State identity is a core variable in the international system. Each state has its own unique identity and when involving themselves in international affairs, states project their version of their identity into the international system. While state identity creation is a process involving multiple actors in which there are signals and interpretations, each state has desires as to how that particular state wants to be seen.
Central to the identity of the United States and its foreign policy is its desire to be seen as a major power. The United States is constantly projecting its power by using its military and economic might to achieve its goals. This has practical effects on US objectives, like when it bombs military targets or when it levies sanctions that stymie economic activity.
Additionally, it is done as part of the projection of identity into the international system. The US wants to be seen as a nation that has the power to do whatever it wants. This desired identity filters down from the most macro level being the state, to a micro level of the bravado used by US presidents.
While this identity projection is important to each state, it can become dangerous when it overrides pragmatism. There are examples throughout history, but perhaps two of the most salient may be during the Vietnam War and the Trump administration. Vietnam represents one of the biggest disasters that the United States has embarked on by pursuing a projection of power at the state level, and the Trump administration represents the most striking example of micro level projections.
During Vietnam’s early stages, both Kennedy and Johnson privately acknowledged what they were doing in Vietnam was not always pragmatic. Their policies had failed, but they continued to try and project power into the region. The idea of the United States being a major power as a central identity component to the United States drove Kennedy and Johnson towards ill-fated actions that ultimately led to the prolonged defeat in Vietnam.
These power moves were delivered in the form of displays of military force. Most memorable were the bombing campaigns. During Operation “Rolling Thunder,” Johnson dropped 864,400 tons of bombs. While this had a practical effect of destroying both perceived and real targets, this intense display of hard power was also crucial to standing up to Communism and being tough. Johnson needed to make the United States look like it was destroying the Communist menace. Being “soft” was not an option, and bombing is a great way to project power.
The problem arises when this hubris outweighs pragmatism. Johnson privately questioned the rational and execution of the Vietnam war. Even in the face of mounting involvement, with troop levels in Vietnam tallying at 400,000, Johnson stated “I know we oughtn’t to be there, but I can’t get out. I can’t be the architect of surrender.” All those lives lost, both American and Vietnamese, because the United States did not want to look weak facing Communism. The Vietnam War is one of the biggest state level disasters in US history, and it was largely due to the perceived necessity of the United States to hold up its identity, even though that identity lead to abject failure.
Much like the state level, the individual identity of a person can have the same effect. This is encapsulated perfectly by Trump. His administration has been constantly marred by his own personal identity projections into the world of government. Much of his policy making process is a slapdash Tweet from something he picked up on Fox, even with regards to foreign policy. There is an absence of consistent process that leads to decisions being made without the knowledge of key members of the government.
The one thing that is consistent, however, is Trump’s desire to always be viewed as strong and powerful. His compulsion to be seen as always winning or strong has been on display since he decided to run for office. How many times have we heard things like he is a winner or “I know more about ISIS than the generals do?” Trump boasts and brags about himself to try and increase his perceived power. It has become clear over the course of the past few years that Trump cares very deeply about his personal identity of being strong and successful, that you can never back down or look weak. Again, this can have very dangerous effects when it overrides basic pragmatism.
For starters, Trump’s desire to project his perceived strength consistently leads to issues within his own cabinet. Part of his complex is that he has to be right all the time and any pushback by any official is perceived by Trump as a challenge to his omniscient power. In turn, Trump usually forces that person out of his administration and attempts to replace them with someone who will be more loyal. Pick any high-level fallen administration official and there is a good chance this pattern is what led to them no longer working at the White House. This leads to a chaotic White House that is far less effective than it could be. Even though disagreement within an administration is incredibly common, and ideally would lead to further process and discussion on an issue that could lead to a better outcome, the identity of Trump is so important to him that the rational step of trying to work out issues is thrown to the wind in favor of Trump protecting Trump’s identity.
What is interesting, and potentially very destructive, is how this personal identity component can filter its way upward towards the state level. As President, Trump has near control over the foreign policy of the United States. Additionally, we clearly know that Trump carries personal identity factors with him wherever he goes. Combine those two ideas, his control over foreign policy and his identity, and it shows that his personal identity can override pragmatism even when dealing with state-level issues.
Trump projects his personal identity desires of always winning through the US foreign policy apparatus which leads to things like the trade war with China. Trump has a history of claiming power or superiority of China. During a campaign event in 2015 Trump said “I beat the people of China. I win against China. You can win against China if you are smart.” This is the classic Trump identity: claims of winning and being better than the other. This filtration of personal identity up to the state level is a core reason why Trump pursued the policy of a trade war with China. It is yielded very little besides frustration, and has even created a worse situation for the United States by depressing their exports and increasing its trade deficit with China. This clearly shows that the policy is not pragmatic and that Trump’s identity managed to interfere with state-level politics in a negative way.
Identity politics have become rather popular over the past few years. But typically the discussion around identity politics is about the individual. However, the identity of a state is crucial to understanding what that particular state does in the international system. The hard part is trying to concretely understand what the particular identity of a state is. Understanding the particular identities of states would allow for a more succinct understanding of international politics. Knowing how and why particular states do the things they do will always revolve around their particular identities, so knowing those identities could help us understand what is happening currently, and what might happen in the future.
