theguardian.com
Trump's McKinley Obsession: A Misguided Emulation
Donald Trump's admiration for President William McKinley, focusing on his high tariffs and expansionist policies, contrasts sharply with McKinley's actual approach, which was more measured and constitutionally compliant.
- What were the key policy decisions of President William McKinley that appeal to Donald Trump, and how do these policies differ from Trump's own rhetoric and actions?
- Donald Trump admires William McKinley, the US president (1897-1901), for implementing high tariffs and initiating US expansion beyond North America. McKinley's actions, however, differed significantly from Trump's rhetoric; McKinley worked through Congress and prioritized treaties, unlike Trump's unilateral approach.
- How did McKinley's approach to tariffs and expansionism differ from the actions and statements of other US presidents, particularly those associated with expansionist policies?
- Trump's fascination with McKinley stems from McKinley's protectionist trade policies and expansionist ventures. However, McKinley's approach was far more measured and constitutionally sound than Trump's, involving Congressional approval and treaty-based reciprocity. This contrast reveals a significant difference in their leadership styles and approaches to policy.
- What are the potential domestic and international consequences of Trump's apparent emulation of McKinley, given the differences in their approaches and the current global context?
- Trump's emulation of McKinley might lead to unintended consequences. While McKinley's tariffs were ultimately deemed ineffective and his imperialism accidental, Trump's pursuit of expansionist policies without constitutional checks and balances could be far more disruptive to global stability. His recent statements about territorial expansion suggest a marked departure from his earlier isolationist stance.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the comparison between Trump and McKinley to highlight Trump's apparent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of McKinley's policies and character. The headline and introduction set a critical tone, emphasizing Trump's 'idolatry' of McKinley and suggesting that Trump's actions are misguided. This framing guides the reader to view Trump's policy decisions negatively, by constantly comparing them unfavorably to those of McKinley. The selection and sequencing of events emphasize instances where Trump's actions diverge from McKinley's, further reinforcing the negative portrayal.
Language Bias
The article uses language that is largely neutral but sometimes employs loaded terms. Words such as "idolatry," "anti-woke dig," "naked acts of aggression," and "sordid conquest" carry strong connotations and reflect a critical perspective. These terms color the narrative and subtly influence the reader's perception of the events and figures discussed. More neutral alternatives could include 'admiration,' 'criticism,' 'military interventions,' and 'controversial acquisition,' respectively. The repeated use of the term "atrocious" in reference to Trump's description of his trading partners serves as another example of loaded language.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on McKinley's actions and policies while providing limited context on the broader historical and political landscape of his presidency. The motivations and perspectives of other key figures involved in the events surrounding the Spanish-American War are underrepresented. While the article mentions public opinion and the role of newspapers, it does not deeply analyze the complex interplay of domestic and international factors driving imperial expansion. This omission could lead to a skewed understanding of McKinley's role and the overall historical context. The limited analysis of Roosevelt's actions after McKinley's death could also be considered a bias by omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between McKinley's supposed pacifism and Trump's potential for aggressive imperialism. While it acknowledges some nuances in McKinley's approach, it ultimately simplifies his actions into a straightforward contrast with Trump's rhetoric. The complexities of American imperialism and the multiple factors influencing policy decisions are reduced to a simplistic comparison. The article presents a simplified choice between "pacifism" and "aggressive imperialism" ignoring the various shades of interventionism between these two extremes.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses Trump's admiration for McKinley, who oversaw the Spanish-American War, a conflict characterized by aggression and territorial expansion. This contradicts the principles of peace and peaceful conflict resolution promoted by SDG 16. Trump's own rhetoric about expanding US territory further undermines efforts towards international peace and stability.