During an interview on CNN the other day, Donald Trump told Jake Tapper that the “Trump Doctrine” is “strength.” He was specifically talking about his foreign policy worldview, but strength isn’t just Trump’s national security strategy, it’s his entire brand — his raison d’être.
Strength isn’t just something President Trump would employ to scare Putin or China, it’s how he gets elected, how he pushes an agenda, and how he intimidates his primary opponents. It transcends foreign policy, and defines his very existence. This is why people have no problem calling him a strongman.
Just as Americans who are desperate for someone to “Make America Great Again” eat this up, those with strong philosophical leanings (and a healthy fear of demagogues) find it equally repellent. The problem with having “strength” be your electoral rationale is that it’s value free — and philosophically neutral.
In this regard, the word “strength” is like the word “change.” Barack Obama inspired the masses with promises of change, without ever noting that change can be positive or disastrous. Likewise, the attribute of strength does not denote virtue or freedom. George Washington was strong — but so was Napoleon. Winston Churchill was strong — but so was Mussolini.
So how did we come to fetishize strength? In a world where politicians seem weak and effete and impotent, a sizable chunk of voters seem willing to toss the dice on a guy who makes things happen. (It hardly matters what things he makes happen.) An incompetent, corrupt, or anemic government sets the stage for public passions to be swept up by an inspiring figure who can restore a nation to its glory days. Thus, Mussolini can pretend he’s remaking the Roman Empire — just as Churchill can talk about defending Christendom and western civilization.
Don’t get me wrong, having seen Hillary Clinton dominate the debate stage and the Benghazi hearing, Republican voters would be wise to nominate someone who’s tough enough to go toe to toe with her. And having seen Barack Obama dither these last eight years, American needs a president who can project a strong image abroad. But while strength should certainly be one of the qualities we look for in a leader, it should, by no means, be the only — or even primary — attribute we look for.