Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

The Art of the Self-Serving Deal

 

Many who deplored the electoral victory of President Trump focused on the coarseness of his language, the apparent arbitrariness of his behaviour, and the irrationality of his policies. Such criticism, while perhaps justified, is also lazy. We should look beyond the surface and examine the principles underlying his performance and the connections between the seeming anarchy of his governance and the multitude of his actions and threats. These range from firing department heads and weakening civil service oversight to installing loyalists in key positions, declaring certain immigrant groups as unwanted and deporting them, and even threatening to seize Panama and Greenland. When we identify patterns in the apparent chaos, we may be able to anticipate the likely consequences of his policies and advocate for a better way of governing based on just principles.

Like many observers, I see Trump’s behaviour as fundamentally transactional. He does not believe ethical principles, consistency, or stable human relationships should shape his leadership. Instead, he operates on a framework of self-interest and power dynamics, guiding his relationships to partners and opponents both domestically and internationally. In this, despite his unpredictable rhetoric, he does not differ greatly from many other political leaders. The key difference is that while most will usually cloak their actions in appearances of principle and institutional continuity, Trump dispenses with such pretence. He is convinced that he alone knows what is best for the nation and that he can negotiate the necessary relationships to secure it.

His approach echoes the industrial barons of an earlier era (and perhaps the tech barons of today). These figures had an unshakable belief in their own ability, exercised total control over their enterprises, and were confident that their actions served the national good. They were also ruthless in making and breaking alliances with governments and other barons whose support they needed while – with their help –crushing weaker groups like unions and reformist politicians who stood in their way.

Despite deepening social divisions and economic inequality, this transactional approach to governance was successful in building wealth and providing material services like rail roads, oil supply and industrial goods. Though socially destructive it could in the short term increase economic wealth and national power.

Seen from this perspective, President Trump’s words and actions that at first sight seem arbitrary and even crazed, may form a coherent, if ethically odious, vision. He clearly believes that his vision for the United States is correct and is determined to ensure that he has the power to implement it. Having bent the Republican Party to his will, he has now set out to place such institutions of as review bodies, state authorities and courts and the military under his control by employing pliable heads and cutting financial support. 

He has also maintained a transactional relationship with America’s wealthiest elites, whose financial and media backing he relies on, by appointing them to influential government positions and serving their interests. The mismatch between their human gifts and the roles they have been given may seem bizarre, but their appointment is strategic in strengthening his power.

In contrast, his dealings with minority and less wealthy groups of Americans, such as immigrants and LGBT+ groups, have been brutal. They reflect his dominant power and his self-interest in winning the favour of his supporters. His apparently irrational rhetoric is carefully directed to this end.

 

'A purely transactional vision of politics is both flawed and fundamentally unethical, and is likewise grounded in a false and unethical view of human life.'

 

President Trump’s relationships with other nations are also transactional. He has set out to weaken international institutions, such as United Nations bodies, which regulate the economic, political and judicial relationships between nations. He prefers direct and unmediated dealings with individual nations.  The conduct of these relationships also reflects self-interest and differences in power relationships. Within a few days he squashed Colombian protest against the dumping of returned immigrants by threatening tariffs. His claim to Greenland over Denmark and to control the Panama Canal over Panama also reflects the difference of power. In mediating relationships between nations of equal power, like Russia, he welcomes transactions in which he can make a deal, even if they are at the cost of weaker nations.  

How should we assess this transactional approach to national and international relationships? In the short term, there is no reason to think it will not be effective on its own terms. The United States may indeed become wealthier and more assertive, though also more unequal. And through control of the news media and its interpretation, discontent among the majority of the population could be redirected toward manufactured internal enemies.

But over the long term, however, a purely transactional vision of politics is both flawed and fundamentally unethical, and is likewise grounded in a false and unethical view of human life. It denies the equal dignity of all people, ignores the mutual interdependence that underpins society, and disregards the need for institutions that serve the common good. The idea that a single man, or a coalition of the wealthy, whose power is rooted in competitive success, will have the wisdom to govern unchecked for the benefit of all is inherently absurd. Both historical precedents and common sense suggest that such a system will eventually collapse under its own internal contradictions. In the meantime, however, it may do a great deal of harm.

The challenge, then, is to set our minds on how to repair the damage and on championing a better way. It is, after all, better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

 

 


Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.

Main image: Donald Trump. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

 

 

submit a comment

Existing comments

I perceive Donald Trump as a tartar (small t). Which means he is a harsh or formidable person. That description does not necessarily mean he could not be a good ruler of a powerful country. However, as became apparent in his first stint as President of the United States, there are other characteristics in his make-up which make it challenging to deal with him. We can keep encouraging our Prime Minister to respond to him in a diplomatic but firm way. There will be many protests in the US and elsewhere in the coming years about his decisions. He might take more and more notice. 


Pam | 06 February 2025  

So many similarities here Fr Andrew with Trump and the Pope. Whilst we carp about inequalities of wealth, power, style and the appointment of favorites, the exact same thing has been occurring in Rome since 2013.


Francis Armstrong | 06 February 2025  

Is not another name for ‘self serving’ but the antonym of ‘humility’?
What ‘mythological’ character had the man and the woman expelled from the ‘garden’.?
We pay for OUR hubris and the payment is now being called into the ‘other’ Treasury!


Martyn Robinson | 06 February 2025  

Ask people how long this will go on, they say four years. Sorry, how about twelve months, if that?


Philip Harvey | 06 February 2025  

Thanks Andrew for this best appraisal of Trump and his scheming I've yet read. I've been of the view that there is much more method than his apparent madness might suggest.

I was rather hoping that MAGA voters would soon experience the deleterious impacts that dismantling of governance, realising by the end of the year that they made a mistake; your judgement is that such denouement will be later rather than as soon as I might wish.


David Arthur | 06 February 2025  

‘We should look beyond the surface and examine the principles underlying his performance and the connections between the seeming anarchy of his governance and the multitude of his actions and threats’

A good place to hear about these principles is the daily YouTube vignettes made by Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Trump’s blatherings misleadingly suggest anarchy. There is consistency between the connecting principles behind his mouth, perhaps tutored by back room advisers, if you don’t want to give Trump credit for being intelligent enough to have a corpus of belief in how things should be (similarly to Reagan), from which are derived the policies. You could argue that the substance upon which the principles are based is the result of subjective perception. What’s new? But, as they stand, the substance is substantial, not minimal.

Hanson, still a registered Democrat (I think) and with the lived experience of his home in a Ground Zero of the effect of unpatrolled illegal immigration from the southern border, is a professional academic and, in his favourite words, “sober and judicious”, and empirical, in his presentations. Hanson is often interviewed by former deputy prime minister John Anderson at johnanderson.net.au.


roy chen yee | 11 February 2025  

Similar Articles

In a world of rigid borders, who belongs?

  • Nirmal Ghosh
  • 07 February 2025

Amongst hardening borders and rising ethnonationalism globally, those who resist rigid identity labels find themselves caught between worlds — too foreign for home, too foreign for here. If identity is both fluid and contested, can belonging ever be more than a temporary state?

READ MORE

Bluesky thinking: Can the internet rebuild its town square?

  • Jenny Sinclair
  • 07 February 2025

In the wake of Elon Musk’s tumultuous Twitter takeover, the social media landscape has fractured, scattering digital discourse across competing platforms. Bluesky, Threads, and Mastodon each offer a vision of what comes next, but will any replicate the vital, unruly town square Twitter once was? 

READ MORE
Join the conversation. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter  Subscribe