Uncertainty

I have talked before about how uncertainty can slow down the economy.  Businesses won’t invest if they are uncertain what the future holds.  During the Obama administration, uncertainty in regulatory matters, what the government was going to do, what new rules or costs the Administration might come up with, was a drag on the economy.  It seems like President Trump’s “trade wars” are probably a bit of the same today, and it could get worse.

But uncertainty is just as much of a problem, if not more, in foreign affairs.  Almost regardless of what your position is, it is better if other countries know what your position is and know that you will follow through on it than if they are uncertain.  Which brings me to Donald Trump.

What we have seen so far is President Trump saying, or tweeting, one thing and his administration saying something else.  President Trump denies (at least sometimes) that the Russians tried to interfere with the 2016 election.  People in his administration, such as Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence, say the exact opposite.  President Trump rips on NATO.  Secretary of Defense James Mattis goes on trips trying to reassure our allies that our commitment is still strong.

The problem is other countries have to wonder.  Can they rely on what people in the Administration say or are President Trump’s tweets or comments more important?  Actually, the answer to the question isn’t the important thing.  The important thing is that the question is being asked.  Because that means countries can’t quite rely on the U.S. in the way they used to.  When people in the Administration are saying one thing and the President tweets (or says) something else, other countries have to be a little unsure what the U.S. will do when push comes to shove.  They have to be a little uncertain whether they can rely on the United States when a crisis develops.  So far, people in the Administration have ultimately been able to convince President Trump to support our allies, but will they always be able to do that in the future?  For that matter, will they be there in the future?

Perhaps even more important, however, than whether our allies can rely on us is whether our foes can believe us.  When the Administration says we support NATO and the President raises questions about our commitment (whether we should defend countries not spending 2% of GDP on defense, etc.), what does Vladimir Putin think?  Does President Putin think he might have a chance to do something in the Baltics, or somewhere else, like he did in the Crimea?  If President Putin starts to have problems in Russia domestically, might he try to regain support by doing something in the Baltics or eastern Europe, thinking it is worth the risk because there is a big enough chance the U.S. won’t respond?

Uncertainty is bad for an economy.  It can be even worse in foreign affairs.  You want your friends to know they can rely on you.  You want your enemies to know that you will follow your on your commitments.  Because the more your enemies know you will follow through on your commitments, the less likely it is you will ever have to actually do it. 

Dr. Seuss got the idea right in Horton Hatches the Egg when Horton said: “I meant what I said and I said what I meant.  An elephant's faithful one-hundred percent!”  Which is exactly the right approach for a President.