International Relations

C13(b) - Trumpism & Populism in World Politics

Date: Jun 4 | Time: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Christopher LaRoche (Central European University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Veronica Kitchen (University of Waterloo)

Deglobalization, Industrial Policy, and Post-Liberal Economics in the Trump Era Brian Bow, Dalhousie University From Hillbilly Elegy to the “Vance Doctrine”: Understanding Inconsistencies in JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Olivia Howells, Queen's University The Trump Populist Challenge: Building a Research Agenda privileging the contested relationship between the institution of diplomacy and personalist de-institutionalization Andrew Cooper, University of Waterloo The Threat of Populist IR: California Dreamin’ the Politics of Belonging Hasmet Uluorta, Trent University Hanna Kassab, East Carolina University Lawrence Quill, San José State University

The Threat of Populist IR: California Dreamin’ the Politics of Belonging: Hasmet Uluorta (Trent University), Hanna Kassab (East Carolina Universty), Lawrence Quill (San José State University)
Abstract: Post-truths’ and ‘populisms’ have come to dominate political discussions and research agendas on who and what legitimately belongs. Within the USA, the politics of belonging is intertwined with techno-regulatory media innovations, the California Ideology’s re-configuration of the new left/right divide, and an increasingly angst-laden hyper-individualism intricately connected with the unraveling of American exceptionalism. Deregulations and technological change has brought 24-hour news channels, AM talk radio, blogs and discussion forums, social media platforms, and podcasts. The explosion of and the instantaneousness of media content flows centre on affirming American national exceptionalism in combination with American individual exceptionalism to re-assert American identity and America’s global leadership. Triggered by intensifying geo-political tensions (e.g., between the USA, Russia, and China), geo-economic tensions with the ‘rise of the rest’, and deepening inequalities within the USA, IR theories are increasingly called upon within popular culture to provide an explanatory framework and prescription to the current American condition. This leads us to ask, is IR having its populist moment? We posit that not only do opinionated media celebrities such as the Joe Rogan Experience podcasts, Savage Nation podcasts, and former talk-radio’s the Rush Limbaugh Show dominate these IR theory based discussions, but that they do so by unknowingly adopting a pseudo-Realist frame. We claim that lacking an understanding of the theory and its contentious positioning within IR itself, yet relaying the dire consequences as truth propositions to millions of listeners should be a central concern for IR theorists’ thinking about shaping a politics of belonging.

Deglobalization, Industrial Policy, and Post-Liberal Economics in the Trump Era: Brian Bow (Dalhousie University)
Abstract: Since 2009, for a variety of reasons (strategic competition, climate change, domestic politicking, etc.), the US and other OECD economies have set aside liberal orthodoxy to experiment with industrial policy and other kinds of state intervention in the economy. In many cases, however, they have struggled to follow through on these efforts, because their political predecessors had done such a good job of hollowing out the state's administrative capacity in the name of global 'competitiveness.' The new cohort of nationalist-populist leaders are much more inclined to use the state to intervene in the economy--in ways that serve themselves and their core supporters--but are not necessarily interested in meaningfully building up the state's administrative capacity, because a real developmental-state bureaucracy might create political obstacles to the regime's clientelist and kleptocratic impulses. Where then have these states chosen to pursue or forego industrial policy, and how have they gone about it? Are they significantly different from OECD states who have not taken a nationalist-populist turn? The research focuses on the US, UK, and Canada, with some attention to recent developments in Italy and Finland.

The Trump Populist Challenge: Building a Research Agenda privileging the contested relationship between the institution of diplomacy and personalist de-institutionalization: Andrew Cooper (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: With the election of Donald Trump as president for a second term, one of the many compelling questions open for interrogation relates to the impact of this personalist-populist success to diplomatic practice. Rather than focusing on specific policy domains, this paper engages with the construct of a research agenda that gives centrality to the relationship between Trump and the institution of diplomacy. In common with some prominent literature on populism more generally, the paper aims to locate Trump as a global populist phenomenon albeit with some distinct American (exceptional) characteristics. Per se, the salience of the contest between diplomacy as an institution that privileges mediation and elite knowledge with Trump’s emphasis on disintermediation and personalist impulses must be understood. By looking at Trump’s record in relation to the contest between embedded diplomatic institutionalization and the de-institutionalization of diplomacy his first term, a basic template on which to build a research agenda regarding his second term can be built and operationalized.

From Hillbilly Elegy to the “Vance Doctrine”: Understanding Inconsistencies in JD Vance’s Foreign Policy: Olivia Howells (Queen's University), J. Andrew Grant (Queen's University)
Abstract: JD Vance’s "Hillbilly Elegy" emphasizes values of family and community support, yet these principles appear inconsistent in his stance on international conflicts. While he opposes financial aid to Ukraine, arguing it prolongs conflict with Russia, he has championed support for Israel, showing little concern about extending hostilities there. This discrepancy raises the question: Why does Vance support Israel but not Ukraine? Existing scholarship has attempted to address this divide by pointing to Israel’s strategic importance as a U.S. ally, the political leverage of the Jewish diaspora, or the far-right's limited stakes in Ukraine. However, these interpretations fall short of fully reconciling the inconsistencies in Vance’s broader foreign policy stance. This paper offers a new theoretical contribution, proposing that Vance’s positions reflect his distinct strategic culture—referred to here as the “Vance Doctrine.” The “Vance Doctrine” provides a framework to understand Vance’s foreign policy logic, shedding light not only on his selective support for Israel but also on the likely trajectory and implications of Vancian foreign policy for the United States. This framework invites a reconsideration of traditional policy explanations by revealing the cultural and strategic underpinnings that may define an emergent approach in U.S. foreign policy—one that Canada and its allies should be prepared for.