Manifest Destiny 2.0?

There are two guiding principles in following Trump’s rhetoric. One is established from the first term by Peter Thiel, to take him seriously, but not literally. The second follows in how to take him seriously, and it’s through understanding the door-in-the-face technique. Most are familiar with the opposite, the foot-in-the-door convention, where a small favor is asked first, followed by a bigger one. It is the foundation of any sales playbook.

The door technique asks for something big at first, knowing you’ll say no, then asking for something much more reasonable thereafter. The reasonable option may still be highly contested, it is nonetheless a smaller request than first presented. This technique is usually used later in the process, at the negotiating table, with varied result. Especially the more bombastic the starting point.

With this in mind, I’ll try to decipher through the recent spur of land grab posts the president-elect continues to promote. Maybe trolling Canada and Mexico over statehood makes sense, but the Panama Canal? GREENLAND?

I first took the Canada news with an eye-roll too, but the canal posts have begun to offer view of something more serious after all, preparation for a multipolar world. The exiting admin sought supporting democracy abroad without direct involvement, choosing financial levers as punishment otherwise. The next admin seems to want to bolster domestic size and scope while retracting from global defense.

The plan, from my lowly vantage point at least, is three pronged: get bigger, streamline supply chains, and gain strategic leverage over global trade lanes.

GET BIGGER

I’ve always wondered when the US would ever try another round of expansion, and what would prompt it. It surely can’t be a space issue for some time. What’s left are limitations of scope and influence.

As far as GDP contribution goes, there are better suitors than Canada or Mexico, but their size is undeniable. Turning all of North America into a unified state would vastly increase geography disproportionate to their populations, lessening some burden of constituency expansion.

STREAMLINE SUPPLY CHAINS

Vertical integration is a usual route for a larger enterprise looking for scale or efficiency gains. The extent to which it is at all possible to absorb Canada or Mexico by osmosis can be debated elsewhere. The door will smack ya in the face if you try.

Within the bluster is an obvious attraction to what Canada offers for the US’ energy export dominance. The US is already a large customer, and well integrated.

Lumber and access to other raw materials would be the secondary gains from Canada. To the south, Mexico houses manufacturing assets for many large multinationals in the US, let alone the globe.

Both Canada and Mexico are integral US auto markets. Mexico is rising in skill and prominence as it has also attracted BYD as a South American assembly hub. Some products will cross the border multiple times between fab or assembly.

A whole ton of administration would certainly drop if this is to be so, but the target is likely another advantageous round of terms since the USMCA.

LEVERAGE

Inclusion of the Panama Canal and Greenland seem like goofy dart throws at first, making this whole exercise so confusing, unless you can appreciate what they offer for trade leverage.

The US is without shipping lines or boxes. All lines cater graciously to the US, but are headquartered elsewhere. This puts the US at a disadvantage if it finds itself in a trade war. Therefore, controlling one of the prime choke points between east-west trade would allow the US to gain influence outside of the financial markets alone.

It is not just a big global artery either, it is a main conduit between Brazil and China, one of China’s largest food suppliers.

Greenland would be another developing chokepoint. As sea ice flows weaken, the ability to take the northern route across the artic only grows. China and Russia could initiate trade much easier using the icy pathway, not to mention lowering costs while bolstering defensive posturing.

Taken together, these shots seem less like a ploy to play some manifest destiny in his final term than setting up a bigger fort.

How serious the follow through to make the threat literal is up for time to tell, but no one should take them purely as jest either. The posturing is being taken more seriously all elsewhere in the globe.