Trump's Manifest Destiny, Part 2

In the Shadow of Jackson and Polk

As Harold Meyerson noted in a recent column, they are booing us up north. This happened during NBA and NHL games in Canada when the American national anthem was played for the visiting team. (American Prospect, 2/4/25). It was understandable since Trump had talked about making Canada the 51^st state, and raising 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. The ostensible reason given was to stop the flow of fentanyl across the Canadian border.

Which is ridiculous. Last year the amount of fentanyl coming across that border was a total of 43 pounds. As Meyerson notes, you could declare it in one suitcase at the airport with seven pounds to spare. Less than 1 per cent of illegal fentanyl comes in from Canada. So this cannot be the reason.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that Trump is not to be scoffed at about either threat. Trudeau seems to think they are real, and linked to Canada’s plentiful natural resources. (AP story of 2/7/25, by Jim Morriss). And the easiest way to get access to those resources would be by making Canada a state. In fact, 60% of crude oil imports into the USA come from Canada. So if a tariff war would break out, Americans would see a significant rise in gasoline prices, and Trudeau has said he would place the same duties on American goods. Does Trump really want to engage in something like that?

Trump’s menacing overtures have inspired strong displays of patriotism throughout Canada. Even in French speaking Quebec, which has always been ambivalent about being part of a federal system. (The Guardian, 2/16/2025, story by Leyland Cecco) In fact, five former prime ministers penned a statement saying “Canada, the true north, strong and free, the best country in the world, is worth celebrating and fighting for.” (ibid). Former Vice-Admiral Mark Norman wrote, “When the leader of our closest neighbor, ally, and trading partner, says that he can destroy us with the stroke of a pen—it is more than just an expression of perceived superiority or hyperbole, it’s a real threat.” (Huffington Post, story be Lee Moran, 2/18/25)

Canada has a population of about 40 million people. Greenland, the world’s largest island, has fewer than 60,000. Yet, like Canada, Trump has said the USA should expand there also; this time by purchasing the island. The problem is that Greenland is now federated with Denmark. Trump has said, “I think we’re going to have it.” he then added that the inhabitants there “want to be with us.” (Ian Aikman, 1/25/25, BBC report)

As with Canada, there is a similar problem of reluctance involved. During an abrasive phone call, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen insisted to Trump that Greenland was not for sale. (ibid) Yet when Trump was asked early in January if he would rule out using military or economic force to attain the territory, the president said he could not. (ibid). In a recent poll, 85% of Greenlanders said they did not want to be part of the USA, while only 6% were in favor. (Ibid, 1/28/25, story by Miranda Bryant, and Jennifer Rankin). In the wake of this poll Frederiksen said “Europe must stand stronger in its own right”, as she made a whistle stop tour through Berlin, Paris and Brussels. French president Emmanuel Macron added to this by saying that “Everyone in Europe can see that it will be a different collaboration with the USA now.” The chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, said: “Borders must not be moved by force.”

Greenland is located in the Arctic. It is the world’s most sparsely populated area, mostly made up of the indigenous Inuit peoples. Approximately 80% of the island is covered in ice. Most people live in the southwest corner and make their living by fishing. The economy is propped up by subsidies from Denmark. So what is the appeal of Greenland?

Of late there has been an interest in mining for rare earth minerals like uranium, graphite, and niobium. There are also estimates of large deposits of oil and natural gas off the coast.(CSIS, 1/21/25, article by Otto Svendsen) And as global warming proceeds, these opportunities may become more accessible. (BBC Report, by Ida Vock, 1/8/25). If and when Greenland becomes independent, these resources could chart a very useful path to sustain economic diversification and expansion.

The USA already has a presence there. How did this originate? During World War II Germany took over mainland Denmark. At the time, Greenland was a colony of Denmark. Therefore to halt possible Nazi expansion westward, America invaded Greenland and established military and radio stations there. Pituffik Space Base is still there today, manned by Americans. In 1951 Denmark and Washington signed a defense agreement for the territory, granting the US an option to build and maintain other bases. (ibid)

Trump has complained that there are Chinese and Russian ships all over the place. (Danish Institute for International Studies, 1/28/25, article by Ulrik Pram Gas). This is not really accurate. Russia has developed a Northern Sea Route since sanctions from NATO have started, so they rely on China to transport liquefied natural gas. And this is through the Arctic. But they are so far away from Greenland one cannot even see them with binoculars. So therefore there is very little evidence that merits a further military build up in Greenland. (ibid)

But what makes these unlikely forays interesting in an offbeat way is this: Elon Musk and J. D. Vance’s appearances in Germany. This tale goes back to a speech Musk made at the Capital One Arena in Washington on January 20^th. This was a celebration of Donald Trump’s victory attended by thousands.

Since Musk was the major financial contributor to that win, he said, “I just want to say thank you for making it happen” He then “slapped his hand on his chest, extended his arm straight out and up, with his palm facing down.” He then pivoted, making the same gesture to the other side, and said “My heart goes out to you.” (AP story of 1/21/25, by Bernard Condon)

To say the least, this created a controversy. Some social network frequenters happened to see it and said it resembled the Nazi salute of World War II. Which is something that Musk did not explicitly deny. And, in fact, some rightwing and White Supremacist groups joyously celebrated what Musk had done. (Ibid, Condon) But Kurt Braddock of American University said, “I know what I saw…and none of it is a laughing matter.” (ibid)

What makes this even more bracing is what happened just a few days later. Elon Musk then virtually appeared at a rally for 4,000 members of a far right party in the city of Halle, Germany. That party is called the AfD, or Alternative fur Deutschland. The crowd went wild when his face appeared on the screen.

To some this appearance for the AfD threw light on his days previous salute. For the AfD has been accused of using banned Nazi slogans, posting campaign flyers designed as “deportation tickets”, and walking out of a Holocaust tribute. (NPR report of 1/27/25, by Rachel Treisman). In spite of that, Musk greeted the crowd with this: “I think you really are the best hope for Germany.” He was introduced by the AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the February 23^rd election, Alice Weidel. Who he had already endorsed in an hour long interview on his social platform X.

During his virtual appearance in Halle, Musk repeatedly told the crowd to take pride in their heritage and not lose that pride “in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything.” He then directly referred to the Hitler regime by saying, “Frankly too much of a focus is on past guilt and we need to move beyond that.” Musk then amplified this: “Children should not be guilty of the sins of their parents, let alone…their great-grandparents.” (ibid, Treisman)

What makes this appearance even more notable are two other aspects around it. First, it came just 48 hours before International Holocaust Remembrance Day, marking the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Secondly, Musk had already endorsed the far right Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Is the international businessman now becoming an international political puppeteer?

But this is not the end of the Musk/AfD story. One of the themes of the AfD is an anti-immigrant stance; that is Germany for Germans and no one else, especially Moslems. Which, of course, coincides with the major Trump campaign theme.

Well, about three weeks after Musk’s appearance in Halle, Vice-President J. D. Vance appeared live in Munich at the annual Security Conference. He clearly planned his visit to echo Musk’s. Vance met with a leader of the AfD while shunning a meeting with the sitting chancellor. (The New Republic, 2/18/25, article by Michael Tomasky)

But that was not all. He criticized Europe’s acceptance of immigrants and also their lack of freedom of speech—the subtext being the slogans of the AfD. In fact, he even mentioned Musk and the criticism of his virtual appearance. Therefore, it is hard not to deny that this administration likes what AfD stands for and they want to make that affection public. These endorsements are apparently working, because the AfD is now polling in second place behind the Christian Democrats, only 8 points behind.

Just how in control are Trump and Musk of the GOP? You will search far and wide to find any Republican in congress who has any objections to what is happening. The reason is simple: fear. Musk has so much money and is so willing to use it that the threat is he will not tolerate any GOP criticism of Trump. He will bankroll any challenger to that dissenting seat with millions. (The Hill, 2/10/25, article by Alexander Bolton) With the Republicans in control of both houses of congress, the White House and the Supreme Court, and with Musk’s billions lurking behind the curtain--both nationally and internationally--the Madisonian idea of checks and balances is kind of nil. The Gilded Age days of John Rockefeller and J. P . Morgan have returned.

Is there a not so subtle message behind all the international bombast i.e. Canada, Greenland, the AfD? What Trump, Musk and Vance seem to be saying is this: America is willing to go it alone. The idea of having liberal allies, of nations thinking they are aligned with us because liberal democracies come to the aid of each other—that idea has now dissipated in the Age of Trump/Musk. As Harold Meyerson pointed out, what seems to matter with these two is simply a hierarchy of power. One that is vertically, not horizontally, slanted. The USA is on top of that hierarchy. And we will only support the types of governments that coincide with the interests of the present regime: people like Meloni and the AfD.

Therefore, it does not matter when Justin Trudeau quotes John Kennedy about America’s brotherly relations with her neighbors to the north. It does not matter that Denmark was a founding member of NATO. And this is likely why the president who Trump mentions is not John Kennedy but William McKinley. Because, like James K. Polk, McKinley started an expansionist war on a false pretext in 1898. Urged on by publisher William Randolph Hearst, McKinley declared war on Spain, a war that spread through both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. After which the USA annexed the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines,--thus acquiring a far flung empire and furthering Manifest Destiny. But like the Tonkin Gulf incident and Polk’s “blood on American soil” claim, the initiating event for that war, the sinking of the USS Maine, was not caused by the Spanish. (See article by Thomas B. Allen, US Naval Institute, April 1998). This was inconsequential. Because the explosion was used for propaganda purposes by people like Hearst, and fellow yellow journalism publisher Joseph Pulitzer, to egg on McKinley.

But like Greenland and Canada, the Philippines did not want to be part of America. They wanted to be their own country. Led by nationalist leader Emilio Aguinaldo, they fought for their independence. Therefore, another war was enacted from 1899-1902. Due to casualties from death, disease and famine, conservatively 200,000 native civilians died. (Philip Foner, The Spanish-Cuban-American War and the Birth of American Imperialism, p. 626)

Should America really be following these kinds of imperial policies today? And should we really be beholden to neo-fascist leaders in, of all places, Italy and Germany?