Category: Commentary

Stephen B. Young

July 17, 2025

“If we place President Trump’s tariffs on Vietnamese goods in the context of a broader strategic picture, the U.S. and Vietnam can still find a common path through today’s tensions.”
— Stephen B. Young

This summer in Hanoi, the heat is not just from the weather but from mounting strategic pressures—both domestic and international. What is Trump’s America pursuing? Does Washington aim to impose itself on Vietnam, or is it seeking to build a long-term partnership grounded in reciprocity and balanced interests?

I. Tariffs and Strategy Go Hand in Hand

The Trump administration’s unexpected decision to impose a 20% tariff on Vietnamese exports—twice the previously negotiated rate—sent shockwaves through public opinion. Many in Vietnam see it as a trap. But is the tariff really the core issue?

At the same time that tariffs were announced, the United States also offered Vietnam its most flexible geo-strategic space since Đổi Mới:

• Refusing to facilitate transshipment of Chinese goods is not a severance from China, but a step toward strategic diversification. No one expects Vietnam to completely cut ties with China—geography and economics don’t allow it. But diversification is not only feasible—it’s wise.

• Allowing U.S. warships to dock at Cam Ranh Bay does not mean Vietnam is “taking sides.” The Philippines has done the same while maintaining strong trade with China. Singapore has long welcomed U.S. naval visits while being a key member of China-led RCEP.

• Signing a rare earth agreement is not about “selling off resources.” If done right, it can attract G7-level processing technology, reduce dependence on China, and end the outdated model of exporting raw materials and importing refined goods.

• Joining the Indo-Pacific supply chain does not mean abandoning the Chinese market. Rather, it enhances Vietnam’s negotiating power and achieves strategic balance.

II. A Truly Renewed Vietnam, Seen from Washington

History shows that the first strategic commitment between the U.S. and Vietnam came in October 1954, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared American support for the independence and economic development of the Republic of Vietnam (1).

Why did the U.S. make that pledge at such a pivotal moment? Because, as Eisenhower wrote, Americans respected Vietnamese nationalism—a resilient tradition of the people.

In his letter to Prime Minister Ngô Đình Diệm, the U.S. President expressed hope that the Vietnamese government would reflect the will of the people, act with enlightenment, and govern effectively—to earn respect domestically and globally, and to prevent any foreign ideology from being forced upon a free nation.

The word “nation” in that letter was decisive. Eisenhower acknowledged that the Vietnamese had their own traditions, values, religions, and aspirations—deserving of sovereignty, liberty, and independence, just as Americans had once demanded for themselves.

The key difference now is this: Back then, Eisenhower “picked” Saigon as a pawn on the Southeast Asian chessboard. Today, Washington “chooses” Hanoi—not as a pawn, but as a partner with weight and authority on the interregional and global chessboard (Indo-Pacific and beyond).

In that same spirit, American policymakers took close note of General Secretary Tô Lâm’s article on April 27, 2025, in which he emphasized:

“The aspiration for a peaceful, unified, and independent Vietnam is a sacred flame that has forged the national spirit over thousands of years of history…”

What stood out most to Washington was his reference to “the enduring nature of the Vietnamese nation”—a concept the U.S. has seen as the cornerstone of a lasting partnership since the beginning. Also notable was his call for national reconciliation—a sign that Vietnam is ready to enter a new historical era:

“The war is no longer a dividing line for people of the same Lạc Hồng bloodline… There is no reason for Vietnamese—sharing the same origin, all children of Mother Âu Cơ—to carry hatred or division in their hearts.”

The U.S. appreciates the General Secretary’s return to Vietnam’s cultural roots as a foundation for a future that is prosperous, globally integrated, and peacefully aligned with the international community.

Some scholars consider this a sign that Vietnam is gradually forming a new foreign and domestic policy—one deeply rooted in national identity, not merely reacting passively to geopolitical shifts, but proactively shaping its role and position within the global order. 

With this vision, Vietnam can build soft power through engagement with the international community. To achieve this, the country needs to expand space for public discourse and develop a roadmap for political reform that aligns with the new context.

A senior advisor at the U.S. Department of State remarked: “We welcome the commitment of Vietnam’s leadership to pursue a path of harmonious development in connection with the civilized world.” 

Vietnam does not need to choose sides, but it should choose humane and progressive values.

III. A Harder Question: Subordination—or True Partnership?

Some voices in Vietnam are asking: “If we yield to the U.S. now, are we risking subordination?”

But perhaps the more honest question should be: “If we continue on the current path, are we truly independent?”

More critically, how can Vietnam seize this rare opportunity to shift from a nation shaped by historical circumstance to a nation that shapes history?

Beijing has long been clear about its ambition to treat Vietnam as a strategic buffer zone. China dominates supply chains, controls rare earth exports, invests in critical infrastructure—and tightens its grip through a soft-strategic vise. Every time Hanoi leans West, there are warning signals from the North: maritime incidents, stalled negotiations, and unreasonable historical and sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.

In this context, recent U.S. proposals offer Vietnam a chance to redefine its national positioning. An economy seen as a mere “proxy hub” for Chinese goods will never become a global manufacturing powerhouse.

But if Hanoi pivots—just as The Economist once suggested—Vietnam can become “the Bavaria of Asia”: a hub for green tech, high-value manufacturing, and strategic neutrality.

Vietnam can:

• Attract high-quality investment from the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Europe;
• Transition from an assembly-line model to innovation and brand ownership;
• Play a key role in restructuring global supply chains.

Now is the time for the Politburo, under General Secretary Tô Lâm’s leadership, to show strategic vision and political resolve. Hesitation at this moment would be a historical setback.

Is the U.S. applying pressure? Perhaps. But with long-term thinking and skillful diplomacy, Vietnam can turn that pressure into leverage—to restructure not only trade and defense but also its institutions and governance model.

After 80 years, could this coming August become the second defining August in Vietnam’s history?

Time is running out. A slow or ambiguous response will not only forfeit trade privileges—it will erode strategic trust from G7, Quad, and ASEAN partners.

What’s at stake is not just a seat at the global table—it’s the chance to finally step out of China’s shadow and build a resilient, independent, and globally competitive economy.

CONCLUSION:

The Vietnamese people once faced colonialism, imperialism, and war with courage. Today, that same courage must take a new form: the courage to choose, to change, and to redefine Vietnam’s place in the world.

General Secretary Tô Lâm and the Politburo now hold a historic opportunity: to lift Vietnam out of China’s assembly-line orbit and into true partnership with the global democratic community.

No nation can choose its geography,

But every nation can choose its future.

Joining the world’s march toward civilization is Vietnam’s opportunity to showcase its leadership—not only in economic reform but in strategic thinking and political confidence.

If Hanoi fails to seize this moment, it may be a very long time before history offers another chance.

NOTES:

1. This historic letter was drafted by Kenneth T. Young, Director of the Southeast Asia Office at the U.S. State Department. Following this family legacy, I—Stephen B. Young—wrote “Kissinger’s Betrayal: How America Lost the Vietnam War,” exposing how Kissinger never truly understood Vietnamese nationalism.

Text of President Eisenhower’s October 23, 1954 letter to Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem:

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have been following with great interest the course of developments in Viet-Nam, particularly since the conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The implications of the agreement concerning Viet-Nam have caused grave concern regarding the future of a country temporarily divided by an artificial military grouping, weakened by a long and exhausting war and faced with enemies without and by their subversive collaborators within.

Your recent requests for aid to assist in the formidable project of the movement of several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese citizens away from areas which are passing under a de facto rule and political ideology which they abhor, are being fulfilled. I am glad that the United States is able to assist in this humanitarian effort.

We have been exploring ways and means to permit our aid to Viet-Nam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to the welfare and stability of the Government of Viet-Nam. I am, accordingly, instructing the American Ambassador to Viet-Nam to examine with you in your capacity as Chief of Government, bow an intelligent program of American aid given directly to your Government can serve to assist Viet-Nam in its present hour of trial, provided that your Government is prepared to give assurances as to the standards of performance it would be able to maintain in the event such aid were supplied.

The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Viet-Nam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means. The Government of the United States expects that this aid will be met by performance on the part of the Government of Viet-Nam in undertaking needed reforms. It hopes that such aid, combined with your own continuing efforts, will contribute effectively toward an independent Viet-Nam endowed with a strong government. Such a government would, I hope, be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it will be respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

(2) According to sources close to U.S.-Vietnam negotiations, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit, Secretary of State Marco delivered a handwritten letter from President Trump to General Secretary Tô Lâm, addressing the four key areas discussed in this article.

Stephen B. Young is the Global Executive Director of the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism, former Dean and Professor of Hamline University School of Law, and  a former Assistant Dean, The Harvard Law School. He is the author of Kissinger’s Betrayal: How America Lost the Vietnam War and, with Nguyen Ngoc Huy, Tradition of Human Rights in China and Vietnam, and “The Law of Property in Vietnam’s Le Dynasty”, Journal of Asian History, 1975 

A colleague sent me links to videos on TikTok which were posted by the most popular female and male influencers in the U.S.

I watched a few – some are only seconds long, just right for attention-deficit-disorder consumers – and quickly thought of these lines from Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings. …

Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed
That he is grown so great?  Age, thou art shamed!
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!

Idiocy has risen up on the back of new technologies to transform minds from activating intelligence into passively wallowing in psychic mush.

Do we have a future worth living?

I urge you to take a few minutes, open the two links, and consume what kind of culture, morals, courage, dignity, etc., young Americans are absorbing:

The top female TikTok influencer.

The top male TikTok influencer.

We recently appointed H. E. Dinh Hoang Thang to serve as a fellow.  Ambassador Thang is a former Vietnamese ambassador to The Netherlands, former head of the Leadership Advisory Group of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is an associate of the Angkor Royal Foundation in Budapest, Hungary.  He currently resides in Paris and contributes commentaries on international relations and Vietnamese developments, with a particular focus on Vietnam’s future prospects.

His first commentary for the Caux Round Table can be found here.

Amb. Thang addresses optimistically the new possibilities for Vietnam now being advanced by a new secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party, To Lam.  The strategic choice facing the Vietnamese Communist Party has significance for Vietnam’s prosperity, regional and global economies and the geopolitics of Asia, China and the U.S.

We recently posted a couple more short videos on relevant and timely topics.  They include:

–A Reflection on AI

–The Relationship Between Money and Capitalism

All our videos can be found on our YouTube page here.  We recently put them into 9 playlists, which you can find here.

If you aren’t following us on Twitter or haven’t liked us on Facebook, please do so.  We update both platforms frequently.

Today is the 4^th of July in the Gregorian Calendar.  On this day in 1776, delegates from the different British colonies in North America signed in Philadelphia a declaration designed to provide legitimacy for their decision to terminate their allegiance to the king of England and his parliament.  Their argument for such termination was not legal, but philosophical.  Their premise was moral – a judgment on the rights of individuals derived from natural and divine dispositions.

I have a family connection to the acts of the American colonists in 1776.

Gathered in a congress, the delegates of the several British North American colonies In March 1776 resolved:

That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions, and Councils, or Committees of Safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and refuse to associate, to defend by Arms, the United Colonies, against the hostile attempts of the British Fleets and Armies.

In April 1776, Winthrop Young, my direct ancestor on my father’s side, subscribed to this oath:

“We the Subscribers, do hereby solemnly engage, and promise, that we will, to the utmost of our Power, at the Risque of our Lives and Fortunes, with Arms, oppose the hostile Proceedings of the British Fleets, and Armies, against the United American Colonies.”

Then, on July 4, 1776, Lewis Morris, a collateral ancestor on my mother’s side, signed the Declaration of Independence.  His signature:

The moral legitimation used by those delegates also informs the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Government.  The moral principle is that public power is held in trust as a responsibility to serve with honor, fidelity and due care.

The pivotal assertion of the declaration is:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

In short, the king has abused his office, his trusteeship.  As a result, he has lost his authority, his right to rule and manage those who are entitled to benefit from his use of power and prosper under his governance.

The American Declaration of Independence framed that argument as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

The Caux Round Table Principles for Government frame the principal duty of government as:

Public power is held in trust for the community.

Power brings responsibility.  Power is a necessary moral circumstance in that it binds the actions of one to the welfare of others.

Therefore, the power given by public office is held in trust for the benefit of the community and its citizens.  Officials are custodians only of the powers they hold.  They have no personal entitlement to office or the prerogatives thereof.

Holders of public office are accountable for their conduct while in office.  They are subject to removal for malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office.  The burden of proof that no malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office has occurred lies with the officeholder.

The state is the servant and agent of higher ends. It is subordinate to society.  Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others.  Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.

Recently, some 5 million Americans participated in a “No Kings” day protest, objecting to Donald Trump’s perceived arbitrary and capricious decision-making, his imperious fixation on self.  The slogan, “No Kings,” was shorthand for shouting out, “No Trump.”  It was an iteration in new words of the persistent assertion that he himself – not his ideas only – is a danger to democracy and a dictator in the making.

Opposition to abuse of kingly authority has a long history for Anglo-Americans.  In 1215, the barons of England imposed the Magna Carta on King John to restrain his personal authority.  In 1260 or so, Henry de Bracton, the first legal scholar commenting on English laws, set down the basis for a politics of “No Kings.”  In his treatise, he wrote in Latin: Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia les facit regem – “The king must not be under man, but under God and the law, for the law makes the king”; non est enim rex ubi doninatur voluntas et non lex – “There is no king where will rules and not law”; and Et ideo si rex fuerit sine fraeno, id est sine lege, debebt et fraenum apponere – “Also his curia, namely, the earls and barons, because if he is without a bridle, that is without law, they ought to put the bridle on him.”

Here, the rule is set down clearly: the law makes the king.  A king acting without the law – an outlaw – is no man to be obeyed.

Later, in 1399, King Richard II was deposed by the “earls and barons” and clergy of his realm.  One of the reasons for his being removed from his throne was written down as:

The King being not willing to maintain and protect the just laws and customs of the Realm, but endeavoring to gratify his pleasure in every thing, according to the arbitrariness of his Will, when the laws of the Kingdom were declared and expounded to him by his justices and others of his Counsel; and when they would desire him to administer justice to his subjects according to those laws, the King with a fierce and stern countenance, would tell them sometimes, that the laws were in his mouth, and at other times, that they were in his breast, and that he alone could make and alter the laws of his Kingdom; and being seduced by that opinion, would not suffer justice to be done to his subjects, but by his threats and menaces forced multitudes of his subjects to desist from the prosecution of their rights at the common law.

In March 1649, after they had won a civil war against King Charles I and executed him for willfully “traitorously and maliciously levying war against the present parliament and the people therein represented,” the Parliament abolished the office of king in England and all its dominions:

And whereas it is and hath been found by experience, that the Office of a King in this Nation and Ireland, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burthensom and dangerous to the liberty, safety and publique interest of the people, and that for the most part, use hath been made of the Regal power and prerogative, to oppress, and impoverish and enslave the Subject; and that usually and naturally any one person in such power, makes it his interest to incroach upon the just freedom and liberty of the people, and to promote the setting up of their own will and power above the Laws, that so they might enslave these Kingdoms to their own Lust; Be it therefore Enacted and Ordained by this present Parliament, and by Authority of the same, That the Office of a King in this Nation, shall not henceforth reside in, or be exercised by any one single person; and that no one person whatsoever, shall or may have, or hold the Office, Stile, Dignity, Power or Authority of King of the said Kingdoms and Dominions, or any of them, or of the Prince of Wales, Any Law, Statute, Usage or Custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.

This was a dramatic affirmation of the constitutional and political principle “No Kings.”

Yet, our world continues to witness and tolerate national leaders (rulers?) who act willfully on their own prerogative, without the law or having the laws come from within their conscience or out of their mouth.

The Caux Round Table, when drafting its Principles for Government, sided with the principle that “law makes the king.”  We proposed that the powers of an office – any office – are no more than responsibilities to act as a humble trustee of the common good, seeking above all else to benefit others.

Fundamental principle: Public power is held in trust for the community.

Power brings responsibility.  Power is a necessary moral circumstance in that it binds the actions of one to the welfare of others.

Therefore, the power given by public office is held in trust for the benefit of the community and its citizens.  Officials are custodians only of the powers they hold.  They have no personal entitlement to office or the prerogatives thereof.

Holders of public office are accountable for their conduct while in office.  They are subject to removal for malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office.  The burden of proof that no malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office has occurred lies with the officeholder.

The state is the servant and agent of higher ends.  It is subordinate to society.  Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others.  Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.

I just ran across a letter of June 28, 1985 – 40 years ago – which led to the foundation of the Caux Round Table.  The letter was sent by Frits Philips, former chairman of Philips, in Japan and a leader of Moral Re-Armament, an NGO advocating cross-culture value alignments and headquartered in Caux, Switzerland, to Mr. Yukihisa Fujita of Moral Re-Armament Japan.

Here is the letter:

The article, which Philips referred to, was a report of the Philips Electronics Company on “unfair” Japanese business practices.  It was as if Donald Trump had written it.  The Dutch reporter wrote after reading the report: “Japan is busy disrupting the international economy. Japan is lusting for world power.”

The accusation was that Japanese Zaibatsu industrial groups, coordinating with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, set out to crush competition in the making and selling of high value electronics.  Horrors!  A group of Japanese companies set out in the U.S. to break through into the American market for televisions by making and selling a color television that cost only $400.

Then, it was alleged, the alliance of Japanese companies used the profits from the sale of color televisions to subsidize the production of video cassette recorders to sell them abroad at a low price.  Thus, when Philips came out with a superior quality video cassette recorder, Japanese companies had 95% of the world market.

Having gained a virtual monopoly in the field of consumer electronics, the Philips report alleged that Japanese companies were getting ready to give a “neck chop” to their European competitors by setting product standards, selling at a cheap price and marketing their products.  The Japanese were also scheming to take American market share in the emerging product category of “professional electronics – monitors, telephone systems, copiers, home and personal computers.”

Their tactic was to subvert competitors with cheap prices.  First in components, then in high-grade sub-systems and finally, with the whole apparatus.  “The Japanese don’t mind foregoing profits for a while, provided that they can earn twice as much later on.”

Japan put difficulties in the way of permitting American companies to sell in Japan.  Japanese companies were financed up to 80 % or 90% of their total capital with low interest loans.

The Philip’s report considered increasing tariffs on imported Japanese electronics, noting that an import duty of 19% on compact disc players has given Philips room to become one of the largest makers of these machines in the world.  But Philips took losses up front on the manufacture and sale of CD players in order to gain market share.

Frits Philips and Yukihisa Fujita, with support from Moral Re-Armament, then convened the first meeting of what would become the Caux Round Table at Mountain House in Caux, Switzerland, in 1986 to discuss better rules and practices for international competition in free markets in all countries.

The Economist, in its June 14^th issue, put national industrial policy – such as President Trump’s big, beautiful plan to revive American manufacturing (and by so-doing) Make America Great Again – in a different, more dyspeptic frame of analysis.

The magazine reported:

Politicians hope that boosting manufacturing means decent employment for workers without university degrees or, in developing countries, who have migrated from the countryside.  But factory work has become highly automated.  Globally, it provides 20m, or 6%, fewer jobs than in 2013, even as output has increased 5% by value.

Many of the good jobs created by today’s production lines are for technicians and engineers, not lunch-pail Joes.  Less than a third of American manufacturing jobs today are production roles carried out by workers without a degree.

By one estimate, bringing home enough manufacturing to close America’s trade deficit would create only enough new production jobs to account for an extra 1% of the workforce. Manufacturing no longer pays those without a degree more than other comparable jobs in industries such as construction.  As productivity growth is lower in manufacturing than it is in service work, wage growth is likely to be disappointing, too.

Another misconception is that manufacturing is essential for economic growth.  India’s manufacturing output, as a share of GDP, languishes about ten percentage points below Mr. Modi’s target of 25%.  But that has not stopped India’s economy growing at an impressive rate. In the past few years, China has struggled to meet its growth targets, even as its manufacturers have come to dominate entire sectors, such as renewable energy and electric vehicles.

As our modes of production change and with AI yet to release its full potentials in our economies, should we rethink the benefits of trying, yet again, to out-think markets by turning to managers and implementing their plans?

Last week, I was in Rome for the annual meeting of the Papal Foundation Centesimus Annus, which advocates Catholic social teachings on business, finance and the economy.  The Caux Round Table Principles for Business of 1994 were, in part, derived directly from Pope John Paul II’s 1991 encyclical, Centesimus Annus.  That encyclical was written to recall and extend the 1891 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum.  Pope Leo XIV has noted his choice of name as intentionally directed to recall the contributions of Pope Leo XIII to Catholic social teachings in the modern era of industrialization as the economic foundation for modern humanity.  Pope Leo XIV must now propose his reflections for a post-industrial global economic order and soon, AI-driven wealth creation.

On coming to the Caux Round Table, I, for the first time, read Papal encyclicals, thanks to the mentorship of Jean-Loup Dherse, an author of our principles for business.  Though raised a Protestant, I immediately appreciated the quality of the thoughts and arguments presented by the Popes in their social teachings, the skill in articulation of how values and the ups and downs of life intersect and could intersect if we would but pay closer attention to ourselves and others. Many passages and sections reminded me of the best U.S. Supreme Court opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall, written 200 years ago.

Last Saturday morning, Pope Leo XIV graciously met with our participants.  I found him most at ease and seemingly assured in the execution of his responsibility to provide thoughtful guidance to all who will listen.  He framed his thinking for the work of all of us who care “to raise a standard to which the wise and the honest may repair.”

You can read his remarks here.

The Pontiff’s thoughts also apply to the work of the Caux Round Table.

Some 20 years ago, when I wrote my book, Moral Capitalism, to provide a thoughtful framework to vindicate the importance of the Caux Round Table Principles for Business, I brought forward a tension between the capitalism promoted by Adam Smith and the capitalism promoted by Herbert Spencer.

In 1851, Spencer wrote Social Statics to present human nature as self-centered, without a moral compass.  Smith, on the other hand, had written a book of moral philosophy, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which universalized to all persons an inborn capacity for seeking and acting on constructive, wealth-creating, social connectivity.

Smith’s capitalism, therefore, was synergistic and symbiotic, ending towards a balanced dynamic equilibrium and win/win transactions.

Spencer’s capitalism was more a dog-eat-dog struggle, driven by instincts of endless self-seeking, where only the fit prospered and the devil take the hindmost.  Spencer aligned with the political views of Thomas Hobbes on the nature of us being, at best, a grim scenario, where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”  Spencer presumed that since we descended from the great apes, we retain their self-referential animalism and lack of conscience and that we, too, followed the law of nature that either kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.

Later in the 19^th century, Spencer’s approach was given the name “social Darwinism.”  This, though, was an unkind misuse of Darwin’s thinking about human nature.  Darwin, in fact, wrote a book, The Descent of Man, which was closer to Smith’s thinking.  Darwin argued that humanity was an evolutionary step beyond animality, where regard for others, a capacity for rational thought and language and a sophisticated and reciprocal socialization gave us moral sentiments and a capacity for collaboration.

But in presenting the Spencerian alternative to Smith, I aligned it with Hobbes’ thinking and called it “brute capitalism.”

I attach here chapter 3 on brute capitalism from my book.

The timely question is whether or not Donald Trump is a brute capitalist.  If he is, his policies will be out of sync with what is best for America and the world.

This past Tuesday, in an editorial, the Wall Street Journal said of Trump: “Mr. Trump thinks he can bully everyone into submission, but he can’t bully Adam Smith, who deals in reality.  Markets know that tariffs are taxes and taxes are anti-growth.”

Trump’s win/lose understanding of globalization and international trade and markets seems to adopt Spencer’s understanding of the human condition.

Consider Trump’s remarks on “Liberation Day,” when he proposed to throw off the shackles which foreigners had used to “rip off” Americans.  Were they not win/lose, beggar your neighbor, don’t give the suckers an even break?

He said:

“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.  American steelworkers, auto workers, farmers and skilled craftsmen, we have a lot of them here with us today.  They really suffered gravely.  They watched in anguish as foreign leaders have stolen our jobs, foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream. … Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore.  It’s not going to happen.  In a few moments, I will sign an historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world, reciprocal.  That means they do it to us and we do it to them, very simple, can’t get any simpler than that.  This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history.  It’s our declaration of economic independence.  For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense, but now it’s our turn to prosper.”

This is win/lose thinking, as Spencer would validate as quintessentially human.  Kind of brutish, don’t you think?

Jamelle Bouie recently wrote in the New York Times his own take on Trump as a brute capitalist:

He did not reason himself into his preoccupation with tariffs and can neither reason nor speak coherently about them.  There is no grand plan or strategic vision, no matter what his advisers claim — only the impulsive actions of a mad king, untethered from any responsibility to the nation or its people.  For as much as the president’s apologists would like us to believe otherwise, Trump’s tariffs are not a policy as we traditionally understand it.  What they are is an instantiation of his psyche: a concrete expression of his zero-sum worldview.

The fundamental truth of Donald Trump is that he apparently cannot conceive of any relationship between individuals, peoples or states as anything other than a status game, a competition for dominance.  His long history of scams and hostile litigation — not to mention his frequent refusal to pay contractors, lawyers, brokers and other people who were working for him — is evidence enough of the reality that a deal with Trump is less an agreement between equals than an opportunity for Trump to abuse and exploit the other party for his own benefit. For Trump, there is no such thing as a mutually beneficial relationship or a positive-sum outcome.  In every interaction, no matter how trivial or insignificant, someone has to win and someone has to lose.  And Trump, as we all know, is a winner.