The list of Trump administration foreign-policy moves in recent weeks is long. It conducted an attack on Venezuela, brought President Nicolas Madura and his wife Cilia Flores to stand trial in New York for illegal drug smuggling and secured sway over massive petroleum reserves. Along with this far-reaching action, Trump pursued control of Greenland “one way or another” and said that Cubans should prepare for collapse, Colombia and Mexico should tread lightly and Iran should expect “very strong action” if protestors there are executed.
Asked in an interview if there were any constraints limiting what he might do on the world stage, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” He added “I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.”
Some Trump critics — no matter how shocked or opposed to his actions they are— may be welcoming the thought that he, like most of the rest of us, is thinking about conscience and how it affects behavior. By no means does this ensure peaceful outcomes, but it’s not unreasonable to think that it makes those outcomes more likely.
Conscience is a virtue; acting on it is also a tool of self-interest. As moral philosopher and economist Adam Smith proposed in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, we are each equipped with an “impartial spectator” — a “man within the breast” — who observes and affects our actions. Smith argued implicitly that this helps form an invisible hand, similar to that of the free market, which enables self-interested people to become more moral creatures.
The mental process Smith described, similar to what Sigmund Freud termed the “super ego,” chastens what might otherwise be driven by greed, jealousy, an insatiable desire for power and other less divine appetites. Smith’s spectator develops from social interactions that result from the human tendency to desire respect, welcome the larger community’s praise and, for politicians, to keep their base aligned. These form habits of the heart that lead us toward long-term gains in social settings.
Smith more famously explained how self-interest enables the most efficient allocation of society’s resources. Describing human action in a world where force and coercion are not an option, he remarked that it was not from “the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” as they earn customers through superior products and pricing.
When there is competition (or even the threat of competition) in our commercial dealings, each person’s self-interest balanced against that of others can have a positive effect on overall human wellbeing; indeed, it’s a necessary part of freedom’s machinery that delivers a happy outcome.
But what about the world of international politics, where force and coercion are part of the equation? Can the competing self-interests of surging and receding world leaders still lead to a balance that serves the whole? Can such a process be chastened by the “man within the breast”?
Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, suggests that this is no time to rely on “niceties” to do the right thing: “We live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
As certain as Miller sounds, there is another reality to acknowledge: competition has its role to play. Yes, the United States has the power to forcibly remove a leader in Venezuela and to secure a different relationship with Greenland. But we are not the only game in town to partner with. There are other world powers — small and large — which have something to offer these nations, and to us for that matter.
We are seeing this competition unfold now as Canada signals an end to a long-term special U.S. friendship and discusses trade deals with India and China. We see it as Denmark moves to strengthen NATO after enduring the president’s threats to take over Greenland.
Though there are many things at play, the incentive still exists for powerful nations and their leaders to heed the impartial spectator, encourage trade and seek a more harmonious world.
