscow, can be traced back to this historic pattern. His order to impose sanctions against the International Criminal Court also appears to show his 'might-is-right' stance.
Indeed, the United States has been in a privileged position as the issuer of the key international currency, the U.S. dollar. Being a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council is yet another source of its power.
Against this backdrop, the United States has been an apparent hegemon, and therefore Trump's repeated descriptions of the United States as a victim are perplexing and sound unacceptably phony. Trump erroneously ascribes many of the nation's domestic problems to what he alleges to be ploys by foreign nations.
The president claims that tariffs are needed because Americans — particularly those in 'Rust Belt' states that have experienced industrial decline, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan — are being victimized by a number of exporting countries.
For sure, parts of the United States have lagged in the transition toward a technology-driven economy, but U.S. tech giants have been bringing huge wealth to the country. The problem is that wealth in the United States is not fairly shared across regions or sectors. It must be the responsibility of the U.S. government — not China or other exporters — to solve this largely domestic issue.
Trump often uses this type of victim narrative to address security issues as well. Demonstrating his dissatisfaction with the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the president said on April 10: 'We pay hundreds of billions of dollars to defend [Japan], but … they don't pay anything.'
This statement is factually wrong. Japan provides bases to the United States based on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and pays hundreds of billions of yen every year to support the stationing of U.S. forces in Japan.
The comment sounds as if Trump was suggesting Washington had been forced to defend Japan. How could the mightiest nation on earth be forced to do anything against its will?
The U.S. policy of deploying its military forces worldwide has always been its independent and strategic decision to project its own power globally and to shape the world order in line with its own national interest. If Trump believes otherwise, he defames his predecessors and his own nation.
Trump is shrewd enough to capitalize on people's grudges. This wrongheaded political approach was decisive in winning the throne again. Even so, a victim mentality makes American diplomacy utterly untrustworthy and unhealthy. What I don't want to see in the coming years is him making America less great.
Ueno is a civilization essayist and a former Japanese ambassador to Guatemala (2001-04) and the Holy See (2006-10).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
3 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Bill Emmott: China shifting from 'wolf warrior' diplomacy in style swap with US
By Bill Emmott, independent writer, lecturer and international affairs consultant A few years ago, the talk was about China's "wolf warrior" diplomacy, a term used to describe the aggressive, often coercive style being used by Chinese ambassadors all over the world but especially in the Indo-Pacific. It felt as if the Chinese government simply didn't care about whether other governments liked China or not. This year, however, the Chinese style seems to have changed. To some extent, in fact, that wolf-warrior style has been taken over by the United States. This swapping of styles was displayed clearly at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue of Indo-Pacific defence and security ministers that was hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank of which I have the honour of being chairman, in Singapore from May 30 to June 1. Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, did not use the term "wolf" but in his powerful speech to the Shangri-La Dialogue he talked frequently about reintroducing "the warrior ethos" into the American military and to America's deterrence posture in the region. Unusually for a U.S. Secretary of Defense, he referred specifically to the threats being posed by China in the region and named that country not just as China but as "Communist China," an ideological style rarely heard since the end of the Cold War 35 years ago. This message was perfectly welcome from the point of view of the Indo-Pacific countries, especially traditional security allies such as Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and other partners in South-East Asia. For decades, the region has been happy to have American warriors helping to keep the peace. But now that American peacekeeping has "wolf" elements attached, albeit chiefly in an area of policy that is outside Secretary Hegseth's remit, trade and other things are feeling less comfortable. Under President Joe Biden's administration, countries often complained that America was not paying sufficient attention to trade and foreign investment, even while it was strengthening its security commitments. Since January, under Donald Trump's administration the complaints have reversed: The huge import tariffs he imposed on countries in the region on his so-called "Liberation Day" of April 2 represent far more attention than the region wanted. In fact, they represent a severe economic blow. Questioned about this at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Secretary Hegseth simply avoided answering by saying that trade was his boss's responsibility, not that of the Department of Defense. He also, however, stated that Trump's foreign policy approach was that America should not be telling other countries what they should be doing -- yet his trade policy appears to many in the region to be doing exactly that. The interesting thing is that instead of attending the Singapore event and exposing that contradiction, China chose to stay away and keep its head down. Unlike in recent years, China chose not to send its minister of national defense, nor even any senior military officers from the People's Liberation Army, and gave no explanation for its seemingly last-minute decision. Each time a Chinese official asked a question, however, it was one about tariffs or about America's treatment of the 10 (soon to be 11 with Timor-Leste joining) members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The intention seemed to be to exploit the contradiction in America's approach, but to do so quietly and gently rather than in the wolf-warrior style. This lower-key, more genuinely diplomatic policy was also shown by the fact that one day before the Shangri-La Dialogue China unveiled a new multilateral institution of its own, to be based in Hong Kong: the International Organization for Mediation. A convention to establish the new organization was signed by 30 countries, notably including Indonesia. The likely work of the new organization remains unclear, except that the convention says that it will aim to help resolve international disputes through mediation rather than through existing legal bodies such as the International Court of Justice. It is also not yet clear what sort of disputes might benefit from this mediation, but it is reasonable to suppose that one potential candidate might be the frontier dispute between two ASEAN members, Cambodia and Thailand, a recurrent dispute which led to an exchange of gunfire on May 28 and the death of a Cambodian soldier. Policy contradictions are not unique to the United States. China says that this new organization will aim to reinforce the principles of the United Nations Charter of 1945. Yet the most flagrant breach of those principles in recent years has been the invasion and seizure of Ukraine's sovereign territory by Russia, which is China's strategic partner "without limits," according to the Joint Statement issued by China and Russia three weeks before the attempted military takeover of Ukraine in February 2022. Furthermore, there are no signs of a condemnation by China of Russia's breach of the U.N. Charter nor of China proposing the use of its new mediation organization to try to bring an end to that deadly war. According to Kaja Kallas, the European Union's chief representative for foreign and security policy, China is the source of 80% of Russia's imports of dual-use goods that it needs for its war. Nor has China commented publicly on Russia's use of North Korean troops to fight alongside its own army in this war on the European continent. The other contradiction in China's position is that in the South China Sea, its own navy and coastguards are the most frequent cause of disputes over territorial waters and the reefs beneath them. China is confronting military and civilian ships from the Philippines on a daily basis, and it has ignored a 2016 ruling by the International Court of Arbitration in the Hague over those waters and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. If China chooses during the coming months or years to try to test the "warrior ethos" Secretary Hegseth talked about at the Shangri-La Dialogue, it is likely to do so over its dispute with the Philippines in the South China Sea, to see what Trump's America is willing to do under the terms of its Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 with the Philippines. Such a test would risk raising the U.S.-China confrontation to a new and dangerous level. Until and unless such a test happens, what we are seeing looks like a new stage in Chinese diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific: to be quiet, to sound cooperative and to provide a market for regional exports that is easier to access than the United States. The "wolf warrior" has, for the time being, been superseded by the friendly, quite reasonable-sounding neighbourhood mediator. Let's see how long this phase lasts.
The Mainichi
12 hours ago
- The Mainichi
New S. Korea leader, Trump agree to seek 'satisfactory' tariff deal
SEOUL (Kyodo) -- New South Korean President Lee Jae-Myung and U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during their first telephone talks on Friday to work toward a "mutually satisfactory" agreement on U.S. tariffs at an early date, South Korea's presidential office said. "Regarding ongoing tariff consultations between the two countries, the presidents agreed to strive for a mutually satisfactory agreement as soon as possible," the office said after their phone talks, adding that the leaders pledged to encourage tangible progress to be achieved in working-level negotiations. The two countries have been trying to negotiate a deal on the 25 percent tariffs Trump imposed on South Korea in early April as part of his so-called reciprocal import duties targeting almost all countries. During their talks, which started off with Trump congratulating Lee on his win in Tuesday's election, Lee emphasized the significance of his country's alliance with the United States. Both sides expressed an intention to work closely together for further development of the iron-clad alliance, according to the office. The office also said that Trump invited Lee to the United States, and the two leaders agreed to meet at the earliest opportunity to hold more in-depth discussions on advancing the alliance.
Yomiuri Shimbun
13 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
International Students Scared to Leave U.S., Return to School after Travel Ban
Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post Students walk on the campus of Pennsylvania State University in State College, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 7. As President Donald Trump signaled plans for a new travel ban after taking office, the family of a 19-year-old Venezuelan student at the Savannah College of Art and Design decided she shouldn't go home for the summer. She wasn't sure she'd be let back in the United States if she left. The possibility hung in the air for months, but nothing happened. Her parents, in Caracas, started planning to fly her back. Then the White House announced Wednesday that it would restrict entry to the U.S. by nationals of 12 countries, with partial restrictions on seven others – including Venezuela. The art school student immediately scrapped her plans to go home – or to any other country. She canceled a getaway to Costa Rica booked for the next day and instead plans to stay in Miami with her sister, who is also on a student visa. Her bags are still packed. 'I came here looking for better opportunities than the ones I could find back home,' said the student, who, like some other international students interviewed by The Washington Post, spoke on the condition of anonymity or withheld their full identities because they fear losing their visas. 'I came here to learn from the best and contribute as much as I can. I haven't done anything wrong, but they're treating us like we're some sort of terrorists.' While the White House says Trump's order would not affect current visa holders, it has plunged foreign students into uncertainty. Many colleges, bracing for a possible ban, have been warning international students for months to avoid nonessential foreign travel due to fears they could suddenly be unable to reenter the country. Now that a ban has arrived – during summer break for many schools – some students are scrambling to get back from abroad before the restrictions take effect Monday. Others in the U.S. worry they won't be able to return if they leave. Data from the 2023-2024 academic year show there were about 24,000 international students in the United States from the countries listed in the ban, which include many African and Muslim-majority nations. In his executive order, Trump said the travel ban was based on 'foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals' and applies to people who are currently abroad and do not have a valid visa. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said that visas issued before Monday, when the order takes effect, will not be revoked and holders can enter the country 'as long as there are no other reasons that would prevent entry.' Students and experts are wary of the ban's scope – and about how it will be implemented at airports and borders, and whether efforts to obtain or renew visas will be disrupted. In late May, the State Department suspended foreign students' visa appointments as it prepared to expand screening of applicants' social media accounts, The Post reported. 'Prospective students will be forced to abandon their educational dreams, faculty members will no longer be able to effectively collaborate internationally, and families will be kept apart,' Barbara Snyder, president of the Association of American Universities, said in a statement. 'These bans send a message to all foreign nationals, even those not immediately affected by them: You are not welcome here.' By the numbers In 2017, during his first term in office, Trump enacted a travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries – sparking protests and legal challenges. The White House's latest travel ban comes as part of its broader effort to reduce immigration and align higher education with Trump's political agenda. Wednesday's order bars the entry of individuals from Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also partially restricts the entry of travelers from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Iranians are by far the largest group of students affected by the restrictions, according to data from the Open Doors 2024 report from the Institute of International Education and the State Department. More than 12,000 Iranians studied in the U.S. in the 2023-2024 academic year – roughly three times the number of the next largest group, Venezuelans, of which there were 3,904 that year. African countries targeted by Trump's travel restrictions send far fewer people to study at American institutions. Just 66 students came from Chad in 2023-2024, for instance. The Open Doors data show stark differences in the type of education pursued by students from each of the affected countries. The vast majority of Iranians studying in the U.S. – 81.5 percent – are graduate students, while most students from Venezuela and Myanmar are enrolled in undergraduate programs. For most countries in the ban, much smaller percentages of the students they send to the U.S. are enrolled in programs that don't lead to a degree or are working in the U.S. under 'Optional Practical Training' status. The latter allows eligible students to pursue employment related to their studies for a year after graduation; those in science, technology, engineering or mathematics fields can apply to extend that to three years. Families spend months apart Arshia Esmaeilian, an Iranian student at the University of South Florida, had hoped to visit his family in Dubai next winter break. His mother had also been applying for a visa to visit him and his brother, who is also on a student visa, in the United States. But the travel ban means neither of those trips are likely to happen, Esmaeilian said. 'I was very disappointed,' said Esmaeilian, 21. 'My parents don't even know if they'll be able to come to the U.S. as visitors to attend my graduation next spring.' Another Venezuelan student, a 22-year-old at Pennsylvania State University, hasn't been home since December. He has an internship in the U.S. this summer and doesn't feel like he can travel to Venezuela after it ends. 'I'm just not willing to expose myself to that risk since I only have one year left in my studies,' the student said, adding, 'I really just hope that my parents are able to see me graduate.' Universities issue warnings More than a dozen prominent universities sent out guidance for international students ahead of a potential travel ban – some before Trump's inauguration in January. The ban stems from a Jan. 20 executive order instructing the Departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on whether allowing people to enter from specific countries was a national security risk. 'If you must travel, please check in with us first,' Stanford University's Bechtel International Center wrote in March. 'We are able to connect you to immigration resources.' The same month, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology told its students to 'bear in mind' that changes and restrictions could 'be implemented quickly and without ample warning for travelers.' Jeff Joseph, incoming president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, described the ban as the latest salvo in a 'full attack on students and institutions,' including visa revocations and tougher social media screening. He noted that the ban comes at a time of year when international students typically schedule consulate appointments in preparation for the next school year. 'I have big concerns that these students won't even get their visas in time to be back here for the fall,' Joseph said. He added that it is unclear how much difficulty visa holders will face when they try to reenter the country, and that he is watching whether the administration issues guidance before Monday to airline carriers and ports of entry. For Alejandro, a rising senior at the University of Florida, the ban on Venezuelans felt like 'a slap in the face.' 'Even more than that, actually – it feels like a full-on betrayal,' Alejandro said. He had celebrated Trump's victory in November, believing it would help restore democracy in Venezuela. 'I really thought he was on our side – not that he'd be the one locking the doors to innocent people,' Alejandro said.
