Restoring McKinley
Hardheaded realism is needed to reinforce American power in the western hemisphere
We are living in a new era of great power politics and that means doing foreign policy differently. Donald Trump has racked up an ambitious, and absurd, list of territorial demands. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico and forcing Canada into the Union have taken X and TikTok by storm but this is not just extremely elaborate trolling. It is a very 2020s take on a rambunctious trait in American foreign policy that has been around since Andy Jackson and is well suited to our current moment of heightened geopolitical competition.
The post-Cold War foreign policy establishment has been too comfortable and complacent about the nature of American diplomacy. International conferences, global summits, and endless policy papers have created a lucrative echo chamber of wonks, diplomats, and politicians across the West. The United States has always chafed against the restrictions of the international bureaucracies and laws it put in place after the Second World War, but there needs to be greater pushback against groupthink in diplomatic and defense circles.
When Trump burst on the scene in the mid-2010s with his talk of ‘America First’ and tariffs, he looked like a throwback to an age before global American hegemony. But the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine painted a different picture. The rules-based order is crumbling in critical regional theaters as revisionist powers like China, Russia, and Iran seek to expand their spheres of influence. Energy sources, critical minerals, and shipping lanes are being contested across the world.
After decades of measuring diplomatic success in terms of treaties and communiques, it feels unnatural for foreign policy makers to think in terms of territory and resources like their nineteenth century predecessors. Trump’s crude understanding of foreign affairs should encourage elites to shift their approach accordingly. The alternative to the current way of doing things is not global retreat, but hardheaded and clear judgement of what are the nation’s interests and how to protect them. American foreign policy has seen some of its greatest successes with this approach.
One US President who embraced this approach with considerable skill was William McKinley. Overshadowed by his presidential successor, Teddy Roosevelt, McKinley deserves a lot of credit for navigating the United States through the turbulent waves of imperial competition that took place around the turn of the century. Spanish imperial decline, a long time coming by 1898, was creating a dangerous power vacuum in theaters of strategic value for the United States, focused on Cuba’s efforts to gain independence.
When war broke out, despite his significant efforts to negotiate peace after years of disorder and rebellion on the island of Cuba and in the Philippines, McKinley deftly led the United States towards victory in less than a hundred days. McKinley added Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the country’s territorial possessions. Cuba briefly became a US protectorate before gaining independence and the lease on Guantánamo Bay began. These gains sit awkwardly in the public memory between the period of western expansion towards the Pacific coast and the triumphalism of 1945. But it has left an indelible mark on the country today.
McKinley serves as an obvious model for Trump, delivering four years of economic growth under the protective tariff and monetary stability. Criticized by Democrats and some members of his own party for engaging in imperialist activity, he was nonetheless an extremely popular figure who sailed to re-election in 1900. Rather than pandering to a clique of intellectuals, McKinley did what was needed to advance the security of the United States. Some even framed his territorial acquisitions within the promise of ‘manifest destiny’. Such sentiments clearly still resonate.
Trump’s declarations on tariffs, NATO spending, the Gulf of Mexico, the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada are highly unlikely to all come to fruition, nor should they. But it is all out of the typical Trump playbook. Set the bar of your demands so high that you can get as many concessions as possible. Taking the bait, too many commentators and politicians have catastrophized Trump’s remarks and failed to engage with the logic behind these proposals.
The United States already provides a significant security guarantee for Greenland, more so than Denmark. The US base on the island is home to 200 military personnel and supports the early warning missile system. Denmark only has 75 people stationed there. Melting Arctic ice will open new shipping routes that will be fiercely fought over by the United States as well as Russia and China for commercial and military purposes. Greenland contains major oil and mineral reserves, though they have lacked sufficient capital investment to be fully exploited. But rather than continuing a diplomatic row with a NATO ally, the United States should negotiate a second military base on the island and closer commercial links to exploit shipping and resource opportunities.
Closer to home, the United States should become more constructive with Canada, especially if the Conservatives win the next general election later this year. The love-hate dynamic in US-Canadian relations is centuries old and Trump’s trolling keeps it in good health. But the trade deficit and problems across the northern border do need to be addressed. Annexation will not resolve them. Doug Ford, the Conservative premier of Ontario, has called for ‘Fortress Am-Can’, a close security and economic partnership. A Trump-Poilievre alliance could be transformative for North America, especially in keeping hostile foreign powers out of the Arctic. Increased defense spending from Canada must be a baseline for such a partnership to be meaningful.
Looking south of the border, Trump’s call to buy back the Panama Canal and rename the Gulf of Mexico also reflect deeper commercial and security needs. China has ports at either end of the Panama Canal via CK Hutchison, posing a very real strategic risk in terms of espionage and weakening Panama’s support for the United States. Already, Panama withdrew its recognition of Taiwan in 2017. Given to Panama under Jimmy Carter, the canal is supposed to guarantee neutrality under the 1977 treaty. This neutrality ought to be respected and upheld, but preventing Chinese influence from growing ought to be a priority for keeping it this way.
Tensions and conflicts in the Asia Pacific, Europe, and Middle East have rightly taken up a lot of attention. But we must not forget the geopolitical region in which the United States itself is placed. US foreign policy in the region should be determined by the security of trade, borders, airspace, and shipping lanes, and it is not wrong to state this bluntly. Reinforcing American hegemony in the western hemisphere will allow the United States to be safer, stronger, and better positioned to counter Chinese aggression in other theaters. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico is not going to happen or advance these goals. However, to pay respect to the realist school of American foreign policy, Trump should keep his word and restore Mount McKinley.