Economists like to look at actual behavior as a way of inferring what people believe. This is called “revealed preference.” I’ve always found it to be a very useful tool.
Recent statements by top Trump administration officials have puzzled observers on both sides of the political spectrum. Here’s the National Review, a conservative publication that generally supports Trump, but differs with his views on a number of important issues:
But so far in his second term, regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump has offered to Vladimir Putin that Ukraine will not retake all its annexed and occupied sovereign territory, that Ukraine will not join NATO, that there will be no U.S. troops on Ukrainian soil after the war, and that the U.S. will lift sanctions on Russia. And Trump might even throw in a withdrawal of the extra 20,000 U.S. troops that Joe Biden sent to NATO’s eastern flank after the invasion of Ukraine.
And in exchange, Putin offered . . . well, nothing, really.
Critics have complained that this is not the sort of behavior you’d expect from a politician that prides himself in being a skilled dealmaker.
A few days ago, I suggested that the critics had it wrong. They were operating under the mistaken assumption that Ukraine was America’s ally and Russia was our enemy. In fact, Trump has long been an admirer of Vladimir Putin and has frequently been dismissive of the Ukrainian government. Rather than viewing these sorts of pre-negotiation concessions as “mistakes”, I viewed them as tactics to weaken Ukraine’s negotiating position. Put simply, Trump sees America as Russia’s friend, allied against Ukraine and the EU.
Today, Trump all but confirmed my claim:
Regarding the war, President Donald Trump says to the Ukrainians, “You should have never started it!” Somewhere in Moscow, Vladimir Putin must be grinning from ear to ear.
As a result, the National Review now shares my view:
Trump is flailing and thrashing around, trying anything to justify his current de facto pro-Russian stance.
It took two days for my claim to move from Noam Chomsky-style heterodoxy to being the conventional wisdom, even among conservatives.
In the short run, issues such as the budget and government efficiency will occupy most of the online discussion. I understand that. But in the long run, to paraphrase Trotsky: “You might not be interested in ideology, but ideology is interested in you.”
In 2016, the National Review did a special “Against Trump” issue. Later on, they decided they could move on from the concerns they expressed at that time. But the NR reporters are beginning to realize that reality doesn’t always conform to what they might wish it to be.
PS. Speaking of heterodox views, a new Substack blog uses the concept of revealed preference to infer the actual foreign policy goals of the Trump administration.
PPS. Hard to believe that this was just three years ago:
