There is a lot you can say about Donald Trump, some of it printable. But the thing I keep saying is “If he’s so awful, why’s he better than the alternatives?” It is a question most of his critics seem uninterested in addressing, or even admitting exists, while his political adversaries apparently gear up to nominate Kamala Harris or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes for president. Including that after all the ruckus over Greenland it appears that the President essentially got his way, not least because everyone secretly knows that in the event of a real, urgent threat to Western security, they will turn to the US to meet it partly because only the Americans seem willing, and partly because only they possibly could.
Of course coverage of this issue and its outcome takes a different tone. For instance The Economist intones “Donald Trump has resolved one of the many geopolitical crises rumbling on by reaching a deal with Denmark over Greenland. But his threats of annexation had already done damage enough, writes our Telegram columnist.” (Yes, sorry, one of those newsletters inexplicably not posted online in the year of grace 2026.) Reading which you would never guess that in fact Denmark has agreed that the US of A will assume responsibility for Greenland’s security. And who else was going to? The EU? Denmark? Canada? Hoo hah. Indeed, and without minimizing its difficulties including runaway government debt, the United States remains the indispensable nation economically as well as geopolitically. Why? And why do people keep insisting it’s not, other than envy?
The economic question has been front of mind for me particularly since a Sept. 2 email from the New York Times, a cosmopolitan publication in the worst sense of that word and long prone to ignoble foreign infatuations from Stalin to Castro to Ho Chi Minh, grumbled “Allies are grumbling that the U.S. is hindering global economic growth.”
Whaaaaat? Ask the allies about American economic policy and they’ll go on and on about everything from protectionism to lack of aggressive climate policy to excessive laissez-faire. And then whine that Uncle Sam isn’t making them rich. The actual story concerns a G20 finance minister/central banker gathering and says “At a summit meant to showcase President Trump’s economic policies as a model for the world, Europeans complained about tariffs and the war with Iran.” So why don’t they do better?
As the Times went on to write: “Some of the difference is philosophical. Mr. Trump has eviscerated regulatory barriers for businesses, including the booming artificial intelligence industry, and leaned into fossil fuel production. European leaders remain more cautious on A.I. and other deregulation and more committed to a transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, even as they try to nurture their own tech ecosystem to rival America and China.”
So Americans are a bunch of planet-incinerating free-market vulgarians. Fine. Show them up. Or if you can’t, learn some lessons from the underlying strengths that have survived Trump’s idiocies.
Yes, idiocies. It has cost me friends and financial support but I’ve been a never-Trumper since before the term existed and still am. Especially when I get a fundraising appeal from him (Sept. 22) that includes, in red, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” The man is a frivolous maniac. And he’s also a figure very much out of his time; from “To the victor go the spoils” to this business about the “Gulf of America” and “Lake America” he’s surprisingly reminiscent of a late antebellum political figure, from the “Fifty-four forty or fight era.”
Of course it could be argued that they saw more clearly than we do on some issues, including not groveling about their heritage. But they had major blind spots and in any case an archaic political style is rarely an advantage.
So why is he a better president than Joe Biden or even Barack Obama? It makes no sense. But he is, including when it comes to economics.
As Breitbart “Business Digest” recently observed, “The World Still Loves the American Economy”. It quoted the New York Times that “The World Economy Is Becoming Wary of the U.S.” and noted pointedly that “The subhead pins the blame directly on President Trump: ‘America’s position of global economic stability is starting to look shakier as the Trump administration piles on debt and doubles down on sanctions.’” And indeed to those of us who believe in minimal government, including minimal interference in trade foreign or domestic, Trump’s policies are a horror story not improved by his minimal attention span. Though to blame Trump for a deficit-and-debt addiction dating back to the Lyndon Johnson years, especially when it is Congress that passes budgets and tax bills not the Executive, seems a bit tendentious.
Still, the key point is that America’s economic policy is dubious and has been for a long time, under presidents and Congresses of both stripes. So why is it so much better than anyone else’s? How hard would it be to have better trade or fiscal policies than the US? But who does? Instead Canada, already a nest of protectionism, leaped at the excuse to make it far worse. And again even we’re better than a lot of places arguably including the EU.
As Breitbart pointed out, puncturing that Times piece, “Start with the claim that capital is ‘starting to seek alternative destinations.’ We don’t want to be rude about this, but the Times is completely wrong. According to Treasury data released Wednesday, foreigners purchased a net $1.75 trillion of long-term American securities over the 12 months through July. That’s a significant increase from the $1.47 trillion in the preceding 12 months. Even more importantly, it is more than double the roughly $799 billion purchased in the equivalent period ending in July 2024, Biden’s final year in office.”
So better than Biden. And we can easily imagine the gnomes of Zurich, or wherever they now are, going “Do we hafta? Is there nowhere better?” But then yes, they hafta and do.
As to geopolitics, as even the Times conceded, “President Trump announced a deal on Greenland that guarantees America ‘permanent control’ over security for the semi-autonomous Danish territory and legally prevents Russia and China from either deploying troops or making financial investments in sensitive areas there.” So he got what he wanted, except annexation. And everyone else flapped their gums and their arms and then stood aside.
Typically, NBC wrote “Trump announces agreement with Denmark to secure ‘permanent’ control over Greenland’s security/ Trump has previously rattled Europe with threats to take over the Danish territory, but the new agreement stops short of those demands.” Making it sound like he backed down. But permanent control is a lot like annexation without the fuss of internal administration.
Mind you, as the New York Times also wrote: “the Danish prime minister said the deal ‘recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity’ of the Kingdom of Denmark. That description would mean the agreement fell well short of Mr. Trump’s longstanding demand of total control over Greenland. Earlier this year, Mr. Trump said that ‘anything less’ than U.S. ownership of Greenland would be ‘‘unacceptable.’ He said possession of the territory was ‘psychologically important’ to him. Instead, what Mr. Trump described on Friday was a deal that would prevent U.S. adversaries from having a base on Greenland and expand the U.S. military presence in the territory.”
Geopolitics as psychotherapy is distinctly postmodern, and if I were advising Donald Trump I would advise him not to open his psychological needs to public discussion. (and yes, if I were advising Trump “you’re fired”). But he did get what he wanted, something previous presidents from Obama to Clinton and Bush Jr. would not have dared seek or request.
How is it possible? And why can’t supposedly reputable commentators even see it, let alone explain it?
