Why Trump’s dream of an arch is his most revealing legacy play

The Roman Emperor Titus has one. Napoleon Bonaparte ordered up the world’s most famous example. And the Duke of Wellington’s iconic version is the gateway to London’s Hyde Park.

Now, Donald Trump wants his own ceremonial arch. And his latest architectural passion project may tell history rather more about the 45th and 47th president than other examples of his second-term Washington makeover blitz.

The Arch of Titus in Rome marks the capture of Jerusalem in AD 70. The Arc de Triomphe in Paris honors the dead of Napoleonic and Revolutionary wars and France’s subsequent fallen warriors. The arch honoring Wellington celebrates the French emperor’s eventual defeat.

This history reveals one problem.

Trump so far lacks the triumph to justify a triumphal arch. The US stalemate with Iran has revealed deficits in US power rather than demonstrated its dominance. And he recently dismissed the conflict as “ small potatoes .”

To finesse this problem, the president billed his planned arch near Arlington Cemetery — which would obliterate sight lines for famed Washington monuments — as celebrating the Declaration of Independence, with a foot of elevation for each year since 1776.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

But Trump has admitted his building spree is an attempt to impose his persona on Washington in perpetuity. “Nobody will do it once I’m gone,” he recently confided to New York magazine .

Even by his standards, the president’s decision to spend so much of his time on monuments is extraordinary. He’s flexing brazen power and revealing a sense of political impunity that midterm election voters might punish if they judge him indifferent to their economic plight.

But Trump is not only trying to redesign Washington. This is about more than blinging up statues ; building a ballroom/drone launchpad that will overshadow the White House; or botching the renovation of the National Mall’s Reflecting Pool.

Trump isn’t just into the trappings of empire. He wants the empire itself.

His foreign policy — bristling with gunboat diplomacy, naval blockades, grabs for other nations’ resources , and a map fixation — recalls Victorian-age adventurism in which military might was matched with trade and finance dominance.

Trump is also tapping into America’s own colonial heritage, copying his 19th-century role model President William McKinley’s tariff wars. And he’s expanded the 1828 Monroe Doctrine to lodge a US claim over the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s hardly a history buff. His foreign policy emerged through osmosis from a personality wired for confrontation, life lessons that monetary wealth equals power and a sense that the strong can bully the weak.

But America First ideologues have also tried to encode his populist nationalism in documents like his administration’s national security strategy . Top White House official Stephen Miller notably argued on CNN that the “iron laws” of the world mean America must rule with strength, force and power.

Of course, this is a stark breach with the US foreign policy creed based on alliances and international institutions that made the US the world’s preeminent power and prevailed over fascism, Japanese imperialism and Soviet communism. Trump aspires to a world of autocrats ruling geographic spheres of influence, with the ascendant US lording over lesser powers like Canada or the EU.

This all raises some difficult questions.

The sins of empires are embedded in the ideology of the left. And the West has for decades been trying to divert the question of what restitution is due to nations once under the colonial yoke.

But does Trump have a point — albeit a politically incorrect one? Is this America First power play a reasonable approach to a world in which the postwar consensus was fraying well before he arrived? In the race with China for contested resources, could a more muscular US posture and a narrower, more nationalistic definition of American interests make sense?

Or has Trump misjudged America’s power, and the willingness of foes and allies alike to wilt before it?

And does his anachronistic worldview mean he’s fighting 21st-century geopolitical battles, including a growing bond crisis and a Beijing-Tehran-Moscow-Pyongyang axis — with a 19th-century approach?

The White House is looking to the distant past to shape the future.

Last year, with an eye on China, it appended a Trump corollary to the Monroe doctrine , updating the 200-year-old eviction notice for European colonialists in America’s hemispheric backyard. Its support for right-wing nationalists in Latin America and extrajudicial killings of supposed drug boat operators in the Caribbean and the Pacific are an implicit statement that Trump’s America is so powerful that no law or rival can stop it doing exactly as it likes.

Empire vibes also cloud Trump’s deal with Venezuela to jointly exploit 17 oil fields. The plan is to fill depleted US reserves, lower gasoline prices and ease dependence on vulnerable Middle East export routes like the Strait of Hormuz.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Sunday made clear who dictates Venezuela’s destiny.

“We have a lot of leverage over Venezuela. We control the sale of oil outside of their country,” he told ABC News’ “This Week.”

“So right now, they are forced to work in partnership with us and they are working in partnership with us,” Wright said. “It’s drawing billions of dollars in investment and it’s transforming that region from a region of conflict to a region of commerce.”

Federico Parra/AFP/Getty Images

Trump’s deal legitimizes the repressive election-stealing regime left behind when he ousted dictator Nicolás Maduro in January. It recalls empires that plundered resources from vassal states to swell their wealth. He’s hardly shying from the comparison, saying on September 1 that Venezuela’s oil was “unbelievable value.”

“We’re going to be taking that oil out,” the president said.

And Trump now poses as the distant viceroy who will decide when Venezuelans get to decide their own futures. Asked when elections would take place, he said, “I just don’t think they’re ready yet. You know, it’s very new.”

Former Venezuelan oil minister Ricardo Hausmann told CNN’s Richard Quest last week the deal “is a scandal.”

“I think this is criminal” Hausmann said. “I think this is abusive. I think this is the most imperialistic thing the US has ever done in its history.”

Venezuela is critical to understanding the administration’s theory of power. The daring special forces raid that ousted Maduro left it hungry for new conquests.

“Nobody is going to fight the United States, militarily, over the future of Greenland,” Miller told CNN’s Jake Tapper after the raid, stating that the US “should have” the vast island, an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Such hubris also led the US into the kind of war Trump promised he’d never fight. Now in its seventh month, the Iran war flared up again this weekend with US strikes on Tehran’s tankers and reprisal attacks.

Tehran’s conventional forces are shredded. Previous Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead. Yet the revolutionary regime built on resistance to perceived US imperialism survived through asymmetric warfare and drones. Its resilience stretched US naval forces and challenged assumptions about Washington’s power beyond the Middle East. Who, for instance, now really believes the US could win a maritime war against China over Taiwan?

Razieh Poudat/ISNA/AP

The administration might have finally stumbled on a way to get oil through the Iran-threatened Strait of Hormuz and to choke Tehran economy. But perpetually shepherding tankers would be massively costly. Many analysts believe regime change in Tehran is a pipe dream. And reopening the strait would simply be restoring a pre-war status quo.

Back home, Americans faced their highest-ever Labor Day gas prices . Diesel hit all-time highs Friday — hiking transportation costs and auguring yet more inflation. Consumer anger is deepened by another of Trump’s 19th-century fancies — tariffs, which haven’t revived US industry but have hit every wallet.

These are hardly the triumphs to justify a Trump arch.

The critique of Trump’s infatuation with empire is not that American might is worthless. It’s more about how he’s using it.

American hard power — a military shield over Europe and Japan, and policing of the seas — has protected the industrialized world for 80 years. But it was matched with soft power like the Marshall Plan , which rebuilt Europe while Americans came as liberators rather than colonizers. “You know, the only thing America’s ever asked for, particularly after World War II, was no land, no empire, just give us enough land to bury our dead,” former Secretary of State Colin Powell often used to say — in a now-archaic Republican era.

Trump is right that Europeans took advantage of America by investing in generous welfare states rather than defense. But by endlessly attacking US allies, he’s also loosening the foundations of American global power. A combined US-North American and EU trade front against China, for instance, would be far more effective than Washington alone.

Meanwhile, the US struggles in Iran and what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has called Trump’s “rupture” with the West suggest Trump’s imperial ambitions are built on caricatures. He’s wielding a big stick rather than understanding what made empires strong. Rome’s wasn’t built in a day; nor were those of Paris and London. It called for a mix of force and diplomacy, forging new alliances and the mastery of localized global politics.

Alan Lester, a British historian and critic of the Empire, says Trump sees power “purely in terms of economic leverage or violent, military-force leverage — and sometimes that works.” Thus, in Venezuela, Trump’s regime replacement could yield profits for the US, no matter the moral compromises he’s made.

Yet, in the long term, his imperialism is doomed, argues Lester, a professor at the University of Sussex. “Even at its peak, (Britain) was able to project power in so many places simultaneously because it rationed out its military force very carefully, and because of the framework of exactly the kinds of agreements with other powers that Trump finds anathema,” Lester said.

Britain kept its grip by dodging wars that would drain its power, through alliances with the Ottoman Empire; via its use of the Indian army to project force; and because of the Royal Navy’s dominance, which the overstretched and under-shipped US Navy may not be able to emulate.

Britain’s empire was only bankrupted by two world wars. Trump seemed to understand the peril of overreach after America’s post-9/11 quagmires, pledging in his inaugural address last year that his second term would be defined by “the wars we never get into.”

But, stunningly, he fell into the same old trap, and his multibillion-dollar Iran conflict may have already squelched his imperial ambitions.

So America’s excursion back to the 19th century may be short-lived. If so, Trump’s new arch may come to stand as not a shrine to personal power but a monument to presidential folly.

罗马皇帝提图斯拥有一座。拿破仑·波拿巴下令建造了世界上最著名的一座。而惠灵顿公爵的标志性版本则是通往伦敦海德公园的大门。

如今，唐纳德·特朗普想要一座属于他自己的仪式拱门。而他最新的建筑热情之作，或许比他第二任期内对华盛顿进行的其他改造项目更能反映这位第45任和第47任总统的风格。

罗马的提图斯凯旋门标志着公元70年耶路撒冷的陷落。巴黎的凯旋门是为了纪念拿破仑战争、法国大革命战争以及法国此后阵亡的将士。而纪念惠灵顿的凯旋门则是为了庆祝这位法国皇帝最终的战败。

这段历史揭示了一个问题。

迄今为止，特朗普尚未取得足以让他登上凯旋门的胜利。美国与伊朗的僵局暴露了美国实力的不足，而非展现了其主导地位。而且，他最近还轻描淡写地将这场冲突称为“小事一桩”。

为了巧妙地解决这个问题，总统将他计划在阿灵顿公墓附近建造的拱门——这将遮蔽华盛顿著名纪念碑的视线——宣传为庆祝《独立宣言》的发表，拱门的高度从 1776 年起每年增加一英尺。

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

但特朗普承认，他大兴土木是为了将自己的形象永久地强加于华盛顿。“我走了以后，没人会这么做了，”他最近向《纽约》杂志透露。

即使以他一贯的作风来看，总统将如此多的时间用于建造纪念碑也是非同寻常的。他这是在肆无忌惮地炫耀权力，并暴露出一种政治上的肆意妄为，如果中期选举选民认为他对他们的经济困境漠不关心，他们很可能会因此惩罚他。

但特朗普不仅仅是想重新设计华盛顿。这不仅仅是给雕像镀金；建造一个会盖过白宫风头的宴会厅/无人机发射台；或者搞砸国家广场倒影池的翻新工程。

特朗普想要的不仅仅是帝国的表象，他想要的是帝国本身。

他的外交政策——充斥着炮舰外交、海上封锁、掠夺他国资源和对地图的痴迷——让人想起维多利亚时代的冒险主义，当时的军事力量与贸易和金融主导地位相匹配。

特朗普还在利用美国的殖民历史，效仿他19世纪的榜样——威廉·麦金莱总统的关税战。他还扩大了1828年门罗主义的适用范围，以确立美国对西半球的主权声索。

特朗普算不上历史爱好者。他的外交政策是耳濡目染形成的，源于他天生好斗的性格、“金钱等于权力”的人生信条，以及“强者可以欺凌弱者”的观念。

但“美国优先”的拥护者们也试图将他的民粹主义民族主义融入到诸如其政府的国家安全战略等文件中。值得注意的是，白宫高级官员斯蒂芬·米勒曾在CNN上声称，世界“铁律”意味着美国必须以实力、武力和权力进行统治。

当然，这与美国以联盟和国际机构为基础的外交政策信条背道而驰，正是这些联盟和国际机构使美国成为世界头号强国，并战胜了法西斯主义、日本帝国主义和苏联共产主义。特朗普渴望建立一个由独裁者统治各自势力范围的世界，而日益强大的美国则凌驾于加拿大或欧盟等弱小国家之上。

这一切都引发了一些棘手的问题。

帝国的罪恶深深植根于左翼意识形态之中。而几十年来，西方一直试图转移人们对曾经遭受殖民统治的国家应获得何种补偿这一问题的关注。

但特朗普的观点——即便在政治上不正确——是否也有道理？在他上任之前，战后共识就已经开始瓦解，而这种“美国优先”的权力策略在当今世界是否合理？在与中国争夺资源的竞争中，美国采取更强硬的姿态，并对美国利益做出更狭隘、更民族主义的定义，是否真的可行？

或者，特朗普是否低估了美国的实力，以及敌友双方在它面前屈服的意愿？

他这种不合时宜的世界观是否意味着，他正在用 19 世纪的方式来应对 21 世纪的地缘政治斗争，包括日益严重的债券危机和北京-德黑兰-莫斯科-平壤轴心？

白宫正从遥远的过去汲取经验来塑造未来。

去年，美国政府着眼于中国，在门罗主义的基础上增添了特朗普式的补充条款，更新了200年前针对欧洲殖民者在美国西半球后院的驱逐令。它支持拉丁美洲的右翼民族主义者，并在加勒比海和太平洋地区对所谓的毒品船船员进行法外处决，这都隐含地表明，特朗普领导下的美国如此强大，以至于任何法律或对手都无法阻止它为所欲为。

特朗普与委内瑞拉达成的共同开发17个油田的协议，也带有浓厚的帝国主义色彩。该计划旨在补充美国日益枯竭的石油储备，降低汽油价格，并减轻对霍尔木兹海峡等脆弱的中东出口航线的依赖。

能源部长克里斯·赖特周日明确表示，谁在决定委内瑞拉的命运。

“我们对委内瑞拉有很大的影响力。我们控制着他们国家以外的石油销售，”他告诉美国广播公司新闻节目“本周”。

“所以现在，他们被迫与我们合作，而且他们也确实在与我们合作，”赖特说。“这吸引了数十亿美元的投资，并将该地区从一个冲突地区转变为一个商业地区。”

Federico Parra/AFP/Getty Images

特朗普的协议使他1月份推翻独裁者尼古拉斯·马杜罗后留下的那个压制性、窃取选举的政权合法化。这让人想起那些掠夺附庸国资源以壮大自身财富的帝国。他毫不避讳这种比较，9月1日还说委内瑞拉的石油“物超所值”。

“我们要把那些石油抽出来，”总统说。

而特朗普现在摆出一副高高在上的总督姿态，声称要决定委内瑞拉人民何时才能自主决定自己的未来。当被问及何时举行选举时，他说道：“我认为他们还没准备好。你知道，这还是个新局面。”

委内瑞拉前石油部长里卡多·豪斯曼上周告诉 CNN 的理查德·奎斯特，这笔交易“简直是丑闻”。

“我认为这是犯罪行为，”豪斯曼说。“我认为这是滥用职权。我认为这是美国历史上最具帝国主义色彩的行径。”

委内瑞拉对于理解本届政府的权力理论至关重要。推翻马杜罗政权的那次大胆的特种部队突袭行动，让本届政府更加渴望征服新的领土。

“没有人会为了格陵兰岛的未来而与美国进行军事对抗，”米勒在突袭行动后告诉 CNN 的杰克·塔珀，并表示美国“应该”拥有这个幅员辽阔的岛屿，它是丹麦的自治领土。

这种傲慢也导致美国卷入了一场特朗普曾承诺永远不会打的战争。这场持续七个月的伊朗战争本周末再次升级，美国袭击了德黑兰的油轮，伊朗随即发动报复性袭击。

德黑兰的常规部队已溃不成军。前最高领袖阿亚图拉·阿里·哈梅内伊已逝。然而，这个建立在反抗美国帝国主义基础上的革命政权，凭借非对称战争和无人机战术幸存了下来。它的韧性使美国海军疲于奔命，并挑战了人们对华盛顿在中东以外地区影响力的固有认知。例如，现在还有谁真正相信美国能够赢得一场针对中国的台湾海战？

拉齐耶·普达特/ISNA/美联社

美国政府或许终于找到了一条通过伊朗威胁的霍尔木兹海峡向伊朗输送石油并扼杀德黑兰经济的途径。但持续不断地护送油轮将耗资巨大。许多分析人士认为，德黑兰政权更迭只是痴人说梦。而重新开放海峡只会恢复战前状态。

在美国国内，民众面临着有史以来最高的劳动节汽油价格。柴油价格周五也创下历史新高，推高了运输成本，预示着通货膨胀将进一步加剧。特朗普另一项19世纪的“奇思妙想”——关税——加剧了消费者的愤怒。关税非但没有振兴美国工业，反而让每个消费者的钱包都遭了殃。

这些成就远不足以证明为特朗普拱门辩护的合理性。

对特朗普痴迷帝国主义的批判，并非在于认为美国的实力毫无价值，而在于他如何运用这种实力。

美国的硬实力——在欧洲和日本上空构筑的军事屏障以及对海洋的管控——已经保护了工业化世界长达80年。但与此同时，美国也运用了软实力，例如马歇尔计划，该计划重建了欧洲，而美国人是以解放者而非殖民者的身份来到欧洲的。“你知道，美国唯一的要求，尤其是在二战之后，就是不要土地，不要帝国，只要给我们足够的土地来埋葬我们的死者，”前国务卿科林·鲍威尔在如今看来已略显陈旧的共和党时代经常这样说道。

特朗普说欧洲人利用美国，把钱花在慷慨的福利国家而非国防上，这没错。但他不断攻击美国盟友，也在动摇美国全球霸权的根基。例如，如果美国、北美和欧盟联合起来对抗中国，其效果将远胜于华盛顿单打独斗。

与此同时，美国在伊朗问题上的困境，以及加拿大总理马克·卡尼所称的特朗普与西方的“决裂”，都表明特朗普的帝国野心建立在对西方的片面理解之上。他挥舞着大棒，却不去理解帝国强大的真正原因。罗马帝国并非一日建成，巴黎和伦敦的帝国亦是如此。它们的建立需要武力与外交的结合，需要缔结新的联盟，也需要对局部全球政治的掌控。

英国历史学家、帝国主义批评家艾伦·莱斯特表示，特朗普看待权力“纯粹以经济杠杆或暴力军事力量杠杆来衡量——而有时这确实有效”。因此，在委内瑞拉，无论特朗普做出了怎样的道德妥协，他推翻政权都可能为美国带来利益。

然而，苏塞克斯大学教授莱斯特认为，从长远来看，他的帝国主义注定失败。“即使在鼎盛时期，（英国）之所以能够同时在如此多的地方投射力量，是因为它非常谨慎地分配了军事力量，并且因为它与其他国家达成了一系列协议，而这些协议恰恰是特朗普所憎恶的，”莱斯特说。

英国通过与奥斯曼帝国结盟、利用印度军队投射力量以及凭借皇家海军的强大实力（这是兵力捉襟见肘、舰艇不足的美国海军可能无法企及的），避免了会消耗其力量的战争，从而保持了其统治地位。

英国的帝国只是因为两次世界大战而破产。特朗普似乎也意识到了美国在9·11事件后陷入困境的危险性，他在去年的就职演说中承诺，他的第二个任期将以“我们从未卷入的战争”为标志。

但令人震惊的是，他又落入了同样的陷阱，他耗资数十亿美元的伊朗冲突可能已经扼杀了他的帝国野心。

因此，美国重返19世纪的旅程或许只是昙花一现。如果真是如此，特朗普新建的拱门最终可能并非个人权力的象征，而是总统愚蠢行径的纪念碑。