Joseph S. Nye, Jr. raises an interesting, but “longstanding” question in light of Trump’s disastrous presidency: “Are major historical outcomes the product of human choices or are they largely the result of overwhelming structural factors produced by economic and political forces beyond our control?” No doubt Trump’s personality and his passion for antics and brinkmanship are having a “long-term impact” on US foreign policy. Only history can tell whether his presidency amounts to “a major turning point” or remains just a “minor historical blip.”

The author, like other analysts, adopt the Hegelian analogy that the flow of history was like a “rushing” river. whose course is “shaped by the climate, rainfall, geology, and topography, not by whatever the river carries. But even if this were so, human agents are not simply ants clinging to a log swept along by the current. They are more like white-water rafters trying to steer and fend off rocks, occasionally overturning and sometimes succeeding in steering to a desired destination.”

Taking a dip in history and “understanding leaders’ choices and failures in American foreign policy over the past century” might help us “cope with the questions we face today about the Trump presidency.” The author says, “leaders in every age think they are dealing with unique forces of change, but human nature remains. Choices can matter; acts of omission can be as consequential as acts of commission.” Revisiting the 1930s, it is difficult for posterity to know whether certain “major” choices were “determined by the situation or the person.”

That Woodrow Wilson, more than any other president before him, was responsible for increasing American involvement in foreign affairs, had to do with World War One. Perhaps Theodore Roosevelt might have done the same. Wilson’s “idealistic vision led to the creation of the League of Nations,” but his “moralistic tone of his justification, and…. in his stubborn insistence on all or nothing for involvement” in the League, might explain why the US returned to isolationism in the 1930s.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) is the longest serving president in US history. His 12 years in office spanned two of the 20th Century’s greatest disasters – the Great Depression and the Second World War. He did not bring the US into the war until the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941. Again this could have happened under a “conservative isolationist.” FDR realised the threat posed by Hitler, and “his preparations” to fight Nazi Germany were "crucial" for American participation in the war in Europe.

The author says the Cold War might have taken a different course “had Henry Wallace (whom FDR ditched as vice president in 1944), instead of Harry Truman, become president.” Meanwhile, an “isolationist Robert Taft or an assertive Douglas MacArthur presidency might have disrupted the relatively smooth consolidation of Truman’s containment strategy, over which the latter’s successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, presided.”

The presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush could have been different under other circumstances. The US might not have waged wars in Iraq ans Afghanistan had Al Gore instead of George W. Bush been president.

The truth is, “leaders and their skills matter. In a sense, this is bad news, because it means that Trump’s behavior cannot be easily dismissed.” He has destroyed much of what his predecessors had achieved since World War II. Instead of using both hard and soft power, Trump opts for a wrecking-ball approach. He lacks “Machiavellian and organizational skills…..emotional intelligence, which produces the skills of self-awareness and self-control, and contextual intelligence, which enables leaders to understand an evolving environment, capitalize on trends, and apply their other skills accordingly. Emotional and contextual intelligence are not Trump’s strong suit.”

The world is watching closely whether he wins another term in 2020. If he does, his successor will have an even more daunting task to repair the damage he inflicts on the US and the wider world, and regain trust in its institutions. Besides the world has also changed outside America. “Trump’s role in history may depend on whether he is re-elected. Karl Marx once “observed, we make history, but not under conditions of our own choosing.”

As Trump is on the wrong side of history, he can one day be cruelly forgotten, like Millard Fillmore. The 13th president was so obscure that barely 8% of college students in the US are even aware of who he was. Historians say there is so much about his character and presidency that seem uncannily familiar and remind the world of Trump’s.