By: Nick Santangelo

Students today are at least as interested in politics as they've been at any other time. And with the 2018 midterm elections just over seven weeks away, History Professor Ralph Young held the first of his weekly Teach-In events this semester Friday afternoon in Gladfelter Hall, Room 914. Future Teach-Ins in the lead-up to Nov. 6 will focus squarely on the election.

Friday's event, however, saw Temple University Japan Campus Professor Robert Dujarric engaging students about how the current presidential administration's rhetoric and policy has affected the United States' allies and how those allies are reacting.

Dubbed How Can U.S. Allies Survive the End of America as We Loved It? the Teach-In's name was a bit tongue-in-cheek—but only a bit. In fact, Dujarric opened his talk by laughing that he originally planned to call it "the End of the World," but backed it down to just America. It's perhaps not the most encouraging de-escalation for most anyone reading this, but it's a de-escalation nonetheless.

In any case, Dujarric took care to mention that he wasn't on campus to provide a leftwing/Senator Bernie Sanders-style rebuke of President Trump. He described his concerns as being "more of a Bush 41" criticism. His criticisms didn't start on the day Trump assumed office, the day he was elected or the day his campaign began. They didn't even begin with George H.W. Bush's time in office.

Instead, Dujarric, wanted students to understand what the entire period that's now seen as modern normalcy in U.S. politics was like. It's well-known that the United States stepped into its own as a world power following the conclusion of WWII and then enjoyed a long period of prosperity. There were, however, some bumps along the road.

"When you look back at history, you tend to somewhat simplify the processes," said. Dujarric. The immediate aftermath of WWII was not "easy" for policymakers, he explained. In fact, the professor believes that if you could speak to the policymakers of the late '40s and early '50s today, they'd use the term "catastrophic" to describe how things were functioning. "So that's something to understand. When we look back from 1945 to the day Trump became president, overall I think it's a success story, but one I think is marked by some setbacks."

As an example, Dujarric points to complaints that the European nations weren't sharing enough of the burden of developing the world with the U.S. If that sounds familiar, it's probably because President Trump has lobbed similar complaints about most NATO allies not spending the recommended two percent of their gross domestic product on their own defense.

I think it's a success story, but one I think is marked by some setbacks

But things aren't exactly the same now as they were then. For one, the Allies had just finished fighting and defeating the Axis Powers after WWII. They had shared a common enemy, had banded together in an unprecedented effort to accomplish a singular goal. They also had ideologies that were more alike than they were different. Most of our allies also didn't trust the powerful U.S.S.R and looked to U.S. might to shield them from communist concerns.

"What you have for the first time [now] is an American president who is siding against the moderate left and the moderate right in allied countries," said Dujarric. The professor described Trump as "playing the role that the Russians played during the Cold War" when they supported communist rule in foreign nations.

For Dujarric, this prompts two questions: how will our allies respond and what happens after Trump's time in office ends? On the second point, the professor said you could assume "Trump is a minor aberration that will go away," but that's far from assured. After all, he didn't come completely out of nowhere.

Dujarric conceded that it's difficult to say with certainty what motivates each individual citizen to vote for any particular candidate. Some certainly vote on single issues like reproductive or fetus rights. And while he believes others are spurred by feelings of xenophobia and racism, he added that many vote for what they think are their economic best interests. The professor pointed to a feeling among many voters that none of Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton managed to improve economic opportunity for the middle and working classes.

It's far from a given that these same voters can be convinced in 2020 that a progressive or moderate candidate can bring them the economic prosperity Trump and his predecessors have failed to deliver. But Dujarric thinks the economy has the best potential as a winning issue for any challenger.

I hope I'm too pessimistic, and the United States isn't going to disappear

Dujarric cited Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf as pointing out that in 1918 after WWI, everyone was just trying to get back to 1914, but no one was trying to get back to 1939 once WWII concluded in 1945. So, which will it be in 2020 or 2024?

"The idea starting with the New Deal in the U.S. was, 'we'll build something totally different,' said Dujarric, who pointed out that even conservatives supported the welfare state in the '40s. "The challenge now for policymakers is not just to go back to the world before Trump, but why did Trump come into power? Consequences of economic inequality, feelings that no one in either party cared about them or was doing anything for them, so let's go with the competition on the extreme right."

For the most part, said the professor, America's allies had no contingency plans for a time when the U.S. would turn inward to its own concerns and move away from its role as their leader in international affairs. The more developed among America's allied nations could each conceivably spend more on their own defense budgets, and every country could still work together. But without a country with the strength of the U.S. in the driver's seat, the professor thinks it will be difficult for the coalition to continue as it has.

"I hope I'm too pessimistic, and the United States isn't going to disappear," he said, "or at least the United States as we know it."

The best hope for the professor being overly pessimistic? Once again, it could be economic concerns. Building up a military on par with the U.S.'s is prohibitively expensive, which is why the U.S. has exponentially outspent all other countries on that front.

Responding to a student's question about what happens if the U.S. returns to "normal," Dujarric said he expects America's allies to follow its lead. After all, he doesn't believe they've become anti-American. Though countries might quibble about individual actions the U.S. takes on the world stage, the professor thinks they ultimately liked what the U.S. became post-WWII.

"Their desire, I think, is to see it go back to normal."