Don't Fear Trump's Tweets
Forty years ago, a series of commercials with the tag line “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen” made the stock brokerage firm one of the most recognizable brands in America. Thanks largely to his tweets, President Trump can make the same claim. When he tweets, not only do people listen, some of them get very angry. China’s state media even called him out for his “ill-advised Twitter diplomacy.”
Certainly, Trumpian tweets can be unsettling. But the issue is: How much will they drive both American foreign policy and the world’s response? Contrary to popular belief, the answer is probably not much.
Bridging Action and Rhetoric
Both talk and action define national policy. Words, however, are the handmaiden of governance, not its mistress. History remembers Reagan’s historic foreign-policy demand: “Tear down this wall.” It still resonates, not so much because it was a great line, but because the words were backed by action. Pushing back against the Soviet Union was a core tenet of Reagan’s foreign policy. In the end, the wall did come down. But it took more than a speech to make it happen.
In contrast, it is hard to recall a single memorable statement from President Obama’s 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt. Doubtless it contained lines that could have been worth remembering. But the policy articulated in the speech failed to deliver any historic achievement. Instead, global terrorism got worse, the old animosities linger, and the region appears as fractious as ever.
For the most part, rhetoric unmatched by action is not a particularly powerful force on the world stage. Further, rhetoric is a small part of governance. If government could have been run by tweet, both Bush and Obama would have done that long ago.
Weathering the Tweet Storm
Much of the complaint about Trump’s tweeting is that, at this point, there is little much else to go on. That’s a fair comment, particularly before the inauguration when there was no government action to analyze.
Even now that the president is in the Oval Office, those trying to divine how this administration will work have little new to go on. That may sound strange, as Trump appears to be off to one of the most activist starts of any president in modern history. Within the first two weeks, he had already issued twenty-two executive orders.
Trump stormed out of the starting gate because of the Presidential Transition Act, which facilitated establishing a robust transition infrastructure months before the election. It’s that infrastructure that provided the capacity to deliver a blizzard of executive guidance starting from day one.
But the executive orders don’t say much new. Most simply track with concrete campaign promises the president made before the election. For example, Trump had repeatedly stated—and prominently featured on his campaign and transition websites—the intent to adopt “extreme vetting” to block foreign fighters from coming to the United States to commit acts of terror.
But on many foreign-policy topics—from the future of NATO to dealing with Putin—there were no hard and fast promises made during the campaign or (unsurprisingly) in the executive orders. These issues crop up mostly in tweets, offhand comments, interviews and the occasional leak.
Trying to infer policy from tweets, particularly the president’s tweets, can be maddeningly frustrating. It is often hard to figure out what he means.
To be fair to the president, critics tend to pick the comment they want to obsess about and ignore everything else. For instance, they went apoplectic over Trump’s statement that “NATO is obsolete” while ignoring positive comments he or other officials have made about the importance of the alliance. Similarly, those pushing the “Trump hearts Russia” narrative blithely omit mentioning the assurances he has given on key matters, like not pushing for lifting sanctions on Russia.
Of course words matter. But Trump does not use words as past presidents did. That has proven perplexing to Washington, DC and Washington watchers worldwide.
Trump is not the first “president with a difference” that Washington has found to be unsettling. Andrew Jackson upset the capital with his rough speak and outsider views. Dwight Eisenhower public demeanor also disturbed the force in Washington. After more than a decade of New Deal rule, the nation’s capital didn’t know what to make of a commander in chief who didn’t go the right cocktail parties, talk to the right reporters or hang out with the Georgetown set. Both Carter and Reagan also inflicted a bit of culture shock on the Washington establishment.