Trump has hardly been shy about his call to put "America First," but until today few here or abroad knew what Trump actually meant by this in terms of a worldview. Until now America First has simply been a phrase -- not unlike many campaign slogans. After all, what is the practical difference between Trump’s slogan and John McCain’s 2008 Republican campaign motto of “Country First’?

When President Trump walks into the White House Rose Garden to announce whether he will have the United States withdraw from a multi-national pact on climate change Thursday afternoon, he won’t just be talking about the environment.


If the US walks away from the climate change agreement forged in Paris, we might have our answer. Not only would such a decision signal a huge shift in American foreign policy, it would signal a shift in how the US views playing the international policy game.

As Trump’s one-time would-be US secretary of state Mitt Romney put it Wednesday, “Affirmation of the #ParisAgreement is not only about the climate: It is also about America remaining the global leader.”

Background

Until this point, there have been largely two schools of thought as to how nations should approach the world. There is the Realism school, which basically assumes that every country will be motivated by -- and act on -- base interests of military power and the accumulation of resources. In the Realism school, international politics is a zero-sum game: Either my country controls that oil field or island, or it doesn’t.

The main counter theory, Liberalism, suggests that nations can play the game less concerned with raw resources, and instead focus on exporting a country’s values around the world. Often associated with US president Woodrow Wilson, this worldview has been a popular one among American presidents since. The central mission of this foreign policy approach calls for getting other countries to accept American-style democracy. (Note: "Liberalism" in foreign policy means something different from what it means in American politics.)


In modern foreign policy, there are more nuanced takes on these two theories. For example, Harvard’s Joseph Nye helped develop the theory of “complex interdependence” that suggests what is actually going on is that alliances between nations are formed in many ways: geographically, culturally, and economically. In other words, it is a mix of both main theories.

What Trump is proposing if he leaves Paris Agreement

So how does Trump fit into this puzzle?

Consider this fascinating op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday from two of Trump’s top advisers, H.R. MacMaster and Gary Cohn. They essentially say that the US should be less concerned with influencing other countries. Put another way: Ask not what the US can do for the rest of the world, ask what the world can do for the US.

In other words, don’t look to the US to lead in fighting global terrorism unless there is a direct threat to US. Don’t look for this country to stand up for American values elsewhere -- free speech, or for the expansion of markets and democracy -- unless there is a direct and specific threat to the American way of life … in America.

If Trump is even consistent

Of course, all the above thoughts assume that Trump is consistently playing out some America First nationalistic philosophy. But consistency is a problem for Trump.

While he talked a lot about getting the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, he now says he just wanted to renegotiate it. He also said the US has been involved in too many wars. But the administration is now considering increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.






U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan. Gurinder Osan/Associated Press, file



Heck, while there has been a presumption in the past 24 hours that Trump will walk away from the Paris agreement, White House advisers caution that he could easily just change his mind.