What does Trump mean when he evokes America’s “manifesto destiny”? : NPR

It is possible that you have never heard the term “the fate of the manifesto” since your high school history class. That’s until last month President Trump’s first speech, when he asked him to use it to “plant stars and stripes on the planet Mars.”

19th century terminology describes American belief in exceptionalism and the divine right to expand into North American lands where Indigenous and Mexicans lived. “Of course, it’s fascinating to see the term come back, because of course the whole concept of expanding this country is at the heart of the American experience,” says Michael, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. O’Hanlon says.

When Trump argued that the US had acquired Greenland and made Canada a “51st state,” he threatened to “recover” the Panama Canal and recently suggested that the US would take over Gaza, he said It was part of our purpose since the time of Teddy Roosevelt that wiped away dust from other concepts of American imperialism.

Trump and O’Hanlon say “there are long historical traditions.”

What is the origin of the term “manifest destiny”?

James K. Polk was explicitly won the presidency in 1845 on an expandist platform. It acquired California and other lands in the southwest, annexed the then independent republic republics, and settled disputes with the UK for control of Oregon’s territory. (Another pork promise, by the way: reducing import duties.)

The term Manifesto Destiny was coined that year by journalist John O’Sullivan in an essay that saw him praise the annexation of Texas and then turned to California, part of Mexico.

More generally, the term is a form of American exceptionalism, and has come to mean the inevitable East-West occupation of the North American continent, often expressed in Messianic.

The term was created in the 19th century, but according to the Smithsonian American Museum, it listens to the first European settlers who believed their quest was sacredly inspired.

“The fate of the manifesto is this concept that America is destined to control everything on this territory, so we need to have everything on this land. We are currently a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

Does this term describe Trump’s diplomatic brand?

Partially. “There are some surface-level similarities,” says Will Freeman, a fellow in Latin American Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations. “Trump and the people around him seem to be pretty serious about making this an era of US territory expansion.”

But when Trump talks about Canada, Greenland and Panama, he also steals Manifesto Destiny’s source code, the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine was first supported by President James Monroe in 1823 as a warning to European powers against interference in the Western Hemisphere. As Stewart Patrick, a senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Polk evoked the Monroe doctrine as justification for annexing Texas. State), “In Polk’s words – and later the war with Mexico (1846-1848). In 1867, President Andrew Johnson likewise cited it as a rationale for purchasing Alaska.

“Monroe’s doctrine has historically been an American way of relating to its own realm…though it changes its meaning over time,” says Freeman.

By the end of the 19th century, Monroe’s doctrine had taken on a more robust meaning, Patrick notes. It was “understood as implying that the entire Western Hemisphere is an American reserve,” he writes.

Another historical similarity can be depicted with the active use of Trump’s tariffs and threats and the arrival of a fleet of US warships in Tokyo Bay in 1853. The ship was intended to bully Japan and open a port for US trade. Tactics became known as “gunboat diplomacy,” and are transformed by President Theodore Roosevelt into a “big stick” maxim of persuasion, coupled with the threat of force to achieve goals on the international stage.

“Trump appears to be reinventing “big stick diplomacy” in 21st century America, with no “soft talk” parts,” Freeman says.

But in doing so, he says, Trump will “face constraints.”

“The United States doesn’t have the power to match the hemisphere that was beginning to acquire during Teddy Roosevelt’s time,” Freeman said. “Now there are China where China competes, and for most of South America, China’s economic weight is critical.

“His ‘big stick’ will be the most effective in a country where he most needs it. The northern part of Panama is already closely integrated into the US orbit,” he says.

It is also worth noting that Trump has long supported isolationist rhetoric, calling for the United States to be free from global conflict, and accusing American military allies of not paying their fair share .

What does it mean if Trump continues?

If Trump follows his expansionist rhetoric, the United States will “be an essentially international pariah,” says O’Hanlon of Brookings.

“If you use military force to grab the Panama Canal or Greenland…it’s (puts us in the same category)…it’s the same as Vladimir Putin,” he says.

But it can also be difficult to backtrack them after making comments, Freeman says. Trump said he would slap 25% tariffs in Columbia, but settled on resuming deportation flights, for example, “like a boy who cried a wolf.” “So I think what he can get out of each of these, what he can take advantage of from each of these threats will probably decrease as the leader recognizes.” “But you know , he is also very unpredictable.”

According to former ambassador Page, unpredictability can be a long-term problem for itself. For example, she negotiated and signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its successor, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) during Trump’s first term.

“How can you threaten two other partners with tariffs when you have a trade agreement?” she wonders. If Trump can do that, “it means that the next administration can oppose whatever its previous policy and agreement.”