Donald Trump’s return to the White House caused numerous comparisons with previous US presidents. Most commentators pointed out that this was the second time that a candidate with a pause between presidential duties had become president for a second term. The first was Stephen Grover Cleveland (1885-89 and 1893-97, i.e. the 22nd and 24th president, respectively). That was the end of the comparison with Cleveland. By the way, he was a representative from the Democratic Party.
The Argentine sociologist Atilio Boron drew attention to another figure, William McKinley, President of the United States from 1897 to 1901, who succeeded Cleveland. And there are much more comparisons here. McKinley was a Republican, and under him the United States significantly increased its regional power. The Hawaiian islands were annexed, and the war with Spain began, as a result of which Washington gained control of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba. The story of Cuba, which at that time was waging a war of independence from Spain, is particularly interesting. The Cuban patriots did not ask for help from the United States, because they understood how this could turn out (Jose Marti, who died at the beginning of the Third War of Independence, also warned about this). Then, in February 1898, the United States brought the battleship U.S.S. Maine into the bay of Havana, which surprisingly exploded a few days later. Of course, the blame was laid on Spain, despite the fact that the Spanish side was actively involved in the investigation.
Trump’s similar flaunts about the possible seizure of the Panama Canal, the acquisition of Greenland and the incorporation of Canada into the United States provide certain parallels with McKinley’s activities.
In general, such a comparison of Trump and McKinley is quite logical for Latin American countries within the Monroe doctrine 2.0 strategy.
However there is another figure who is closer to Trump both in spirit and in time frame. And on the part of Russia, in the light of the negative experience, he also causes a certain wariness. This is Ronald Reagan. Moreover, Trump was personally acquainted with Reagan and considered him his political idol. What are the comparisons between these leaders? Firstly, both were political outsiders, but they were able to win the votes of the majority of Americans. There were assassinations on both of them (Reagan was wounded more severely than Trump, who escaped with just a scratch on his ear).
Although there is another figure who is closer to Trump both in spirit and in time span. And on the part of Russia, in the light of the negative experience, he also causes a certain wariness. This is Ronald Reagan. Moreover, Trump was personally acquainted with Reagan and considered him his political idol. What are the comparisons between these leaders? Firstly, both were political outsiders, but they were able to win the votes of the majority of Americans. There were assassinations on both of them (Reagan was wounded more severely than Trump, who escaped with just a scratch on his ear).
Even “Make America Great Again” comes from the Reagan years. Therewith, in regard to tariff wars, Reagan imposed 100% duties on Japanese electronic devices, effectively limiting the flow of goods from his satellite. Trump did the same thing, but on a broader scale.
Moreover, Donald Trump’s “Iron Dome for America” initiative based on the revision of the missile defense system and the involvement of the US Space Force (created during Donald Trump’s first presidential term) clearly echoes Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. Although back in the 1980s, this initiative ended in nothing, and only defense contractors benefited from it. Detente with the Soviet Union led to a reduction in armaments, and then to the collapse of the USSR. There was no need to defend against Soviet nuclear missiles then and the United States directly controlled their destruction, as well as the export of then existing carriers and warheads from independent Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
The current negotiations between the United States and Russia also raise the question of whether a similar scenario could happen again, when Washington, with good intentions, begins to receive Russian technologies (for example, hypersonic launch systems) that are not available in the United States. It is no coincidence that after the first talks in Riyadh, they talked about cooperation in space. Resources are another possible interest of the United States, and again, statements about cooperation in the Arctic may have this initial position of Washington.
There is another common feature, not obvious, but very important when making decisions. It’s a religion. Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are Protestant Presbyterians, and they tend to strange shapes. Thus, Reagan was exalted by a sect of dispensationalists who interpreted the confrontation between the United States and the USSR in a special way during the Cold War era and linked the apocalypse with nuclear war. According to their views, God-chosen Americans and some Israelis will miraculously be saved after Armageddon, after which there will be universal prosperity. In general, dispensationalism in its various interpretations has become a kind of civil religion in the United States, where its followers justify any actions by Washington in foreign policy, including military interventions, because everything is done “for the benefit of all mankind.”
Donald Trump has similar views, and his personal “confessor” is TV evangelist Paula White. Now this pastor in a skirt heads the White House Faith Office, which was created at the White House. Judging by her statements, as well as statements made during a meeting in early February with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, she belongs to a group of Christian Zionists. And Donald Trump’s support for Israel’s actions against the Palestinians confirms the fact that religious views might well be behind political decisions.
Perhaps the most significant difference between Reagan’s and Trump’s policies is the issue of migration. On November 6, 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The most significant effect of this law was that it allowed immigrants who entered the United States illegally before January 1, 1982, to apply for legal status, subject to payment of fines and unpaid taxes. This provision, which Reagan himself called an “amnesty,” allowed approximately 3 million immigrants to obtain legal status by paying $185., by demonstrating “good moral qualities” and learning to speak English.
Between 1980 and 1990, which included the eight-year Reagan administration, the U.S. foreign-born population increased from 14.1 million to 19.8 million. This change affected an increase in the number of Latin Americans by 4 million and 2.4 million Asians, as well as a decrease in the number of Europeans by almost 800,000 people.
Donald Trump does exactly the opposite. And in the first days of his second term, the United State started deportations of thousands of illegal migrants.
However, it should be noted that the geopolitical context was different then as well as the goals. Under Reagan, naturalization took place and the United States accepted migrants from countries with hostile ideologies as victims of their regimes. Now the situation is different, and it seems that there is a whole range of reasons behind Trump’s decision. One of them is a blow to the electoral base of the Democrats, who used illegal migrants to expand their influence. Executive corruption is also an interconnected topic, and Elon Musk, as head of the newly created efficiency department (DOGE) , is actively addressing this issue.
In any case, the world was not calm under either McKinley or Reagan, and the United States applied harsh measures against both its enemies and its allies. It is necessary to be prepared for a similar scenario under Donald Trump.
Comments