Would Trump Face a Political Impact by Conquering Greenland?

I was somewhat bemused by the responses to Dave Weigel and then Rob’s post about that that effectively argued it was outrageous to even consider the political implications of Trump conquering Greenland. Look, you may not like what’s happening. I’m most certainly disgusted. But it is also the reality of what is happening and you have to deal with that in a reality-based community.

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now and of course more in the last week. Would Trump suffer political consequences if he conquered Greenland? I don’t know. Most of the people actually outraged by this already hate Trump. There has been absolutely nothing that has even dented his support among the 40 percent of the nation who love him, except maybe Epstein a tiny little bit and that’s disappeared from the news of course, as he knew it would if he created enough chaos.

Historically, there’s very little to suggest a president and his party would be punished politically for engaging in imperial conquest. James Polk openly lied about Mexican actions to get Congress to approve his grotesque war of conquest against that nation in order to expand slavery. When Whigs and anti-slavery Democrats found out about the lies, they were horrified and disgusted, but it’s not like the nation gave the stolen half of Mexico back. Whigs did win the next election–by running the military hero of that war as its candidate. There was zero meaningful political pushback against the imperialism of McKinley and Roosevelt in the early 20th century. Sure, there was the Anti-Imperialist League, but even that was driven by tons of factions that all opposed imperialism for different reasons (liberals outraged by the entire idea of it, white supremacists who didn’t want to let brown people into the nation, organized labor who feared labor competition, etc) and they couldn’t unite on any way to fight it. By the time Democrats took power again, under Woodrow Wilson, they just adopted the same attitudes, though even by the Roosevelt administration that had moved from outright conquest to simply overthrowing governments we didn’t like. And of course no one has ever suffered politically for engaging in genocide against the Tribes.

So I’m pretty skeptical. Of course polling is very negative on conquering Greenland, but I’m not sure how important that is. Like the rest of Trump’s bad poll numbers going back a decade now, it doesn’t mean much in terms of anything other than what Trump wants happening and just winning Congress in 2028 isn’t going to matter all that much in terms of stopping his actions, not unless the majorities are much higher than anyone in this country could possibly wish for, like a 1930 level landslide for Democrats.

There are differences between now and previous periods of American imperial conquest. First, for the entire lifetime of every living person, the United States has been friends with western Europe and there hasn’t been any of the dehumanization of Europe like there was with Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, or the Tribes. These are Good White People after all. Trump and Vance are trying this by calling them weak and effete and the like, but it isn’t very effective. Second, the lies are being called out real time, unlike under Polk. How much that matters, I don’t know, but no one is being fooled here or even believes what Trump is saying.

Third, and most importantly, no Democrats are falling for this bullshit. There’s the long tradition of Democrats jumping into supporting Republican-led wars so they don’t look weak on foreign policy. Thanks to Hillary Clinton for voting for the Iraq War in 2003 by the way, great call. Of course, had she not cast that vote, she’s almost certainly the Democratic candidate in 2008. Obama was lucky enough to not be in the Senate at that time. He probably would have voted for it too. But he didn’t have to. In any case, it’s a trend going back to the Mexican War for liberals (however you want to define them at the time) to vote for the war so they can look strong. Then they are outraged when it turns out the justifications were lies. Surely Lucy won’t pull the football this time!

But around Greenland and the rest of Trump’s imperial demands, there’s just none of it. That’s a good thing. I think this isn’t so much about a permanent change in the situation as it is that this iteration of imperialism is so outright absurd, though scary nonetheless. We have a war criminal in the White House, Republicans don’t care and won’t stop him, not even if he starts bombing Copenhagen tonight.

In any case, I don’t see too much evidence that Trump conquering Greenland would really lead to some kind of true political disaster. Maybe Democrats would give it back in 2029, or at least allow a vote on it. But in the short and even long term, it’s just going to be the next outrage that might lead to a point or two of temporary slippage but isn’t going to crater Trump into a 20 percent approval rating and 150 Republicans losing this fall. Unless American soldiers start dying, then maybe.

In any case, if you want an effective response to Trump’s imperialism, you do have to talk about how to make it happen, what the possibilities and limitations are, etc.