How Trump Killed the Party of Reagan (And Why It Might Not Stay Dead)

Donald Trump embraced autocrats. Now his allies are tired of it.

Credit: White House

This article originally appeared in The i Paper.

Just over a decade ago, the Republican Party’s leading presidential candidates gathered for a primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, trying in various ways to claim the mantle of the revered former US leader. However, one candidate made clear on that stage that his future foreign policy would have little in common with that of the former US leader, who believed in promoting democracy abroad. Donald Trump has no such belief.

Reagan’s thinking on international politics was centred on a belief in the virtues of democracy over dictatorship, a conviction shaped by the Cold War struggle between the free world and communism. In a speech before the British parliament in 1982, he spoke of the need to foster “the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities – which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means”.

More controversially, Reagan’s administration provided funds and weapons to anti-communist guerrilla movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua – with limited results for the advance of freedom. He also demonstrated more eagerness to support democratic movements in communist dictatorships than capitalist dictatorships, his “constructive engagement” of apartheid South Africa being the most egregious contradiction of his commitment to freedom and liberty. But when democratic movements challenged US autocratic allies in Chile, the Philippines and South Korea, Reagan and his team helped gently oust these American friends and create the conditions for transitions to democracy. Promoting democratic values was a core element of his foreign policy.

It is the opposite for Trump, who has embraced autocrats around the world, including – most shockingly – Russian leader Vladimir Putin, as well as Xi Jinping in China. After removing Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro from power, Trump did not encourage the democratic opposition to take over, even though one of their leaders, Edmundo Gonzalez, won the last presidential election according to a parallel vote tabulation. Instead, he has nurtured a close relationship with Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez.

When Trump announced the beginning of the war against Iran, he called upon democratic forces there to seize power. He proclaimed: “The hour of your freedom is at hand …When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” Three months later, Trump has abandoned those fighting for freedom inside Iran and instead described the new autocrats in power as “very smart” and “rational”. To reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Trump has pledged to channel hundreds of billions to the thugs holding on to power in Tehran – revenue that will help to consolidate dictatorship and not create the permissive conditions for democratic regime change.

Trump’s enthusiasm for working with autocrats is matched by his indifference towards helping democrats. In the war between democratic Ukraine and autocratic Russia, Trump reduced American military and economic assistance to Kyiv almost to zero, even though solid majorities of Americans support aid for Ukraine. Trump treats most of our democratic allies worse than he does Xi or Putin. He characterises Nato as a protection racket, and not a club of democracies based on shared values. “The free world” is not a phrase he uses. He rarely speaks about democracy or freedom or human rights, let alone meet activists fighting dictatorships.

In the first year of his second term, Trump tried to demolish American organisations supporting democratic ideas abroad, including the US Agency for International Development, Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) inspired by Reagan’s 1982 speech. Trump’s efforts have been only partially successful, but his intentions are crystal-clear. He sees support for “small-d” democrats around the world as a waste of money.

Most of the Republican leadership has followed Trump in abandoning Reagan’s legacy. However, now and again, you see hints that not everyone in the GOP feels comfortable with being the party of deals and amorality. Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick has been a vocal advocate for more aid to Ukraine. Several Republican senators have expressed unease about handing billions to the Iranian dictatorship. Writing in The Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice recommended: “Not a single penny of frozen assets or sanctions relief should go to Tehran. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [the 2015 nuclear deal], Iran used the money to rebuild its capabilities and those of its proxies. It would do so again.” That position has support among other Republicans. Nor are all Republicans willing to ignore human rights violations in China or support the sale of sophisticated chips to Beijing that might strengthen the military of this communist dictatorship. And not all Republicans supported the proposed Trump budget cuts to NED or VOA. In fact, Republican congressional support helped restore NED’s budget, an act of principle Reagan would have applauded.

Regarding foreign policy, Trump seems to have killed the party of Reagan. It’s too early, however, to presume Reagan’s legacy will be buried for ever. As the Trump era shows signs of tattering, perhaps space for a more meaningful debate about foreign policy will open up. Over the long run, we could see the resurrection of the Party of Reagan and the fading of the Party of Trump.