Trump 2.0; The Spirit of Time Summons the Leviathan

The beginning of the second Trump era in the United States is not merely a change in presidency but carries profound implications for international politics. The primary reasonssupporting this perspective are the promises Trump made during his campaign and theexecutive orders he signed immediately upon taking office. With the Trump administration, we stand on the threshold of a fundamental transformation in international politics, signs of which have been observable for some time.

The core parameter of this transformation is the prominence of a strong and charismaticleader figure who can make decisions and take initiatives independently, bypassing consensusboth at the national and international levels. Trump’s governance approach embodies a stylewhere the leader intervenes directly and traditional diplomatic norms are relegated to thebackground. This dynamic introduces a paradigm shift that disrupts the conventional orderand mechanisms of national and international relations.

The main argument of this article is that the second Trump era in the United States is a product of the chaos and instability that have emerged on both national and internationallevels in recent times. The masses, seeking to escape the chaotic environment, pursue stabilityby granting unlimited authority to strong, charismatic leaders. This elevates the figure of a leader capable of making decisions and taking initiatives alone, disregarding consensus bothnationally and internationally. The key factor that brought leaders like Xi Jinping in China, Putin in Russia, Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, and Erdoğan in Türkiye to powerand solidified their influence is the public’s desire to escape chaos and find stability. Theappeal of the masses to strong, charismatic leaders in search of stability will be analyzedthrough the Leviathan approach of the famous 17th-century political scientist Thomas Hobbes. As a natural consequence of this argument, this article will also assert that politicalsystems lacking a strong leader figure capable of dominating decision-making processes andtaking initiative alone will fall into serious weakness.

“Son of Fear”: Chaos and Order in Hobbes’ Philosophy

The life of Thomas Hobbes, his personal experiences, and the tumultuous events of his time shaped the pessimistic outlook that forms the foundation of his political theory. Notably, theatmosphere of fear created by the famous Spanish Armada’s attempt to invade England in 1588 caused Hobbes’ mother to give birth prematurely. Hobbes famously described this bysaying, “Fear and I were born as twins.” The epithet “Son of Fear,” attributed to Hobbes, stems not only from this early life story but also from his deeply pessimistic approach topolitics and human nature.

Hobbes deeply suffered from the social turmoil, political instability, and civil wars of his time. The crises in England symbolized a frayed order, torn between those demandingexcessive freedom and those advocating extreme authority. Within this framework, Hobbesobserved that ambitious leaders, driven by personal gain rather than the public good, manipulated the masses’ anger and jealousy, dragging the country toward disaster.

Hobbes’ pessimism forms the cornerstone of his political philosophy. According to him, humans are inherently selfish, competitive, and filled with fear. This nature drives societiesinto a state of chaos and insecurity. Therefore, individuals must submit to an authority—namely Leviathan—to ensure their security and well-being. The idea of a strong centralizedauthority, which Hobbes introduced in Leviathan, written during a period of significantturmoil and dysfunction in political and social life, reflects both the fears he experiencedpersonally and the political chaos of England.

According to Hobbes, what humanity longs for most is the establishment of peace and order. In this context, Hobbes sought ways to correct the corrupted structure of society and arguedthat salvation lies in granting unlimited powers to authority. For Hobbes, the naturalconsequence of freedom is anarchy, and political stability can only be achieved by prioritizingobedience over freedom. Only an obedient populace can attain true peace and tranquility. Theguarantee of this peace and tranquility is absolute authority. This authority must be singular, as the plurality of authorities hinders the establishment of absolute power.

Hobbes, with his pessimistic approach to politics, painted a grim picture of human nature andthe need for order in societies. His pessimistic view remains a significant reference point formodern political theory. Hobbes argued that individuals, in their natural state, live in constantconflict and insecurity and that escaping this condition requires a strong central authority—namely Leviathan. According to him, individuals relinquish their freedoms and transfer allpowers to this powerful authority to ensure their security.

From Idealistic Hopes to Authoritarian Reality: The Evolution of Global Politics

The end of the Cold War raised hopes for a reduction in geopolitical and military tensions andthe establishment of a long-term peace. During this period, the triumph of liberal democracybolstered expectations of an idealistic era in global politics. In a world where great powerrivalries had ended, there was growing anticipation of decreased conflicts and enhancedinternational cooperation. However, these hopes turned out to be an optimism misalignedwith the realities of the world, and the process unfolded in the opposite direction.

With the end of the Cold War, the triumph of liberal democracy, along with Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis, reinforced the notion that an era rooted in idealism had begun. However, this expectation turned into a deepening disappointment due to variousglobal crises that emerged starting in the 1990s. Issues such as economic inequalities broughtabout by globalization, migration crises, regional conflicts, new security threats, and climatechange painted a picture that was the exact opposite of the anticipated order.

Economic crises increased social unrest and made income inequality more pronounced. The2008 global financial crisis exposed the vulnerabilities created by neoliberal economicpolicies, paving the way for social unrest and a rise in support for populist leaders worldwide. During this process, many societies turned to strong leader figures as they sought to escapechaotic environments and uncertainty.

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced an unprecedented level of uncertainty in global politicsand economics. Economic contractions triggered by the pandemic, crises in supply chains, and weaknesses in public health systems sparked a wave of insecurity on a global scale. Societies turned to strong and authoritarian leaders capable of producing solutions in thischaotic period, accelerating the global rise of populism and authoritarianism.

The great power rivalry, thought to have ended with the conclusion of the Cold War, reemerged in the 21st century with a new dimension. The rise of China, Russia’s aggressiveforeign policies, and the West’s responses to these actions have created a new environment of tension in international politics. This situation has come to be defined in the literature as theSecond Cold War. The war in Ukraine, rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and geopoliticaldynamics in the Asia-Pacific region suggest that this rivalry could lead to new conflicts. These tensions drive societies toward more authoritarian leaders in their search for securityand stability.

The populist rhetoric and authoritarian tendencies represented by Trump are a manifestationof the quest for strong leadership during an era of global uncertainty. With his promises of stability and order, Trump became a significant figure not only in U.S. domestic politics but also in global affairs. This demonstrates that the United States is not isolated from the global wave of populism.

The idealistic expectations of the post-Cold War era have been replaced by a turn to wardauth oritarianism and a search for strong leaders, driven by economic, social, and political crises on a global scale. The second Trump era can be seen as one of the clearest examples of these dynamics in the West. This process signals the beginning of a new era, not only for theUnited States but for the entire world, where the search for strong leadership dominates thepolitical landscape.

Viewed through the lens of Hobbes’ Leviathan theory, it becomes evident that modern societies’ tendency to gravitate toward strong authority demonstrates a historical continuity. Hobbes’ pessimistic view of human nature suggests that individuals, due to their inherentcompetitiveness and insecurity, exist in a chaotic natural state. Overcoming this chaos andensuring security requires individuals to surrender their freedoms and transfer all their powers to a central authority. In today’s world, this authority figure is often embodied in strong andcharismatic leaders.

The Spirit of the Times: The Rise of Authoritarian Leadership and the Crisis of Pluralist Democracy

This approach has two significant consequences: First, countries lacking strong leaders arelikely to weaken over time and face the risk of losing influence in international politics. Second, in a world where authoritarian tendencies are gaining strength, a return to pluralistdemocracy becomes increasingly unattainable.

First, the rise of powerful authoritarian figures in national and international politics—what can be described as the spirit of the times—will result in the gradual weakening and loss of influence of political systems lacking charismatic leaders. This dynamic poses a significant threat to European countries today. Particularly in the post-Merkel era, European countries without a strong leader figure may struggle to adapt to prevailing global trends.

Angela Merkel’s long-standing role as a charismatic leader who ensured Europe’s stability became even more apparent after her departure, as no figure has emerged to fill her shoes. The leadership vacuum has slowed down and reduced the effectiveness of Europe’s politicaland economic decision-making processes, weakening the union’s capacity for coordination. The perception that leadership must be charismatic and authoritarian in line with the spirit of the times has further exacerbated the impact of this void.

If this trend continues, Europe’s influence in global politics could significantly decline. Thel ack of strong leadership may render European countries less effective actors both domestically and on international platforms. Indeed, in a period marked by intensified global competition and a political atmosphere dominated by strong leaders and authoritarian regimes, Europe’s values and decision-making mechanisms make it increasingly difficult forthe continent to secure a sufficiently strong position in the global balance of power.

Second, the authoritarian tendencies fueled by societies’ quest to escape chaos and instability make a return to pluralist democracy increasingly difficult. In the post-Cold War era, pluralism, liberalism, and consensus-based decision-making processes gained prominence at both national and international levels. On critical issues, it was expected that decision-making would be influenced by committees, commissions, parliaments, civil society organizations, pressure groups, opinion leaders, the media, and even minorities rather than solely by leaders. This approach raised hopes for decision-making processes to be collective and inclusive.

However, recent global economic, political, and social instabilities have introduced a newreality in opposition to these idealistic expectations. This new reality manifests as centralization in decision-making processes, the exclusion of consensus, and a growing preference for strong leader figures capable of taking decisive initiatives. From pandemics to economic crises, from regional conflicts to global security threats, uncertainties have createda fertile ground for the rise of leaders who can make quick and decisive decisions in the face of the slowness and complexity of collective decision-making mechanisms.

This current situation severely undermines the hopes for pluralist democracy that emergedwith the end of the Cold War. Societies’ quest for stability and security makes a return topluralism even more unattainable. In this context, the turn toward authoritarian governance models provides only short-term solutions, while in the long run, it accelerates the erosion of democratic values, making it increasingly difficult for a pluralist political understanding to reemerge.

The second Trump era in the United States is not merely a presidential transition but a reflection of a profound transformation in global politics. Global instabilities have heightened societies’ interest in strong and charismatic leaders, a trend reinforced by Trump’s populist and authoritarian approach. This process revives the relevance of Hobbes’ concept of strongcentralized authority as articulated in Leviathan. Societies, seeking to escape chaos and insecurity, surrender their freedoms and turn to strong leaders. However, these authoritariantendencies may, in the long term, lead to the weakening of democratic values and the erosion of pluralist politics. The leadership vacuum in Europe further complicates the ability to be effective in global politics. Consequently, as societies gravitate toward strong leaders, authoritarianism grows, and a return to pluralist democracy becomes increasingly difficult.