Victor Davis Hanson: Trump taking Gordian-knot approach to old problems |
Featured Commentary

Victor Davis Hanson: Trump taking Gordian-knot approach to old problems

President Donald Trump makes his way to board Marine One on the South Lawn as he leaves the White House. Trump was traveling to West Virginia to hold a discussion on taxes in White Sulphur Springs. (AP Photo | Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The proverbial knot of Gordium was impossible to untie. Anyone clever enough to untie it would supposedly become the king of Asia. Many princes tried; all failed. Then Alexander the Great arrived and was challenged to unravel the impossible knot.

Instead, he pulled out his sword and cut through it.

Problem solved.

Donald Trump inherited an array of perennial crises when he was sworn in as president in 2017. He certainly did not possess the traditional diplomatic skills and temperament to deal with any of them.

In the last year of the Barack Obama administration, a lunatic North Korean regime purportedly had gained the ability to send nuclear-tipped missiles to the U.S. West Coast.

China had not only been violating trade agreements, but forcing U.S. companies to hand over their technological expertise as the price of doing business in China.

NATO may have been born to protect the European mainland, but a distant U.S. was paying an increasingly greater percentage of NATO’s budget than its direct beneficiaries were.

Traditional and accepted methods had failed to deal with all of these challenges.

Bill Clinton’s “Agreed Framework,” George W. Bush’s “six-party talks” and the Obama administration’s “strategic patience” essentially offered North Korea cash to denuclearize.

When American diplomats who whined to China about its unfair trade practices were rebuffed, they more or less shut up, convinced either that they could not do anything or that China’s growing economy would westernize sooner or later.

Europeans were used to American nagging about delinquent NATO contributions, and diplomatic niceties usually meant European leaders only talked about shouldering more of the costs of their own defense.

Before Trump arrived, American diplomacy and statecraft had untied none of these knots.

But like Alexander, the outsider Trump pulled out his proverbial sword and began slashing.

If Kim Jong Un kept threatening the U.S., Trump would threaten him back and ridicule him in the process as “Rocket Man.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. would beef up its own nuclear arsenal, press ahead with missile defense, warn China that its neighbors might have to nuclearize, and generally seem as threatening to Kim as he traditionally has been to others.

Trump was no more patient with China. If it continues to cheat and demand technology transfers as the price of doing business in China, then it will face tariffs on its exports and a trade war.

Trump seemingly had no patience with endless rounds of negotiations about NATO defense contributions. If frontline European nations wished to spend little to defend their own borders, why should America have to spend so much to protect such distant nations?

There are common themes to all these slashed knots. Diplomatic niceties had solved little.

Knot-cutters may not know how to untie knots.

But by the same token, those who struggle to untie knots also do not know how to cut them.

And sometimes knots can only be cut — even as we recoil at the brash Alexanders who won’t play by traditional rules and instead dare to pull out their swords.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.